Under criticism, this shirt is yanked.
ADDED: I'll use this opportunity to repeat my most important Under Armour opinion: Basketball players should — like ballet dancers — lose the shorts and just wear the leggings. There should be no under in Under Armour.
Posts
55 comments:
Background on the Iwo Jima photo.
We as a nation are besotted consumers of overwrought controversialism.
Some people have no sense of humor.
Intimidation is the American Way.
The ad reminds me of the Iwo Jima heroism and that beautiful photograph and monument. I wonder whether those men would be offended. They have a right to be proud of the freedom they helped secure for basketball players and everyone else.
Seems sort of like a "One, two, many Iwo Jimas!" thing for freedom fighters.
That photo is a venerated Icon in the World War Two canon of the civic religion known as American Exceptionalism. And blasphemy will not be tolerated.
I fail entirely to see the purpose of the image. I know, the purpose is crass commercialism, and I have no problem with that. What I don't understand is how someone thought that this image would help to sell shirts. What did they thing potential buyers of the shirt would think the image meant?
At first I thought people were offended because the picture could also be viewed as looters taking down a basketball hoop.
Are all of us veterans supposed to feel insulted by that shirt? It doesn't bug me. Perhaps I need to send my service experiences in for re-editing so that I feel the right way about things...
@Ignorance
The shirt is a promotion for the product that is Under Armour. So if you like Under Armour, you might be excited about the shirt.
Sports events often include all sorts of patriotic things that don't seem to have to do with sports, notably the national anthem, which is full of military imagery. Why isn't it seen a wrong to associate as sports contest with a military battle in those other contexts?
Wow. This was an homage, a way to honor the heroes of Iwo Jima.
People need to take a chill pill and mellow the fuck out.
Iwo Jima where uncommon valor was a common virtue. But then why honor dead men who were themselves intent on killing the Emperor's 25,000 entrenched under ground Army before they were killed by them.
In Obama world we would just apologize for the war give it back.
How about all that "Keep Calm and Do X" stuff? As an Anglo-American whose grandparents survived the Blitz, I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED by the crass commercial use of that particular piece of wartime propaganda.
Not "deeply offended;" but I would certainly not buy such a shirt. I would be inclined to attribute ignorance rather than malice to those who designed and would wear the shirt.
Instead of bitching, the old goats should be grateful that anybody who wears fancy underwear even gets the reference.
The Japanese were much worse than the Nazis in slaughtering innocent women and children and medical experiments on live prisoners. They had a their own nuclear Fission device program. Ask the Chinese.
The serious WWII killing was not experienced very much by the US except in the Pacific theater after the Japs learned to dig in and wait on Marines at Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
The Germans were defeated primarily by the Russians using some of our supplies. Fortunately the Japs were A-Bombed into surrender by Harry Truman.
The shirt is a promotion for the product that is Under Armour. So if you like Under Armour, you might be excited about the shirt.
Of course every shirt that has an Under Armour logo would work for people who like Under Armour. But they also added the Iwo Jima reference, I assume because they thought it would sell more shirts than just the Under Armour logo. Why did they think that? Were they expecting people to buy and wear it out of respect for WWII veterans? Did they think people would buy it because they think heroics on the basketball court were in some way equivalent to heroics on the battlefield? What percentage of the people who like basketball and Under Armour are old enough to even know what the image represents?
As a veteran, I'm not offended.
What offends me is this idea that midnight basketball was some sort of saving grace for young black men.
Under Armour thinks otherwise.
"Instead of bitching, the old goats should be grateful that anybody who wears fancy underwear even gets the reference."
Jay Leno showed the Iwo Jima photo once on "Battle of the Jaywalk All Stars". One woman thought it depicted planting the flag on the first moon landing. Didn't seem to trouble her that the men weren't wearing space suits.
I hope I'm not the only one here who applies Armor All under his Under Armour.
And sometimes on my under arms.
"But they also added the Iwo Jima reference, I assume because they thought it would sell more shirts than just the Under Armour logo. Why did they think that? Were they expecting people to buy and wear it out of respect for WWII veterans? Did they think people would buy it because they think heroics on the basketball court were in some way equivalent to heroics on the battlefield? What percentage of the people who like basketball and Under Armour are old enough to even know what the image represents?"
I pick they think people think heroics on the basketball court are similar to heroics on the battlefield... and the ways in which they are different are amusing.
One more proof that marketers have no bounds of taste or good sense. Offensive? No. Imaginative? Yes. Appropriate? Maybe not.
