2008 Woodie Awards
Nike loses 'All-Star' tradition with shoes
Ali Tweten
Issue date: 9/13/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Let me start off my very first opinion article with this: I like fashion.
I also like shoes.
However, I do not like corporations or corporations that manufacture their items through sweatshops or child labor rings, which brings me to the point of this piece: Converse, and more importantly, Nike.
We all know by now that, despite its efforts to curb itself of the sweatshop labor reputation Nike has, the corporation still makes almost all its products overseas in Asian countries like China, Indonesia and Vietnam, also paying workers under a living wage while making billions of dollars in revenue.
I used to be a big fan of my Chucks, but ever since I learned Converse declared bankruptcy in 2001 and was bought out by Nike, I just couldn't bring myself to wear them anymore.
I do my part to buy ethically sound products. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I don't wear visible name brands and I buy local and organic food whenever I can.
I know a lot of people who wear Converse and think their shoes are really cool. They may be cool, but what do they really stand for?
Embraced by teenagers in pretty much every decade since they were invented, punks, metalheads, indie kids, hippies, emo kids, scenesters and anyone with an alternative and/or retro style, Chuck Taylors used to stand for rebellion and were a necessity of the counterculture wardrobe.
The Ramones, John Travolta in "Grease" and Kurt Cobain all wore Converse. Now it's all changed.
What used to be an American made, two-ply shoe is now an outsourced, one-ply shoe. Not only has Nike made "All Stars" cheaper to make, it has also made the selling price the same or higher.
It seems Nike bought a lot more than just a shoe company with that $305 million it spent on Converse, it bought a following of consumers who love their Chucks.
Usually people who wear Converse think for themselves, exactly the people who would not buy products from Nike.
Yet, Converse seems to be more popular than ever. With ads in fashion magazines that say, "Get Chucked," Nike has made a killing marketing the coolness of Converse.
Chuck Taylors are no longer a cult classic; they are popular. This is the death of Chucks being the shoe of the counterculture.
As my last pair was worn to death and too holey to rock, I retired them to a fond place in my heart, as I will never buy another pair of Chucks again.
A lot of people who read the magazine "Adbusters" will tell you to black out the logos with permanent marker if you want to wear your Converse with a calm mind.
This signifies a protest to the Nike corporation, since the logo is most of the price anyway.
Or better yet, buy a pair of Blackspot shoes, which are pretty much exactly the same as Converse, but are union made from environmentally friendly components.
It's time to realize the swoosh is not cool. It's time to take responsibility for what you buy and what you wear.
There are socially conscious and ethical alternatives to brand names.
Nike is not one of them.
I also like shoes.
However, I do not like corporations or corporations that manufacture their items through sweatshops or child labor rings, which brings me to the point of this piece: Converse, and more importantly, Nike.
We all know by now that, despite its efforts to curb itself of the sweatshop labor reputation Nike has, the corporation still makes almost all its products overseas in Asian countries like China, Indonesia and Vietnam, also paying workers under a living wage while making billions of dollars in revenue.
I used to be a big fan of my Chucks, but ever since I learned Converse declared bankruptcy in 2001 and was bought out by Nike, I just couldn't bring myself to wear them anymore.
I do my part to buy ethically sound products. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I don't wear visible name brands and I buy local and organic food whenever I can.
I know a lot of people who wear Converse and think their shoes are really cool. They may be cool, but what do they really stand for?
Embraced by teenagers in pretty much every decade since they were invented, punks, metalheads, indie kids, hippies, emo kids, scenesters and anyone with an alternative and/or retro style, Chuck Taylors used to stand for rebellion and were a necessity of the counterculture wardrobe.
The Ramones, John Travolta in "Grease" and Kurt Cobain all wore Converse. Now it's all changed.
What used to be an American made, two-ply shoe is now an outsourced, one-ply shoe. Not only has Nike made "All Stars" cheaper to make, it has also made the selling price the same or higher.
It seems Nike bought a lot more than just a shoe company with that $305 million it spent on Converse, it bought a following of consumers who love their Chucks.
Usually people who wear Converse think for themselves, exactly the people who would not buy products from Nike.
Yet, Converse seems to be more popular than ever. With ads in fashion magazines that say, "Get Chucked," Nike has made a killing marketing the coolness of Converse.
Chuck Taylors are no longer a cult classic; they are popular. This is the death of Chucks being the shoe of the counterculture.
As my last pair was worn to death and too holey to rock, I retired them to a fond place in my heart, as I will never buy another pair of Chucks again.
A lot of people who read the magazine "Adbusters" will tell you to black out the logos with permanent marker if you want to wear your Converse with a calm mind.
This signifies a protest to the Nike corporation, since the logo is most of the price anyway.
Or better yet, buy a pair of Blackspot shoes, which are pretty much exactly the same as Converse, but are union made from environmentally friendly components.
It's time to realize the swoosh is not cool. It's time to take responsibility for what you buy and what you wear.
There are socially conscious and ethical alternatives to brand names.
Nike is not one of them.