Urban Outfitters’ “Kent State” blood-stained sweatshirt was recently yanked from shelves.

My initial gut reaction was that it was horrible and callous they even made this sort of thing, regardless of how long it’s been since protestors were murdered by the National Guard. That feeling hasn’t changed – but as someone damned with non-linear thinking, my devil’s advocate has a strong voice that also wanted to analyze all sides and be heard. And his voice says this:

From an artistic standpoint, I’ll concede – there is a potential statement to be made.

I purposely phrase it that way because U.O. was not making a statement – though the potential for one exists. Where they fall short is that they just want money (duh) and happened upon a cheeky idea that they thought might get them some. ‘cause I don’t know that many thirteen year olds who are going to explain, “It’s a reminder to myself and others how easily our liberties and rights can be taken away, as demonstrated by those who sacrificed their own lives peacefully assembling in a time of war,” when asked why they’d wear something so grotesque. Do you? And I haven’t seen U.O. say that either.

What I did see was a sorry-not-sorry apology.

Ya know, the kind where you make implausible excuses given your case history?


(Come on, Kent. Let’s stand up and do a stadium style wave of facepalm together).

Were they smarter, they’d have sold it from a “make a statement” point to start with.

That way, they could’ve made some bank, covered their asses, and given kids the misguided feeling of being real rebels. It’s too bad they’re not a more revolutionary brand. Or better with their beat-them-to-the-punch marketing. Things like the “eat less” line could keep being sold to teens too with the disclaimer “Of course we’re selling to youth! They should learn early on about how our overfed country is ultimately leading to resource destruction just so we can maintain gluttony while humans elsewhere starve!” I mean, that’s not wrong. The girl wearing the shirt is telling you to eat less, not that she’s going to. But if you talk to ex workers of the company commenting online (or just read expanded tweets like the one above), U.O. had no such motive behind those shirts either. And why would they? You can’t simultaneously be part of the solution and part of the ravenous top micro-percent money owners who all jerk eachother off at Kubrikian illuminati parties on Friday night.


(Underneath the masks you know they’re all pulling the Clint Eastwood standoff face.)

You know, I’m also trying to look at this from the “what if I were Kent state” standpoint.

It doesn’t take much. I lost a best friend in the Virginia Tech shootings. That day was a black hole into my chest that I’ll never get back. As a third party observer, however, should we remember the difference is that the man who massacred a fckk ton of students there was insane? Wait. There is a difference, right? It makes it less insane to massacre peaceful assemblers if you’re wearing a uniform and sent by the government? Acting psychotically is alright if you’re a large group in control of power, right? Like the military? Or a giant corporation?

If shirts like these were produced with the Tech insignia, it would indeed hit me in the gullet. I don’t like remembering painful things either – unless I feel like I can be part of the solution (making sure our rights aren’t being obliterated in the case of Kent, improving the mental health care system to prevent things like VT from happening again). Would I wear it? No. Not ever. Even if the manufacturers were marketing it as such – which they weren’t. I’d puke and probably punch whoever I saw wearing it, as a reflex. But – as a concept, shock value in fashion and art alike can be worth something if there’s a good positive motive for action behind that and you have a platform to share what that message is (“You SHOULD be shocked – now let’s do something about it!”). Otherwise it’s just the same anti-climactic misery we masturbate over on the news and do nothing about until we find some small violent outlet for it we can actually control.

U.O. wasn’t going for “shock into action” here.

Just the same thing a behemoth business ogre always does.

Speaking of our rights, I’d say that the Kent protestors of the 70’s were just trying to enact their free speech rights and that Urban Outfitters has that same right to do it on their tee shirts. But I unfortunately still don’t buy that corporations are people. So I can’t do that in good faith. Because if they were actually people, they would’ve been DSM analyzed and asylum bound for having the kind of tendencies that make you do things like, oh I dunno, shoot up a group of students.

And having sweatshop-made bloody sweatshirts probably wouldn’t help their cases.

But when a “person” is a power wielding synecdoche, you really don’t need my defense.

Maybe your next line of tee shirts should just read #toosoon?

And #KeepCalmOrBecomeCarrion

You’re welcome for the ideas in advance.