From our “Now they’ve gone too far” department, a controversy over a column written by Sporting News writer David Whitley, who skewers San Francisco QB Colin Kaepernick for breaking some kind of rule about NFL quarterbacks not getting all tatted up.
NFL quarterback is the ultimate position of influence and responsibility. He is the CEO of a high-profile organization, and you don’t want your CEO to look like he just got paroled.
Now along comes Kaepernick. Since taking over for Alex Smith two games ago, he has convinced everybody in the Bay area that he’s the second coming of Steve Young.
Smith is coming back from a concussion, ushering in the attendant QB controversy. But he is looking like Wally Pipp and Kaepernick is Lou Gehrig. All I can do is look in the mirror and sigh.
Forgive me, but I suffer from tattoo-ism. I sport no ink, and I don’t want any. I know that attitude qualifies me for an AARP card, and I’ve tried to get with it.
I realize tattoos are ways to pay homage to your religion, children and motorcycle gang. I’m cool with LeBron James looking like an Etch A Sketch.
I still cringe when I go to the gym and see middle-aged women with barbed wire circling their biceps. They have bigger arms than I, so I never make fun. But I can’t shake the notion that a person’s body is a temple, and you don’t cover temples in graffiti.
For dinosaurs like me, NFL quarterbacks were our little Dutch boys. The original hero stuck his finger in the dyke to save Holland. Pro QBs were the last line of defense against the raging sea of ink. When our kids said they wanted a tattoo, we could always point to the Manning brothers.
My guess is Archie would have made Peyton throw an extra 1,000 passes before dinner if he’d come home with a tattoo. The old man knew QBs are different.
Did Sammy Baugh, Johnny Unitas, Doug Williams or Joe Montana have arms covered in ink? Do Tom Brady, Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers? The world will end when Tim Tebow shows up a tattoo parlor.
Well, Whitley violated some unwritten rule himself. Kaepernick is African American and apparently it is verboten to say anything about him that displeases lefty writers who don’t know much about sports, but know a helluva lot about playing the race card.
Here’s one off-the-wall blogger who has a serious case of race myopia:
Lots of times we’ve poked fun at sportswriters or announcers for praising overmuch a white athlete’s heart, grit, gumption or whatever other term they invoke when they see a bit of themselves in an undersized white slot receiver who shows he actually belongs on the field with his more physically skilled, darker skinned peers. While that praise is likely informed by some amount of racial bias, in most cases it’s not actively racist. It’s important to make that distinction because Sporting News/Fanhouse columnist David Whitley is a for-real racist.
One reason to read lefty blogs on a regular basis is because we learn a lot about race, class, and how the right are a bunch of poopey heads.
For instance, I didn’t know that sports announcers never praise black athletes for their “grit” or “guts.” Never. Never ever. When Michael Jordan played an NBA Finals game with a temp of 102 and a sour stomach, all that praise about his guts and fortitude was a mistake. The announcers thought he was white, obviously.
Nor have I a subtle enough intellect to glean the difference between “racial bias” and “racism.”
Be that as it may, Whitley has two adopted daughters, who, “If they were old enough to read,” would “certainly be disappointed to find out I’m a racist.”
That doesn’t excuse Whitley for being an idiot, not a racist. He hates tattoos and he hates them on quarterbacks:
For dinosaurs like me,” continues Whitley, “NFL quarterbacks were our little Dutch boys. The original hero stuck his finger in the (dike) to save Holland. Pro QBs were the last line of defense against the raging sea of ink. When our kids said they wanted a tattoo, we could always point to the Manning brothers.
The funny thing is, Whitley’s witless criticism of Kaepernick echoes similar complaints against one Joe Willie Namath, whose long hair and Bohemian (and hedonistic) lifestyle rocked the staid NFL back in the day. Back then, it was a generational thing. Today, it’s a manufactured racial controversy — largely because we haven’t had one in a few days and the fires of racial division must be stoked regularly or the left loses its touch.
I hate Kaepernick because the first start of his NFL career was against my Beloved Bears, where he proceeded to pick apart and destroy the Beloveds as no rookie quarterback has ever done. But whether it’s growing your hair long or getting inked up to the max, people like Whitley should stop the hero worship and start treating these guys like the overpaid circus performers they are.
Note: I’m a dinosaur and hate tattoos also.
Here’s why tatoos are basically evil–it is an emphasis on glorification of the body–a celebration of the merely physical world, not of the cerebral or spiritual. And in this glorification of the material lies much danger. In particular it leads to the creed that might makes right.
As an amplification–on a fit body, esp. of a confident man, large amounts of body being covered by tatoos have me concerned that the person is a “might makes right” man. On an unfit body, or on a fit body with an insecure ego, it makes me worried the person can be brought along by symbolism alone, which, as the use of uniforms in Nazi Germany showed, is always a motivator for the insecure looking for meaning via group identity.
Thus, it is not racist to ask why does a grown, well-paid, successful fit man feel the need to put on a display? There may be–are–some decent reasons for a tatoo–but there are a lot of bad ones too.
Did you post that tripe with a straight face? You think there can’t possibly be other motives other than “materialism”, which you likely equate with satanic evil?
