Jason Whitlock column on Taylor

I don't think they're making him seem guilty at all. I think they're making him look like a victim of a senseless act of violence. And that violence can occur to anyone, rich or poor.

Some are suggesting his past, upbringing, and those he associated with - are direct and indirect causes to his death.

Some are suggesting his past, upbringing, and those he associated with - are the blame.

I've read that too. Like he couldn't escape his past and I think they're not giving ST enough credit. He wasn't some hardcore drug dealer or some thug. He ran with the wrong crowd for awhile and made some bad decisions. Every kid does that. He was 24 not 44. Anyone in the media who criticizes him for making stupid juvenile decisions, when he actually WAS a juvenile, is pretty hypocritical cause everyone makes bad decisions sometime in life.

This is not a new message or theme from Jason Whitlock. Examine his body of work and you'll see this thesis running through a lot of it.

And as Matty noted above, it is a powerful piece. Whitlock's columns on this kind of thing always are.

I can understand where the article's coming from. As a Black female, I know that some Black people, especially on the lower socioeconomic ladder love to blame other people for their problems or the problems of the ghetto and crime in general. But all the guy's trying to say is that if we want to change and stop all this violence and negativity, more specifically, Black on Black crime, we can't look to blame and point fingers or wait for it to go away. We have to take action and do something about it.

Makes enough sense to me.

I think that's where I find fault in the article. He lists a lot things wrong with a big part of our society. But where does he list any solutions and ways to deal with all of this? Like the old saying goes - if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Just like Deion, what Whitlock is saying may be true, but it doesn't mean it's relevant or appropriate right now.

I read the following post by WaPo's Eugene Robinson on their forums and I thought it summed up my feelings perfectly about 90% of the "analysis" that journalists have been spouting in the wake of Sean's death:

A 24-year-old man, a professional athlete in his prime, is gunned down as his fiance cowers in fear and their young daughter sleeps -- it's hard to imagine a more tragic story. Period. I hope you agree that all who mourn Redskins safety Sean Taylor's passing should resist the temptation to fit what little we really know about his life and death into some kind of familiar narrative about race and pathology.

Asked about Taylor's sudden and awful death, Coach Joe Gibbs said simply that life is fragile. Others have not been so modest, or so wise. They recount Taylor's past "troubles" and try to make him emblematic of Young Black Men in general -- the mean streets, the parasitic friends, the casual violence, the weapons, the beefs, etc., etc. This is argument, not explanation. It's lazy and wrong, and it drives me up the wall.

Do me a favor: If you have to impose an off-the-shelf narrative on Sean Taylor's death, pick something other than the Young Black Men story. How about the Molded into Violence narrative -- the story of how Taylor, like other professional football players (Pat Tillman, for example) was rewarded all his life for the ability to create sudden, explosive havoc on the football field, leaving opponents battered and broken; so why should anyone be surprised that he died a violent death? Or make it into a story about South Florida, where bizarre, brutal crime is almost an art form. Those are bogus narratives, too, but at least they provide a little variety.

Better yet, don't try to make Sean Taylor's life and death into any kind of cautionary tale at all. He was a complicated man. He loved his family, he was a loyal friend, he didn't like talking to the media, he hit as hard as anyone in the National Football League, he doted on his daughter. He had "turned his life around," they say, as if navigating the shoals of career, fatherhood, love and maturity were a simple matter of taking a few GPS readings and heading, um, thataway.

Here's what we know -- at this point, all we can possibly know: Life is fragile. And Sean Taylor was just 24.

Just like Deion, what Whitlock is saying may be true, but it doesn't mean it's relevant or appropriate right now.

I read the following post by WaPo's Eugene Robinson on their forums and I thought it summed up my feelings perfectly about 90% of the "analysis" that journalists have been spouting in the wake of Sean's death:

Now that's a great article. And ditto on summing up my feelings.

Whitlock is at it again spewing irrelevant bull just because he hates a genre of music. *SMH*

If this tragedy helps to bring attention to and helps to stop the epidemic of black on black violence, then I am all for it. That would be the one positive I see in this senseless act of violence. I do not want Sean to be misrepresented or slandered, don't get me wrong. But sometimes it takes a tragedy like this to get people to act. And Whitlock, as well as the others writing this kind of piece, are (all?) themselves black men. They are best positioned to address this issue, and if they don't do it now, the shock of the event will wear off, and the nation will go back to simply ignoring as just another statistic the next black man gunned down.

And even if we learn tomorrow that Sean was murdered by a crazed white female or a jealous eskimo, it would still be ok to make this point. 12,000 murders in the US last year, and a disproportionate number of them black men on black men. I learned that statistic yesterday by reading about Sean's murder. It's a staggering statistic--3 times the number of US troops killed in the entire Iraq war so far. And we are numb to it--it goes by with basically no comment. If the Taylor Tragedy helps wake us up, then that is a good thing, IMHO.

PS I am not endorsing Whitlock's claims about the causes of this violence--that is a matter of debate, no doubt. But raising the issue at all is not out of line.

My bad. It was not 12, 000 killed last year. It was 17, 000, 10, 000 by fire arms. That's more than 4 times the number of troops in Iraq killed.

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702459.html)