What do controversies surrounding Serena Williams and Colin Kaepernick have in common? Identity Politics

There have been two major ‘controversies’ in the last few days which have caused a major stir on social media. Firstly, the outburst from Serena Williams in the US Open final which led to accusations of sexism against the umpire and a cartoon about the incident which many have accused of being racist. 

Then there was Nike’s release of a new advert featuring Colin Kaepernick, the footballer who famously kneeled during the USA national anthem in a protest regarding racial issues and race relations in the USA. The ad received an angry response from “patriots” who felt Kaepernick was being celebrated for disrespecting their flag, so they protested this by burning their Nike shoes on Facebook. That’ll show ‘em!

The response to these two incidents has become all too familiar in the modern world. People on the left responded angrily to Serena’s complaints of sexism and to the allegedly racist cartoon of her, and people on the right did the same in response to Nike releasing an ad featuring a footballer who decided kneel during a national anthem. 

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of battles to fight on the sexism front within the tennis world. Why are women’s singles matches only 3 sets where the men’s’ singles matches are 5 sets? Why are there no singles competitions in which women and men can compete against one another? These are legitimate areas for a discussion around gender equality. 

Whereas Serena Williams complaining that she was pulled for breaking a series of rules and then being penalised accordingly because, ‘but men shout at umpires too, they don’t get game penalties’. 

(Photo by Michael Owens/Getty Images)

That’s a pathetic argument, of course they would if it was their third violation, and the same umpire gave a code violation to Andy Murray for verbal abuse in 2016 after Murray called him “stupid”, similarly he issued a code violation to Novak Djokovic in July at Wimbledon for throwing his racket to the ground. 

The umpire is consistent in his application of the rules which is all he can do, the fact that we aren’t in collective agreement about that says a lot about the prevalence of group think, particularly amongst identitarians. All she had to do was cry sexism and an army of feminists came to her aide in an impulsive act of group defence.

Then there was the issue of Mark Knight’s cartoon published in Melbourne’s Herald Sun. I’ve seen a lot of analysis and debate this week about whether the cartoon was racist. It’s true that at first glance it looks that way, though it is normal for cartoonists to exaggerate features. So to me it’s not clear cut, but that is beside the point.

(Image Source: Twitter)

A much more important point is this; cartoons are allowed to be offensive. Cartoons are of course an art form (even if many may consider them a lower art form). Art is expression and a free society is absolutely dependent on the existence of freedom of expression. So even if it was racist, it shouldn’t be taken down and the artist shouldn’t have his reputation attacked. 

Ultimately, it’s nothing more than a cartoon that exaggerates her features. If it is racist, I would argue it is still relatively harmless, it doesn’t encourage any form of violence or hateful behaviour so I’m sure we all have bigger fish to fry in the modern world.

Whilst we’re on the subject of people getting outraged ridiculously easily. Nike released an advert this week featuring Colin Kaepernick with the tagline, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” – a clear reference to his decision to his protest during the playing of the USA’s national anthem before an NFL game. Self-proclaimed “patriots” on the right were outraged at the time, and their outrage was revitalised this week when this Nike ad brought back the horror of someone not standing to listen to music that is significant to them. 

(Michael Zagaris/San Francisco 49ers/Getty Images)

So they’ve decided to burn their shoes in protest. In a hilariously idiotic protest, these guys have decided to burn what is their property to stick it to the company they have given probably way too much money to for those very products. But they’re so outraged they don’t care if their protest is as effective as if they burned their own cash in terms of its effect on targeted company.

But what do these two storm-in-a-teacup controversies have in common? A culture of offense and outrage. Those who burned their shoes because Nike did an advert featuring Colin Kaepernick did so for the same reason legions of twitter activists took to their keyboards to attack the supposed sexism of Carlos Ramos or the supposed racism of Mark Knight; they took actions which had nothing to do with them personally and felt personally attacked or victimised by them. Why? Because though these acts were not attacks on them personally, they viewed it as an attack on a collective which they identify with, which in today’s world is effectively a personal attack. 

So how about this? Don’t sweat the small stuff so much. By all means, follow Nike’s advice and believe in something, of course continue to fight legal or institutional sexism, racism and any other unjust forms of discrimination that you see. Continue to feel proud of your country if you value that, but please focus your energy on things that matter, things that will affect millions of people across society. These controversies do nothing but distract us from the things that are really important and take up valuable time in our lives writing up blog posts about them.