Shared publicly  - 
This article came across my Facebook feed.

"They're not callous. They're just American."
Patrick Griffin's profile photoChristopher Tate's profile photoDerrick Ilgner's profile photoAaron H's profile photo
It does seem quite a misrepresentation to claim the group is "callous" and "enjoying the sun", as some have done. They were doing the only thing anyone could do that day: sit and watch.
Terrible mis-representation. Politics in our country is divided, run by fear mongers, and broken. Who is in charge of all this? Old people. People with antiquated views and can not understand any one else's point of view. This is on both sides of the aisle. Here we have a great representation of not just American youth, but the World youth. Because of the interwebs we are more connected as young folks than ever. For as much as we allegedly don't care or are callous, the Arab Spring was youth, the protests in Iran, young people. Here stateside, the Occupy movement was overwhemingly young. I visited camps in a couple cities and it was young folks. I see here some young people, discussing what happened. Trying to come to grips with this tragedy together. We all reacted in odd ways that day because it never happened before to us. What were they to do, grab guns and kill anyone of Arab descent in the streets? Panic and fear was used against us in getting authorization to go into Iraq. Had we stopped and thought and discussed, we may have never gone to Iraq a second time.
This is a post-modern controversy. From me that's derision. But it did induce a mention of "Musee des Beaux Arts", which should be read in its entirety.
Drawing so many conclusion from a single picture is both stupid and dangerous. The fact that someone would use assumptions he made from one photo as the basis for an article on American society is both offensive and typical. +Matthew Jacobs hit it, what do they expect these kids to be doing, running around in circles screaming their heads off?

Stupid "controversy" breeds stupid article which breeds a pointless article.

Edit: Not to mention the photographer himself made silly assumptions about his subjects. This whole thing is just dumb.
Rich S
Amazing that it was ever considered controversial. Should every American have been waving a flag and crying that day?
Surely they're doing the opposite to what terrorists would want them to. Going about their normal lives as opposed to being terrified (terrorised?) by the event.
Anyone who finds flaw with the people in the photograph need to ask themselves what they were doing at that exact moment & what they did in the hours immediately following when they heard about it. Were you on your knees with tears streaming down your face, fist clenches & raised to god the whole time, or did you go to work? Could someone have caught a photo of you buying coffee as images of the tragedy played behind you, though you chose to ignore them?
I'm with +Drew Smith on this; it is not "callous"; it's the opposite of what terrorists are trying to accomplish.

Callous is what one of my coworkers said that day. Approximate wording, it was "Why aren't people here at work? It's not like the plane hit our building."

I already didn't like him much. That really sealed the deal.
Aaron H
Its a moment caught in time. I didn't stare at the carnage all day. I remember on that day, when someone in a group of us had something important to say, we all stopped and paid careful attention to what was coming out of their mouth.

This is why I love photography, this fraction of a second with a thousand interpretations! It does what it should do, brings out feelings and thoughts of the person viewing the photo.
Add a comment...