I read today that recently traded running back Kevan Barlow compared 49ers head coach Mike Nolan to Adolf Hitler. Then apologized for the remark saying it was emotional saying that it was bad...Saddam Hussein is a dictator, agreed.
Here's what I'll find fascinating. My bet is Kevan Barlow was actually sharing a legitimate point of view on the way that Mike Nolan runs the 49ers, regardless of the poorly chosen analogy. Will anyone sift through the poor analogy to see that?
Secondly, if Kevan Barlow were white and say, for example, he had said that Mike Nolan ran his team like a plantation owner. He still may have been trying to make a point that likely no one would have been able to see through and he likely would have found himself on the verge of being kicked out of football.
Beyond what Kevan Barlow thinks and feels about Mike Nolan will we, as individuals, be able to have a reasonable discussion about:
- What he's really trying to say.
- Why he chose that analogy.
I'll bet on the side of the judgment police coming out in full force. Already I see that Mike Nolan said "Personally, I feel Kevan is a good kid," which is beside the point entirely.
It makes no difference whether he's good or bad. I'm just thankful that he said something, anything that is truthful without having the pc police having filtered it. But my final bet is the only thing that we'll all learn after all is said and done on this one:
Like Trent Lott and hundreds of others before him it will be another example of where we learn what "not to say" regardless of what we think.
Comments