Nike announced that they will officially cut ties with Kyrie Irving due to him sharing the link to the documentary Hebrews to Negroes which many have labeled Anti semitic. This came after
just a few weeks of canceling his signature sneaker line. After a nearly decade-long run of success with Nike, Kyire Irving is officially a sneaker free agent.
In response, Kyrie during last night’s game against the Charlotte Hornets in which the Nets won 122-116 and Irving led all scorers (for both teams) with 33 pts and one assist shy of a double double, wore the Nike Kyrie 3 in the 'Raygun' colorway, but employed black tape to cover the Nike Swoosh logos. Additionally, he handwrote in marker the message "I AM FREE" and "Thank you God... I am" on the side of his shoe.
Irving’s agent, Shetellia Riley Irving, told The New York Times that the sides “mutually decided to part ways and we just wish Nike all the best.”
On my radio show The Collision “Where Sports And Politics Collide” my guest was Torin Walker who is the founder of Context Media Group to examine what Nike’s decision to break ties with Kyire Irving means in the larger scheme, what actually constitutes Anti Semitism, and if an ADL style punishment is the answer. This was a great discussion
Etan: What was your response to Nike dropping Kyire and Kyrie’s response to being free ? Were you surprised they did that ?
Walker: No I wasn’t really surprised. I know once this controversy blew up that there was going to be some type of corporate response to it. I didn’t think it would go to this extreme, but at the same time, I can’t really say that I’m surprised. Whether we like it our not, sports and politics are often divisions, and anything that looks like it’s going to effect the brand bottom line is going to be delt with harshly when you’re dealing with corporations.
But the one thing I think this really lays out is, it shows the difference between ownership and sponsorship. A lot of times, we get caught up in the idea that someone who is the face of a brand has some type of bargaining power to the level that they can make contractual decisions. So this Hebrews To Negroes controversy was so big that Nike could not ignore it.
The other side is this, I think this is a great opportunity for Kyire and also other athletes to look at basically creating their own brand and basically having some ownership in the products they are endorsing and have their faces on. Now, the question is, will the public get on board with that. Let’s be honest, Nike has such a strong hold on the market and such strong brand loyalty and brand recognition that it’s going to be difficult for someone who is coming into the market to do that. But I’m not surprised at all that Nike did what they did.
Etan: What role did the media have in really magnifying this issue and controversy. If I’m going back to the actual timeline of Kyire sharing the documentary, and of him saying that he wasn’t promoting anything but that he was just sharing the information, to the whole interaction with Nick Fidel, and everything that transpired after that, what role do you think the media had magnifying this issue ?
Walker: The media had the primary role in keeping this “controversy” going as long as it did. I can see the point where the posting of the documentary may have ruffled some feathers or it made some people feel like it was an anti semitic thing, but usually when something like this happens if an athlete or celebrity does something that people take offense to. People get offended, the athlete releases a statement, there’s usually a cooling off period, and then it goes away. But for some reason, there was this drive in the media to make this thing bigger than it was. They took a two day story and made it into a month story, and I still don’t fully understand the motivation behind that. I know a lot of organizations were pushing this, and I wonder if people inside the Nike organization was pushing this as well because if I’m not mistaken, Kyrie’s contract is coming up anyway, you can correct me on that. But I think with the media, this was just the an opportunity for them to jump on an anti semitic angle with Black people and a Black man specifically, and they can run with it. So I they saw a hot story and narrative that they could really push, and that’s why we are where we are with this situation with Nike dropping him today. So to answer your question, the media had a huge role in this.
Etan: What do you think about Kyrie and what he did with his shoes last night and putting the tape over the logo and writing I Am Free, what was your reaction to that ?