Good gravy, this is why fundamentalists sound like pretentious wanna be philosophers.
Go up to a vet with a tattoo that has his fallen comrade’s name on it and repeat the crap you just said.
Hey, pal….I’ll be happy to, because the only good tats I can think of were the squadron insignia a few buddies got…though the rest of us weren’t exactly 100% approving, although I did think of one. If you have done something of note, a reasonable tatoo is okay in my book. Or even a large one (Smedley Butler) That is why I caveated it above. Which I did. You chose to ignore it, but the caveat is there.
You are aware, of course, after all, that tats have been and are disqualifying grounds for military accessions. And for pretty much for the reasons I give. If you have a tat and it’s not a “war trophy”, essentially–why did you get it? And do we want you?
Have a nice day.
Oh, to be clear for the stupid and Bill–I include “dead buddy’s name” and “mother” as reasonable.
And I’m not a fundamentalist, or even really a Christian, though it does seem Bill may want to refrain from that kind of argument, since he sounds pretty self-assured in his own beliefs.
Actually, tattoos are no longer a disqualifier for military ranks other than officer ranks. Green Berets sport tattoos these days, as do many of the beloved infantrymen and Airborne. The only portion of the military that will bar you from service for a tattoo is the USMC, if you have tattoos visible while in uniform, and honestly, who cares, as the USMC has been outperformed by the army in every tracked facet since 2003.
Tattoos don’t change people. I grew up in a close minded family that tried to tell me that people with tattoos were scum, thugs, the like. My stepdad was heard to comment that every tattoo lowered your IQ. I have learned, time and again, that such is not the case.
Likewise, I’m not here to say that every man with a tattoo is a saint. I met a gentleman in the bar last night with whom I had an intense disagreement because he had a swastika on his hand. I spoke to the bartender and bouncer, and they agreed that we didn’t need such people at the pub, and that was the end of that, mind you. By the way, the bouncer, who, when not bouncing for extra money, works as a team lead for security at a national sports stadium, has tattoos!
My point is that if you judge people on whether or not they have tattoos, you’re probably a moron. Judging on content is, however, valid.
As an active duty Marine MGySgt I have to say that tattoos, in general, do NOT preclude accession in to the Corps; sleeves might as may certain types (ie gang or drug affiliated). Tattoos on the lower limbs may make a Marine ineligible for certain assignments. But tattoos are not indicative of a might make right mindset. There are a variety of reasons for getting them. I believe there should be some “purpose”, event, or special significance for every tattoo. Many people get designs because they look cool. I also beige the body is a temple and would argue that my tattoos are not graffiti, but art to decorate the temple.
To be clear, I was saying that tattoos that are visible while in uniform (hands, throat, the like) can be used as a disqualifier, and have been used as such, by the USMC. It’s also very hard to get through a murder board, for any service, with a tattoo on your hand.
“Kaepernick is African American”
Is he? I didn’t know. Seriously, I had no idea what his ethnicity was, but I liked his playing since the first time I saw him play for Nevada.
So here’s my stance on Kaepernick:
Race: Didn’t know, still don’t care.
Playing: He’s terrific
Tattoos: Don’t like tattoos because I’m a rebel – a real non-conformist, but if he’s into them, that’s his business.
With all that ink, I couldn’t tell.
CK is pretty light-skinned. If he’s “black” then it’s a grandparent or something. Wasn’t he adopted and raised by a white couple? Before this brouhaha erupted I thought he was probably a white Hispanic. Oh well, all these categories get so confusing.
Kaepernick is formulating a hooliocentric cosmology.
Tattoos are a symptom of the continuing vulgarization of our culture. The “shock value” of prison-gang culture is celebrated by retards who equate pop culture with something to be emulated. Tattoos are low-life and stupid and I don’t care if my opinion makes me seem antiquated or un-cool or (gasp) a “square.” (Who even says “square” anymore?) We NEED more adults to stand up and be squares and make a case for personal responsibility. If you have a huge tattoo and you are NOT a Yakuza, a Hell’s Angel or a Circus Freak, then you are nothing but a conformist, low-life retard and you contribute to the uglification of society.
You’re not square or uncool (at least not to my knowledge) but you are a moron.
Every symbol of rebellion seems to have been mainstreamed, with sad results. Genuine eccentrics and iconoclasts have been co-opted by rednecks who seem to fear being seen as ordinary middle class people. This has been rife in the fine arts for decades. The fine arts is like a coven of 9 to 5 witches with no powers where the only thing burnt at the stake are the villagers. Everyone’s the Frankenstein monster today, going after the lone villager with a torch who more often than not doesn’t even have a name or face, just white skin and male genitals.
Tattoos were once sleazy but even some years ago everyone and their sister seems to have had one – same for man-earrings at one time.
A car full men in cowboy hats tried to run me over when I was a kid hitchhiking. My crime was that I had very long hair. 15 years later those same morons were at the Country Music Awards where every other guy had a pony tail.
Science-fiction literature, once a rather fine-art exclusive ghetto of bright creativity, has been taken over and mainstreamed by the worst rednecks and PC hacks, essentially writing novels that are the equivalent of Hee-Haw or plastic covered couches.
