Converse uklanja oglas koji je privukao usporedbe s KKK slikama

Converse has removed a controversial advertising image that sparked widespread criticism for its resemblance to Ku Klux Klan imagery. The ad, part of a global campaign to promote the Chuck 70 X sneaker, featured a visual that critics argued evoked racist symbols tied to American history. Social media users highlighted the image’s lighting and composition, suggesting it created the illusion of a white pointed hood and hanging shoes, reminiscent of a lynching. The footwear and apparel company, owned by Nike, issued an apology, acknowledging the distress caused by the image and stating it would take steps to address the issue. The ad, which was shared on Converse’s Instagram account, depicted the lower half of a person wearing a white garment, with a pair of black sneakers held in the foreground. Commentators noted that the lighting cast shadows forming a long, tapering triangle, similar to the hood of a KKK robe. Online discussions quickly escalated, with some users drawing direct parallels to historical racial violence. “As a Black man and someone who loves Converse shoes, I find this very insensitive and distasteful,” said Kendall Peacock, an educator based in Atlanta, in a post on social media. He emphasized that while deliberate racist intent had not been confirmed, the impact of the imagery was undeniable. Stephanie Schwartz, a social justice photographer, expressed concern over the intentional nature of the ad’s design. On Threads, she wrote, “Shadow, light, and composition. Every photographer can tell you, whoever did this ad knew EXACTLY what they were doing.” Other users echoed similar sentiments, noting that the combination of elements, white clothing, shadowy outlines, and dangling shoes, created a disturbing visual that many found offensive and racially charged. Converse responded to the backlash with an apology, stating it understood the distress caused by the image and recognized that it had made a mistake. In an emailed statement, the company said it had removed the ad from its platforms and was actively working to eliminate all traces of the image from public view. “This should not have happened and we will do better,” the statement concluded. However, the company did not clarify who was responsible for designing or approving the ad, nor did it provide additional details about internal processes or future actions. The campaign, launched at the end of August, was a collaboration with K-pop artist Karina, a member of the group aespa, who serves as a global ambassador for Converse. Representatives for Karina did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The ad was part of a broader marketing effort for the Chuck 70 X sneaker, a model introduced in 1917 as the first sneaker mass-produced for basketball players. The shoe was named after Chuck Taylor, a prominent basketball player who joined the company in the early 1920s. The controversy surrounding the ad follows similar incidents involving other brands. Earlier this month, US retailer Target discontinued a children’s Halloween costume that critics said evoked racist stereotypes of Black Americans. The costume, which included a mask resembling a grinning mouth with large teeth, was linked to Jim Crow-era minstrel shows. Critics pointed to promotional images showing a Black child wearing the costume, reinforcing concerns about cultural appropriation and harmful representation. While Converse has taken steps to address the fallout, questions remain about accountability and transparency. Educator Kendall Peacock, among others, has called for greater clarity on how such imagery ended up in the campaign and what measures will be taken to prevent similar issues in the future. “Must come with accountability,” he said, adding that withholding support from the brand might be a justified response until more information is available. The incident highlights ongoing tensions around race and representation in advertising, particularly when visual elements can be interpreted through multiple lenses. As the conversation continues, the focus remains on the company’s response and the broader implications of using imagery that carries deep historical connotations.