Colin Kaepernick's tattoos inspire the laziest, most racist article in recent memory
As Whitley begrudgingly admits later in the column, Kaepernick is a classy human being, well-spoken, and says and does all the right things on and off the field.
At this point, Whitley should realize that his column chastising Kaepernick for his tattoos is a terrible idea. After all, his tattoos really have no bearing whatsoever his ability to lead an offense.
Whitley writes about the idea of a tattooed QB hoisting a Lombardi Trophy as if it's the single worst thing that could happen in pro sports.
Sorry, Mr. Whitley, but there are a lot of other issues out there that require fixing. Even if you equate tattoos with death row inmates, that doesn't mean they're all criminals.
Whitley's column reeks of the "you people" mentality that you see from closet racists, who find any reason imaginable to criticize people of color, while turning a blind eye to a white person who does the same thing.
Notice that Whitley excuses Ben Roethlisberger's tattoos, and lists off a slew of white quarterbacks and hails them as the model for all to follow. He then criticizes Michael Vick and Terrelle Pryor, ignoring the fact that Pryor isn't actually a legitimate NFL QB by any imaginable standard.
From Whitley's column:
"His ink-covered arms will one day raise the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Imagine the impact that could have. For one thing, Jerry Richardson would clutch his chest in horror."
Really? Is that so bad? Is it such a terrible thing that we're upsetting an old white member of the establishment?
Another priceless line:
"I can’t shake the notion that a person’s body is a temple, and you don’t cover temples in graffiti."
Ask anyone with a tattoo, and they'll tell you that their ink is anything but graffiti. It's art. And I'm sure you can find a lot of fine art hanging in temples.
Don't get me wrong, we've done our fair share of tattoo critiquing on this site(here and here, for example). But at the end of the day, tattoos are a personal decision. As long as they're not of an offensive nature, they have no real affect on on how someone should be viewed. Someday, dinosaurs like David Whitley will realize this.
As expected, Whitley's column has been met with harsh criticism from... well, pretty much everyone.
As it should be. It's nothing more than a mindless attack on someone who has done absolutely nothing to deserve it, and it is motivated by nothing more than pure ignorance.