Converse has been around skateboarding for a long time, but lately the brand has been faching backlash from different directions.
The company has reportedly cut members of its skate team, and now a campaign tied to Nike and Converse has drawn criticism from Louisiana Congressman Troy A. Carter.
READ MORE: Nike’s Converse CONS Skate Team Gets Cut as Brand Reshapes Skate Program
Carter is not holding back.
“Nike and Converse, what the hell were you thinking?” he wrote.
The Democrat politician is referring to campaign imagery that he says appears to show a hooded Klansman alongside what looks like the dangling feet of a lynching victim. Carter called the imagery racist, reckless and deeply offensive.
That reaction is rooted in more than what he sees in the campaign. Carter said he is a Black man and a son of the South, where the history of racial violence is still deeply connected to families and communities. He said images of Black people hanging from trees cannot simply be treated as an artistic concept.
Carter also called attention to the white hood, saying it is not an innocent costume because of its association with the Ku Klux Klan and its history of terror and violence.
READ MORE: Corporate Skate Shoes Converse Apologizes After Ad Draws KKK and White Supremacist Comparisons
He wants to know how the campaign got approved in the first place.
Who created it? Who signed off on it? How many executives reviewed the work? Were Black people involved in the process, and if they were, were their concerns taken seriously?
Those are the questions Carter says Nike and Converse need to answer.
He also rejected the idea that pulling the images and releasing an apology should be the end of the situation. Carter argued that the public deserves to know how the campaign was developed and approved.
RELATED: Toy Machine Sets White Supremacist KKK on Fire in Ed Templeton’s Latest Pro Deck
Carter's comments are specifically about imagery he believes evokes the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. His statement does not establish that Nike or Converse intended to create a KKK themed campaign.
That distinction matters, since the congressman's criticism is based on how he interprets what appears in the campaign.
Still, Carter is demanding that the companies explain themselves. He says Black suffering should not be turned into a marketing device and that imagery connected to lynching and the Ku Klux Klan should not be treated as an aesthetic choice.
Now the question is how Nike and Converse respond to the criticism and whether they provide any explanation for how the campaign made it through the approval process.
Carter Posted:
"Nike and Converse, what the hell were you thinking?
Your campaign shows what looks like a hooded Klansman, framed by what appears to be the dangling feet of a lynching victim. There is nothing creative or artistic about it. It is racist, reckless and deeply offensive.
I am a Black man, a son of the South and a Member of Congress from Louisiana. Where I come from, the image of Black people hanging from trees is not ancient history. That pain still lives in our families and communities. The white hood is not some harmless costume. It is a symbol of terror, murder and generations of racial violence.
Do not insult our intelligence by dismissing this as an unfortunate misunderstanding. An advertising campaign does not just appear. It is conceived, photographed, reviewed, approved and distributed. At every stage, someone had the opportunity—and the responsibility—to say no.
Who created this campaign? Who approved it? How many executives saw it? Were there any Black people in the room? If so, did anyone listen to them?
You do not get to quietly pull the images, issue a polished apology and move on. You do not get a do-over. The public deserves to know how this happened, who was responsible and what you intend to do about it.
Black pain is not a marketing prop. Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic.
This campaign should never have been created, approved or released. Nike and Converse must answer for it. You have caused real harm, and repairing that harm will require more than an apology written by your public relations department.
—TAC"