Does serve to prove, once again, how iconic Rosenthal's photo is. Reminder, also, of how many brave and good men did not return.
Semper Fi.
"Fortunately the Japs were A-Bombed into surrender by Harry Truman."
They were ready to surrender before we nuked them. The nuking was primarily intended to show the Russians the power we had. Of course, to justify the destruction of two Japanese cities, Americans had to be told it was the only way to end the war and save many more lives than would have been lost otherwise.
I don't see the problem with the shirt.
Manufactured outrage is very tedious.
(I find UnderArmour products overpriced. But I find most products overpriced these days)
Bulllshit, Robert Cook. The World At War showed documents that your Russian buddies had told the Japanese that the Americans did not have another atomic bomb--they had insufficient time to process enough uranium for more than one bomb. They did it, of course, to see if the US did have more. And because Stalin was a dick like you are.
"The serious WWII killing was not experienced very much by the US except in the Pacific theater after the Japs learned to dig in and wait on Marines at Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa."
I think the U.S. lost more men in the European theater than the Pacific theater--though as a percentage of forces deployed it might have been bloodier in the Pacific. MacArthur's strategy of skipping over Japanese strongpoints certainly saved a lot of lives and left Japanese forces isolated.
The Russians did get chewed up a whole lot on their front. Our victory would have been far less certain if they hadn't taken the brunt of the Germans.
@RobertCook
I don't know how you find this stuff. The author did not even use a by line. If I didn't know better I would assign it to Seymour Hersh.
Of course there were a lot of second thoughts about the use of the atomic bomb.These came much later. Eisenhower had no problem with the fire bombing of Dresden because he felt it would shorten the war on his front. In hindsight, that was almost as barbaric as using the atomic bomb .
That the war was won did not mean that anyone thought that the Japanese would surrender without defending their home islands. I have never seen a casualty estimate for the planned campaign that was below 1 million (!).
Believe me that the guys who were going to have to make the landings had no bad feelings about using the bomb to end the war. i am with them.
Stalin was also hoping to invade Northern Japan and set up a divided Japan, as with Europe.
So many snowflakes in America nowadays a man can't leave his house without snowshoes.
The Germans were defeated primarily by the Russians using some of our supplies. Fortunately the Japs were A-Bombed into surrender by Harry Truman.
We helped a little. Stop and think about this...
We fought two wars thousands of miles from our shores for both of them. We supplied all of our allies with the means to fight it and in doing so not only developed the killing machines to carry out the war, but the infrastructure and means to deliver those machines.
For every tank there was a dozen trucks. For every carrier, destroyer or battleship there were a dozens of transport ships. For every fighter or bomber there were dozens of transport aircraft.
All of it made here.
Robert Cook said...
"Fortunately the Japs were A-Bombed into surrender by Harry Truman."
They were ready to surrender before we nuked them. The nuking was primarily intended to show the Russians the power we had. Of course, to justify the destruction of two Japanese cities, Americans had to be told it was the only way to end the war and save many more lives than would have been lost otherwise.
Fabulism
As a 6 year veteran of the USNavy I will say that I instantly got it, and am not offended by it.
I would however not feel worthy to wear it as I've never been in anything close to combat. It's easy to see how residents of inner city Chicago might very well have earned the right to wear such a shirt.
"Fabulism."
Denialism.
The ad reminds me of the Iwo Jima heroism and that beautiful photograph and monument. I wonder whether those men would be offended. They have a right to be proud of the freedom they helped secure for basketball players and everyone else.
If it gets some kid to look up what happened at Iwo Jima, I think it was a positive tribute. I'm tired of the Perpetually Outraged, even if I might agree politically with the Outraged this time.
Robert Cook said...
"Fortunately the Japs were A-Bombed into surrender by Harry Truman."
They were ready to surrender before we nuked them. The nuking was primarily intended to show the Russians the power we had. Of course, to justify the destruction of two Japanese cities, Americans had to be told it was the only way to end the war and save many more lives than would have been lost otherwise.
The Japanese were so ready to surrender that the military tried to find and break the record that was to be played over the radio, made by the Emperor telling the Japanese people to lay down their arms. The vote by his advisors was to surrender was very close, even after the second bomb. Dig in to history a little next time instead of spouting nonsense.
"That the war was won did not mean that anyone thought that the Japanese would surrender without defending their home islands. I have never seen a casualty estimate for the planned campaign that was below 1 million (!)."
