Anyone who opts to wear a jumper, leggings and sneakers to a red carpet event immediately has our full support behind them.
It’s practical, it’s comfy, and it probably means you haven’t spent several precious hours getting ready. Plus, it’s a clever move if you plan on hitting the dancefloor later in the evening.
But Broadway and Black-ish star Jenifer Lewis didn’t don her laid-back Emmys look for comfort; there was a powerful meaning behind it.
The star chose to wear all Nike in support of the brand for their 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, which features NFL player Colin Kaepernick.
“I am wearing Nike to applaud them for supporting Colin Kaepernick and his protest against racial injustice and police brutality,” Lewis told Variety during her red-carpet interview.
She said she wanted to make a statement on the red carpet that would resonate with viewers.
“(I thought) What can I do? What can I do that’s meaningful? I’ll wear Nike. I’ll wear Nike to say thank you. Thank you for leading the resistance! We need more corporate America to stand up also,” she added.
The Nike ad, released earlier this month, features a black-and-white image of Kaepernick's face with the words, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” — a reference to him kneeling during the national anthem when he was a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers.
He kneeled in protest of police brutality against African Americans, and when many of his fellow NFL players began to kneel as well, it started a national conversation and debate.
Top Comments
While I agree with his protest, there is something slightly off about Nike being so patted on the back for it.
Would they be so interested if he was taking a knee for slave labour in 3rd world countries?
I'm torn over his protest. I'm a fierce supporter of free speech, but I also think you need to respect the flag & national anthem.
Plus I think many of the celebrities get involved without knowing the details (though Colin may know).
Nike takes it's Corporate Social Responsibility pretty seriously.
It certainly used to use slave labour but it's has done it's best to eliminate it.
I'm not naive enough to suggest it's still not going on, but many companies are really trying to reduce it.
I kinda see your point.
Kneeling for the anthem is only disrespectful if we deem it to be and in the US, that interpretation seems to be distributed along political lines. There has been a conservative mayor in the US who banned the purchase of Nike for use by municipal sporting facilities. Not legal and way more disturbing an act, in terms of attacking freedoms, than taking a knee during the anthem.
Kneeling's not generally regarded as insulting.
Kneeling's not generally regarded as insulting - Absolutely. But again, i'm torn. He's purposefully doing something other than the norm as a form of protest, that I could see as insulting.
But he's not standing with his back to the flag, he's not remaining seated or doing any number of things that are much, much worse.
As far as protests go i really can't fault it.
But at the same time, lets not pretend that him kneeling is a deep show of respect either.
His protest is peaceful, not particularly intrusive, and it's definitely within his rights.
CK mightn't share the veneration for flag and anthem that is prevalent in the US, then again, he might see the unjust loss of black lives to law enforcement as of overriding importance to inanimate symbols of patriotism.
Kneeling before important personages was very much a symbol of respect in the past and I don't think that you can draw the conclusion that he's unpatriotic because he wants to highlight a problem that needs fixing in his country. Quite the opposite.
While I'm not accusing you of this attitude, it plays really well with a large proportion of his supporters for Trump to upbraid 'uppity' black men, drape himself in the stars and stripes, even to go as far to say the protest denigrates the armed services. The protest has nothing whatsoever to do with the US military.
Those same voters are normally vociferously and aggressively upholding the First Amendment when it suits their purposes. Hypocritically, that would conflict with their agenda here.