The kids’ race doesn’t have anything to do with it, it’s extremely tasteless no matter who it’s from. (Though I don’t imagine those kids’ parents are feeling too happy with their children right now. “Great, thanks a lot son, way to make us look good! Just what we needed!”)
I don’t think it’s newsworthy, but certainly those kids meant to cause a stir. Presumably they meant to be tacky, and they succeeded, so I guess they can be proud.
My opinion is basically that the whole thing was really overblown and the news coverage was completely racially motivated. There’s been a fair share of outrage around here that “these kids” would wear such an offensive shirt and that they should just know better.
I liked a comment on this blog entry: “If Toby Keith had worn this shirt, rednecks everywhere would be high-fiving each other and trying to figure out how to get one of their own.”
But because it was Arab kids, the story made the AP wire, and a town hall meeting had to be called to discuss the whole incident.
That’s a good question.
I guess it depends on whether they intended to depict the acts in a positive or negative way. At first blush, I assumed they meant to depict them in a negative way (ie., they were showing defiance to the terrorists) but then I read that OMG SOME OF THEM ARE ARABS and figured they must all be in favor of destroying skyscrapers and what not.
Actually, I can’t really see any evidence that they meant to depict the WTC/9-11 at all. Other than the fact that the number has windows and there are 11s on the shirt, which is not unexpected given that they’re class shirts, how did anyone decide that it was a 9/11 thing in the first place?
ETA: that Toby Keith quote above pretty much sums up the way I originally interpreted it.
appropriation of the imagery from 9/11 for t-shirt design
context
I doubt they meant to cause a stir. They probably just thought it looked cool.
I still don’t understand why anyone would interpret it as offensive. What exactly is the offensive message that some people see being conveyed? If anything, it just strikes me as a mild message of spirit and resiliance.
With what I read, I wouldn’t have been offended. I actually thought it sounded patriotic. But when I saw the symbol, I could definitely see the problem. But, I’m not sure I would have if I hadn’t been told what they were ahead of time.
But, knowing what the kids intended, there’s no way I could not be offended. Their mascot is not the towers, but the plane. The implications are obvious enough that even a 10 year old would figure it out.
(If they were the towers, it would still be gauche, but at least understandable not to have been intended to offend.)
ETA: Again–their mascot is the plane. They aren’t the towers. That’s why it’s hard to interpret it as “we thought it was cool.”
Eleven? ELEVEN? ::Faints::
It shouldn’t be made into a big deal, regardless of the background of the people who made the shirt. They don’t need to be punished and conversely, freaking out would give ideas to future jerks. I don’t think they were trying to mock anyone. But it’s in awful taste.
What about the bird as plane? I guess I am counter-stunned that some of you are having a hard time to sussing out the reference.
Had they not had the bird flying at the “towers”, I think it would have been just fine. It just doesn’t make any sense. Okay, the World Trade Center. They came down after being crashed into by Muslim extremists. A high school that’s majority Arabic comes up with a design for class shirts that invokes the same thing, but with the phrase “You can’t bring us down”. That shows that they either realize the symbolism of the event, or just the ability to bring down a building. Having the bird flying at the “towers” shows that they either didn’t get the symbolism, didn’t think about it enough, or are undermining the rest of the theme.
It’s bad design and doesn’t convey a cohesive point. Other than that, I’ve got no problem with them. Compare that to the (if I remember correctly) Texas high school that had shirts of their mascot (a horse) spit roasting their rival school in female effigy. That’s much more to the point and offensive because the point is so clearly made.
You really think that because they’re ARAB, that must mean they’re in favor of knocking down skyscrapers?
How would that even make grammatical sense with the caption “You can’t bring us down?” Who is “us” if not the skyscrapers themselves? How does it make sense to interpret that caption as showing approval of knocking down skyscrapers?
I see the “defiance” interpretation as the only one that remotely makes any sense, and inferring approval of terrorism based on nothing but their ethnicity is, sorry to say, completely racist and asinine.
It’s a bird. It’s in the air. Where would you expect it to be? Perched on top of the 11 was probably at little beyond their artistic capabilities.
ETA: Dio - you have been whooshed. Who says OMG and means it?
The “us” is the towers. The mascot was probably used as a plane just because it was a way to use a school symbol in the image. I doubt they put much thought into it. I think interpreting it as an intent to show approval for the 9/11 attacks is ridiculous.
Ok, sorry.
A little over eight years ago two hijacked planes were flown into two adjacent landmark skyscrapers in lower Manhattan resulting in the deaths of a couple thousand folks. It appears as though some high school students have made a t-shirt with imagery strikingly simlar a plane flying into a set of skyscrapers with the accompanying message “You can’t bring us down.” Most speakers of modern American English would likely associate the idiomatic expression “too soon” with this design choice. For most, this judgment is more visceral than intellectual. A sort of “you know it when you see it” thing. I think you know this. I am dubious of your puzzlement.
I don’t see how it’s not supposed to evoke 9/11 imagery, but I don’t think they were making a statement about 9/11; they were just using 9/11 to make a statement about themselves. Tasteless, but hardly worth getting fired up about. It means about as much as “These colors don’t run.”
“Too soon” is not an idiomatic expression. It means exactly what it appears to mean.
Of course it’s a visual reference to 9/11. I don’t dispute that. I just don’t see why that’s offensive. The message is one of figurative defiance to such attacks. Why is it “too soon” to express that? When will enough time have gone by that we can say it’s not offensive to express defiance and to the 9/11 attacks?
So, among the unmoved we have folks like Diogenes who seem to be clear on the referrence but simply don’t find offense .* Others like RNATB seem to be making the laughable claim that reference is not there. It’s the latter group I struggle with. I cannot help but believe these folks are being intentionally obtuse.
*I don’t agree, but I can see where he’s coming from. Still, not finding personal offense but recognizing others might reasonably so and therefore avoiding the conduct is a hallmark of considerateness
Whether I find them offensive is irrelevant.
If the kids are juniors, they were 6 or 7 when the Trade Center buildings went down. To them, it’s just so much history, not a current event.
To me, the Kennedy assassination is still a current event.
I made no such claim, and I’ll thank you not to misrepresent my posts. I made the claim that there’s no actual evidence that the claimed reference is intentional. It might well be, but there are no quotes from the kids or their parents in the linked article to demonstrate it.