nike, skatebaording, and you.
We live in a capitalist society where Nike has every legal right to branch into manufacturing skate shoes. They can make skateboarding their territory because they have the money to pay off skateboarders and do research and experimentation to create the next generation of skate shoes. And more than likely, little skate kids who are going to the mall with Mom’s credit card will spend exorbitant amounts of money on Nike skate shoes, hoodies, and other paraphernalia. This little skate kid will most likely do this because he is unaware of, or could care less about the quality of Nike’s corporate citizenship. He will show his support of Nike’s unethical practices by giving them money.
Unethical? you may ask. Nike’s use of sweatshop labor is widely known, their little swipe at Minor Threat’s intellectual property is public knowledge, and they generally subscribe to corporate culture where the workers get as little money as possible while the higher-ups make out like fat-pensioned bandits. The fact remains that Nike does not need more money that it already has. If they are worried that their employees aren’t living comfortably, then maybe the CEO could sacrifice a few million on his creature comforts to help their employees in Indonesia make enough to buy shoes for themselves. The money is already there. I’m very tired of the argument, that “everyone just needs to make a living.” I agree that everyone needs to make a living, but they shouldn’t make it at the expense of others’ well-being. Making a living is not the same as making money. Making a living (as far as I’m concerned) does not include mansions, more cars than you have drivers, more than one home, or $100 hair cuts.
Now, our little skate kid may say that he is just a little suburbanite who can’t effect change in Nike’s corporate policy and use that as his excuse to buy his Nike Team Edition so he can look “cool.” The same excuse may be adopted by the Nike skateboard riders. “Someone else will ride for them and get the money, so I may as well do it and get the money for myself. Besides, what can I do?” Frankly, that is the laziest form of world citizenship. “Someone else will screw those people over, so I may as well do it.” Why would you knowingly pay someone to give someone else the shaft? I fail to see any logic or ethics in that.
If Nike were to lower their prices, treat their employees fairly, and have a CEO who lived a modest life, I may consider purchasing their wares.
If some no-name guy started a skate shoe company in his garage, he would likely be doing it because he was participant in the culture, liked skating, and wanted to make something to add to the culture while being able to make a living at it (make a living, not make a home in the Hamptons). If people were to wear his sneakers it would be because they are a good product. He wouldn’t be able to pay people to wear his shoes right off the bat, or offer a tour, or launch viral marketing campaigns. He would be a true ground-level entrepreneur. I would be all for that. But Nike is an interloper of sorts. They have bought their way in. Imagine a kid steps into your favorite field and demands to be treated with respect, not because he has paid his dues and spent years in the field, but because he has enough money place himself at your level. He hasn’t earned respect because he hasn’t earned his position. Hence skating isn’t Nike’s territory. Give them a few years of strategic campaigning and skate tours, and everyone will forget that that Nike was never in the skate business.
Travis Morrison wrote a piece for his website a while back (the piece no longer seems to exist so don’t bother looking for it) about how the music scene is being overrun with a Saturday night attitude - party tonight with no thought for the morrow. He argued that Ian MacKaye is an individual who brings back a little bit of Sunday morning to the music scene - a sense of responsibility and consequence for actions. Great music has a bit of Saturday night and Sunday morning. Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, and others took moralizing gospel and spirituals and added a little fun to them without losing Sunday morning. There was always a sense that the “hedonistic” aspect of the music was rooted not so much in something spiritual or religious, but something with gravity.
I have no problem with Ian or others like him taking a stand for something and being passionate about it. We need more people who think and act. From all of the Fugazi concerts I’ve attended, I honestly can’t think of too many instances where Ian (or Guy for that matter) took time to lecture me or anyone else about how they should live their lives (other than some film footage I saw of him rapping to the crowd that beating up people isn’t cool, or when they stop concerts for fighting). If you don’t agree with Ian’s politics or don’t want him lecturing you at his concerts (he’s not your dancing monkey just because you forked over $7), then I would suggest to do the same thing I encourage people to do about Nike: Don’t pay! Don’t go to the concert. Don’t buy the CD. Don’t buy the shoes.
P.S. Dischord only placed a brief statement on their site about this whole debacle. It’s me and a bunch of other people with websites who have made it a big deal. Do don’t try to shift blame for the publicity to Dischord.