When everyone’s a rebel and iconoclast no one is. The hilarious thing is that genuine eccentrics still get a cold shoulder while those who display the symbols, whether it be filed vampire teeth or face piercings, all display a tribal mentality that is the opposite of rebellion if you think about it.
Is there a moral here? I guess you are what you are no matter what. It’s just fun for these people mostly. But at worse it’s an Orwellian form of theft and cultural back-sliding when a literary genre or something like fine art photography is taken over by people who are about as rebellious as a sewing circle of old nuns and spend their time proving that is exactly what they are not.
This cult of cool has been mainstreamed to a ridiculous extent. When an entire society covets the trappings of being anti-itself, what is that exactly, especially when, in real terms, the only stodgy enemies they have to fight against are themselves.
When I was a kid people laughed at me for reading comics and SF. Now they give the thumbs up. F-ck ‘em.
“NFL quarterback is the ultimate position of influence and responsibility.”
Give me a break. It’s a game. Think about the 21 year old sergeant in Afghanistan with 10 guys depending on him for their very lives. Is any quarterback, anywhere, in a position of ultimate responsibility? If you answer “yes”, you’re an idiot.
Well said!!
Greetings:
I pretty much look at the tattooing as what my dear departed mother used to refer to as “Monkey see, monkey do.” It’s pretty much a lost cause not unlike wear one’s pants around the top of one’s leg bones.
My major NFL annoyance these days is its acceptance of its player wearing those close-fitting head coverings during the playing of our National Anthem. That’s something I’d like to see something done about. When an organization calls itself “National”, plays the National Anthem before every one of its games, swaths its playing field in our flag, and puts those cute little flag stickers on every one of its player’s helmets, it should not tolerate that kind of discourtesy from its players. Even more so when one considers the number of rules the NFL has, under pain of financial fines, that deal with what kind of head wear its players can wear when and where.
Careful, friend….Bill will go find one vet who wears a helmet during the anthem that has a dead friend’s name on it so he can attack you so as to support his own personal preferences, as he tells you what a 1950s “purity-of-essence” neanderthal (presumably with a bible in hand) you are.
Or, at least, that’s the impression I get. I could be wrong.
As far as your comment, I, of course, agree with you on helmet thing. Too much narcissism in the NFL, not enough “there are things bigger than I”. Don’t get me started on the “I just beat you, I’m the man” gestures/moves after a tackle or good play. Exactly what I imagine Achilles would have done after a kill. Pure ego, made mockable when they get burned on the next play (and if they are the type who is just better–then why the need to act like a rampaging barbarian bereft of civilization? Ego, presumably. Which then calls to question if they act that way off the field. Do they restrain themselves when weaker persons are around?)
One is not allowed to criticize anybody who is not a white male for any reason whatsoever in post-racial Amerika. Multiply that by one thousand for quarterbacks, since the success rate of black quarterbacks is a particular sore spot for white people who like to flagelate themselve over slavery, a human condition practiced by nearly every culture on earth for millenia, up to about 150 year ago, and practiced by many cultures today. It’s ok, you see to proudly proclaim the superiority of black men for whatever reaon, but even casually pointing out that white men seem to excel at something is evidence of the most virulent racism imaginable.
Instead, we are expected to exult an in-your-face declaration of admiration of prison culture; the place where society’s failures go to protect the rest of the people who aren’t criminals, sadists and thugs. Actually, the place other than Washington, DC.
And that is what guarantees the fall. Self-inflicted by idiots.
A Tattoo is something you should wake up with wondering how the heck it got there.
As this Body Art concept they look more hideous than pleasant.
Ick. I have an aversion to tattooed skin. Makes my own skin crawl a bit.
Tattoos are tacky and low-class, all of them. Especially on women. I see a woman with a tattoo and it tells me two things about her – 1. she has low self-esteem, and 2. she had enough money for a tattoo.
Greetings:
Which kind of begs the question, where are all those college players getting all the money to pay for their tattoos ??? Or are they gifts ???
I disagree with John’s original post on tattoos. However, I can tell you that some artists will give free tattoos to people who are very talented in all fields. If you’re a fantastic athlete, free tattoo. If you’re a world-class musician, free tattoo.
It’s basically advertising for the parlor. Likewise, in certain subgroups, where the tattoo came from tells of your standing. If your tattoo was done in somebody’s kitchen, you’re probably a nobody, and an idiot. If you’re a punk rocker and Tokyo Hiro did a tattoo for you, you’re the kind of guy who draws in the crowds. It’s almost a rite of passage.
Greetings:
You make a reasonable point, although I don’t think that I could work such actions in my marketing plan without a more explicit attribution. Similarly, black ink on dark skin would seem to collide with the artistic concept of contrast.
But, somewhat more seriously, what I was alluding to was the NCAA regulations about what kind, or in kind, gifts scholarship athletes can or should accept.
– Go Niners!
I knew I was destine to be an old fogey, but didn’t think it would happen so young. I was the ONLY parent in my sons’ kindergarten class that did not have a tattoo. Every single one of fathers and the mothers had a tat.