5.26.2007

LeBron won't sign the dotted line.



This isn't microfinance, but it is international. A few sites I've read have been talking about this post, in which LeBron James has refused to sign a statement against the genocide in Darfur, becoming only one of two people on the 15 man Cavs roster who didn't sign.

One reason could be is that LeBron doesn't want to offend any potential shoe buyers. Another is that he is uninformed. Third is that he knows the issue, but still doesn't care to change it. Fourth is that he (consciously or subconsciously) doesn't see the point.

Of course, this illustrates bigger issues. And though this isn't new, it re-illustrates that in America our corporate allegiances have taken over much of our collective ability to take individual stands. Corporate allegiance is now trumping patriotism, even individualism, and perhaps in LeBron's case, morality (see Enron for that last one).

LeBron of course does many "immoral" things in his life, not just this one, for we are all sinners. I would like to say that the difference here is that, just as his Nike contract is a public stance (he supports their shoes), so is the signing of a public petition (he supports/doesn't support aid for Darfur). And just as he won't sign with Reebok, he won't sign for aid with Darfur.

Many other basketball players let alone athletes do not have the same scrutiny as this. Many of them have not been challenged publicly to support aid in Darfur. Why is LeBron held to a different standard? It's how much is invested in him as a person--by Nike, by the Cleveland Cavaliers, by whoever else gives him a paycheck. Making that much money, playing everyday on national TV, makes you larger than life. and his support of aid could make a difference in the state of that region (both monetarily and in awareness), more so than my decision.

Besides choosing the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the types of chips we buy, and now political decisions, what will corporations decide for us next?