P.P.S. I’d rather people stop bandying around the term “homage” in respects to the poster. I think Kottke got the ball rolling with that term and it’s misapplied. It’s a co-opt. I’m sure the skaters saw it as an homage, but Nike didn’t and Nike produced the poster. So ultimately the homage was superceded by the co-opt. They should have gotten permission (which they wouldn’t have received) and they didn’t.
Unethical? you may ask. Nike’s use of sweatshop labor is widely known, their little swipe at Minor Threat’s intellectual property is public knowledge, and they generally subscribe to corporate culture where the workers get as little money as possible while the higher-ups make out like fat-pensioned bandits. The fact remains that Nike does not need more money that it already has. If they are worried that their employees aren’t living comfortably, then maybe the CEO could sacrifice a few million on his creature comforts to help their employees in Indonesia make enough to buy shoes for themselves. The money is already there. I’m very tired of the argument, that “everyone just needs to make a living.” I agree that everyone needs to make a living, but they shouldn’t make it at the expense of others’ well-being. Making a living is not the same as making money. Making a living (as far as I’m concerned) does not include mansions, more cars than you have drivers, more than one home, or $100 hair cuts.
Now, our little skate kid may say that he is just a little suburbanite who can’t effect change in Nike’s corporate policy and use that as his excuse to buy his Nike Team Edition so he can look “cool.” The same excuse may be adopted by the Nike skateboard riders. “Someone else will ride for them and get the money, so I may as well do it and get the money for myself. Besides, what can I do?” Frankly, that is the laziest form of world citizenship. “Someone else will screw those people over, so I may as well do it.” Why would you knowingly pay someone to give someone else the shaft? I fail to see any logic or ethics in that.
If Nike were to lower their prices, treat their employees fairly, and have a CEO who lived a modest life, I may consider purchasing their wares.
If some no-name guy started a skate shoe company in his garage, he would likely be doing it because he was participant in the culture, liked skating, and wanted to make something to add to the culture while being able to make a living at it (make a living, not make a home in the Hamptons). If people were to wear his sneakers it would be because they are a good product. He wouldn’t be able to pay people to wear his shoes right off the bat, or offer a tour, or launch viral marketing campaigns. He would be a true ground-level entrepreneur. I would be all for that. But Nike is an interloper of sorts. They have bought their way in. Imagine a kid steps into your favorite field and demands to be treated with respect, not because he has paid his dues and spent years in the field, but because he has enough money place himself at your level. He hasn’t earned respect because he hasn’t earned his position. Hence skating isn’t Nike’s territory. Give them a few years of strategic campaigning and skate tours, and everyone will forget that that Nike was never in the skate business.
Travis Morrison wrote a piece for his website a while back (the piece no longer seems to exist so don’t bother looking for it) about how the music scene is being overrun with a Saturday night attitude - party tonight with no thought for the morrow. He argued that Ian MacKaye is an individual who brings back a little bit of Sunday morning to the music scene - a sense of responsibility and consequence for actions. Great music has a bit of Saturday night and Sunday morning. Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, and others took moralizing gospel and spirituals and added a little fun to them without losing Sunday morning. There was always a sense that the “hedonistic” aspect of the music was rooted not so much in something spiritual or religious, but something with gravity.
I have no problem with Ian or others like him taking a stand for something and being passionate about it. We need more people who think and act. From all of the Fugazi concerts I’ve attended, I honestly can’t think of too many instances where Ian (or Guy for that matter) took time to lecture me or anyone else about how they should live their lives (other than some film footage I saw of him rapping to the crowd that beating up people isn’t cool, or when they stop concerts for fighting). If you don’t agree with Ian’s politics or don’t want him lecturing you at his concerts (he’s not your dancing monkey just because you forked over $7), then I would suggest to do the same thing I encourage people to do about Nike: Don’t pay! Don’t go to the concert. Don’t buy the CD. Don’t buy the shoes.
P.S. Dischord only placed a brief statement on their site about this whole debacle. It’s me and a bunch of other people with websites who have made it a big deal. Do don’t try to shift blame for the publicity to Dischord.
P.P.S. I’d rather people stop bandying around the term “homage” in respects to the poster. I think Kottke got the ball rolling with that term and it’s misapplied. It’s a co-opt. I’m sure the skaters saw it as an homage, but Nike didn’t and Nike produced the poster. So ultimately the homage was superceded by the co-opt. They should have gotten permission (which they wouldn’t have received) and they didn’t.