I'd add that even in hindsight it's hard to tell what might have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. We killed more people in one night firebombing Tokyo (with equally horrific results--civilians boiling in the rivers trying to escape the flames) than the atom bombs, yet they still didn't surrender. But Truman didn't have 20/20 hindsight--he had to make a decision with the intel he had at the time.
We had to do a lot of awful things in that war, but remember Japan had decided to go that route.
Robert Cook said...
They were ready to surrender before we nuked them.
Being ready to surrender and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Until they actually surrender they are at war, and should expect us to act accordingly.
The Emperor was Japan. He saved himself while he had everybody else murdering the rest of the Asians or committing suicide for him for 8 years.
He was the world's only Sun God, after all.
The day after the power of the Sun vaporized the second Japanese city is the day the Emperor realized he was going to die next. That thought in that idiot's evil brain is all that ended the war without millions more suicides and murders.
Harry Truman was a man who understood that. Cookie thinks history is a predestined class struggle science. But he never met a Sun God.
Robert Cook said...
"Fabulism."
Denialism.
You're wrong.
I explained to you in great detail a couple of years ago and cited my sources.
The shirt didn't bother me. It bothered a lot of other vets I know, judging from social media. I thought the shirt was contextless and poorly executed but not offensive in the least.
What IS offensive are these modern-day fucktards not responsible for a single American life, who never had to wash their best friends blood out of the back of a jeep or a Humvee with a hose, wringing their hands to this day about how the Japanese were ready to surrender before they dropped the A-Bomb. Meanwhile they were killing Americans and Chinese in large numbers right up to the very last minute, murdering POWs, and getting in their last-minute rapes on their Chinese, Korean and Philipina sex slaves.
Fuck all of them. War is hell and you cannot refine it.
They were ready to surrender before we nuked them.
August 6, Hiroshima.
August 9, Nagasaki.
August 9, the Soviet Union declares a war on Japan.
August 10, the Japanese indicate their desire to surrender.
Nothing says ready like waiting four days.
"For every fighter or bomber there were dozens of transport aircraft."
Far from true.
200k combat aircraft of all types.
24k transport aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II
I think Viet Nam veterans and the fallen should get a proper memorial.
A gash in the ground? Really?
Libtard assholes.
Under Armour used neither an image of the Flag, nor an image of the Marines -- how is that t-shirt inappropriate?
"I think Viet Nam veterans and the fallen should get a proper memorial.
"A gash in the ground? Really?
'Libtard assholes."
And yet...most Vietnam vets who have visited the existing memorial consider it beautiful and moving.
@Jason I have to disagree with you. I find the Viet Nam memorial very powerful. I have visited the names of those I knew several times. The statues you can have, but The Wall is a very fitting memorial.
@ furious a I'll bet the first thing you thought of when you saw it was Rosenthal's picture of the Marines at Iwo Jima.
Like veterans give a shit what people like Cookie think. You wouldn't know what's important to us if it hit you with a 2 x 4.
Spare me the lecture, pinkie.
My dad hates the memorial. Vowed never to visit it. He felt insulted by the memorial concept since they put it in. Lots of others felt the same way.
You wouldn't know those people, Cookie. They don't usually bother with the likes of you.
There was a council of war after the firebombing of Tokyo that left tens of thousands of dead. The casualties were not mentioned not even as an aside in their deliberations. The Japanese militarists felt that the purpose of the civilian population was to protect the honor and dignity of the military rather than the other way around. I get the impression that Cook doesn't have a high opinion of the. American military. I wonder how he comes by such a high opinion of the flexibility and pragmatism of the Japanese militarists despite their historical record of cruelty and stubbornness.
I thought the marketing idea brilliant! Rosenthal's iconic photo captured perseverance, duty, glory, determination, grit, and sacrifice in that single image. Semper Fi! (Disclaimer, it was the 4 years I spent outside Quantico that influenced me to go into the USAF--but I have a USMC SIL).
Now, I'd rather see the "Band of Ballers" shirt brought back. Or maybe UA can do up one more in light of the times, such as a couple of Baltimorons burning down a business.
Also, since the thread has swung that way, is there any doubt that once Iran gets a nuke, we'll see at least 1 city in the Mid-East burn? And shortly thereafter maybe a few more? I wonder if we'll be around to debate the wisdom of giving avowed enemies the means to kill millions of our citizens. There have always been non-rational actors on the world stage and we're allowing a religious totalitarian state with a hunkering for immolation access to the biggest Molotov available. -CP, USAF (Ret)
Post a Comment