Walker: I was in favor of if, and I’m glad he did it that way. My question is, how long will this be sustainable ? It’s easy to create a moment, it’s easy to get people’s attention, but can you direct that attention into something that will then be tangible for you to really be “Free” and what does “freedom” look like ? Freedom looks like something different to everybody. Does this mean he is free from having to hold his tongue on issues he is concerned about ? Does this mean he is free to create his own sneaker line ? Does this mean he is free psychologically ? I would love get clarification on that. I think it was a powerful statement especially the timing, but would love to see it turn into something tangible
Etan: You mentioned something before and that’s the question I continued to ask throughout this entire process was, what is considered “Anti-Semitic” ? I think right now, there is a wider and wider bucket of what is being casted as Anti-Semitic. I sat down with an actual Rabbi on my show The Rematch Rabbi Harry Rozenberg
And we talked about this, and he said well I may have a different opinion than yours and feel very strongly emotionally about my different opinion, but that doesn’t mean yours it’s anti semitic. So I’m asking you, in your opinion, what exactly is Anti-Semitic ?
Walker: Well, in my opinion, being anti semitic means you are making hateful statements about Jewish people or you are calling for their extermination which is what a lot of white supremacists and neo Nazis call for. I don’t believe that having questions about Judaism or having questions or issues as a Black man in America with the relationship between Black people and Jewish people is necessarily “Anti Semitic”. And what’s happening now is, any questioning of anything having to do with Jewish people, or the state of Israel is being seen as Anti Semitic and I don’t think that’s fair and it doesn’t make for a rational conversation. It has become this thing where even if you mention it, you are labeled as anti semitic and that shuts down any conversation. So to answer your question, my definition of anti semitism is violent hatred of any person who is Jewish, that’s my definition of it.
Etan: Well I couldn’t agree more, I had a debate with my regular co host on The Collision “Where Sports And Politics Collide” but for my podcast the Rematch
And we disagreed literally the entire interview. We just had a different view of everything that had occurred and this is when everything first happened. I mentioned before my debate with Harry Rozenberg and we disagreed at times, we definitely disagreed when it came to discussing Palestine and Israel, but we also agreed that everything isn’t in the “Anti Semitic” bucket. I think one of the things that happens is, when you label something as “Anti Semitic”, it’s kind of a lazy argument because it shuts down all conversation. Once you say something is Anti Semitic, then there is no conversation. But I think there are different things that can and should be discussed without the label of anti semitic
Walker: Absolutely, and like I said earlier, when you are an African-American, your ideas on what “Anti Semitism” means, and what discrimination feels like is very different than what someone else from a different demographic may be familiar with. And this is not to say that people who are Jewish have not delt with discrimination and bigotry in Europe and America, they definitely have, but that conversation has to change a little bit when we’re talking about Black people because we have to be honest, Black people are still collectively at the bottom of the economic ladder in America. And our relationship with someone who may be a landlord or someone who is exploiting them, it may be coming from an attitude of pushing back against exploitation it doesn’t mean that it’s anti semitic, and a lot of times that gets lost in this conversation but I do think that one thing that has come out of this conversation with Kyire, and Nike, and Kanye, and Chapelle to an extent is, that these conversations are beginning to happen and they have to happen in order for any meaningful, impactful dialogue to take place. You can’t just label something as anti semitic and then shut down the conversation and punish anyone who brought it up like Nike did with Kyire
Etan: I agree 100%, and yes Nike’s decision to drop Kyrie in the wake of him sharing the documentary Hebrews To Negroes has actually made them become part of the problem we’ve seen with the ADL. Punishment over dialogue. Labeling over discussion and understanding.
So we’re going to go to a break and when we come back we will discuss Van Jones who took it upon himself to apologize to the Jewish community on behalf of the entire Black Community for statements made by Kanye West even though I don’t know who appointed him as spokesperson for the Black Community but before we go to break let me make this point clear, A lot of people are and have been conflating Kanye West aka Ye and Kyrie Irving but they are two COMPLETELY separate issues. One is NOT like the other and should NEVER be lumped together in any way shape or form.
Walker: I definitely agree
