Comments

1. boo wrote:

   though I am a feminist, I’m happy to see an animal rights case get so much coverage. while it’s important that cases of violence against women receive attention, it is also important that we remember that other animals are completely incapable of speaking for themselves. for an animal rights case to go this far sends the right message: abuse, no matter whom it is perpetrated against, is intolerable.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 10:44 am ¶

2. dnA wrote:

   Anyone remember Kobe getting this kind of press? Me neither.

   And he was accused of raping a white woman.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 10:54 am ¶

3. lwl wrote:

   Check out the excellent column by Jemele Hill on yesterdays ESPN Page @ site. . . http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070821

   IMHO, race is, of course, always “in play” in Atlanta (and all of the US; however, this time I would argue it is not the racial issues that gave rise to Michael Vick’s woes but the images of family pets and a man who makes millions of dollars wanting more at the expense of those far less sentient than he ought to be.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:10 am ¶

4. La - msviswan wrote:

   “First, a representative of the NAACP is asking for Michael Vick to get a second chance:”

   That statement also bothers me.

   While I’m also an animal lover, I don’t see why the NAACP has to come out to “protect” this Mr. Black man when Black women are being abused and murdered in the black communities and elsewhere. I guess the “advancement” for black women don’t count, especially if it means some “poor” black men may have to be penalized. The Dunbar Village rape comes to mind.

   Please..

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:21 am ¶

5. Wendi Muse wrote:

   actually, i do remember kobe getting press for the rape scandal….it was quite a big deal from what i recall…so i am not sure why that comparison was made…did i miss something? maybe it has to do with regional differences in story coverage…who knows

   anyway…i think that if you do something like that…like abusing animals in this case and you get caught, you have it coming. whether or not he is black is a nonissue to me because he committed a crime against innocent, helpless creatures. by making this is a race issue, it’s as if there is an attempt being made to skirt around his crime.

   i know that sounds uber-rush limbaugh of me to say, but that really bothers me. there is no excuse. and considering that we know the press is harder on POC, he should have known better…

   and seriously, doesn’t the NAACP have more important things to focus on that some sadistic football player?

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:31 am ¶

6. cw wrote:

   I don’t think the outrage would have been the same had the athlete in question would have been white.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:38 am ¶

7. LM wrote:

   My opinions:

   Yes , the level of media coverage, and more importantly its overall tone, are largely because Michael Vick is black.

   He probably was targeted by authorities in the first place in part because of his celebrity. The fact he is black didn’t help him.

   Outrage against him is justified. The facts of the case to which he pleaded guilty (or is about to?) are nasty.

   I disagree with dnA about the level of media coverage Vick’s case has gotten vs. Kobe Bryant’s four years ago. Bryant’s case was just as high-profile. Both are superstars in their sports and putting aside particulars of each case, the fact that they were threatened with jail time — and absences from the court/field — was drama enough to get outlandish amounts of coverage.

   Yes, coverage of Vick’s case, and much of the commentary on it, would lead one to believe that violence against dogs is more abhorred than violence against women.

   Some of that perception comes from the general design of the media. The unusual story sells more. We routinely read and hear about athletes doing bad things to women; not so much about athletes doing bad things to animals. (Though to be clear, Qyntel Woods and Leshon Johnson, pro athletes of much less stature than Bryant and Vick, have also been charged in dogfighting cases only in the last three-four years.)

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:48 am ¶

8. Jack D. wrote:

   First, it’s a false choice argument — we can be offended at violence on women as well as cruelty to animals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

   Second, any particular crime like this is going to be unique *in its own time frame.* Whether or not Vick is being treated differently than a murderer is a moot point because we don’t have a professional football player who’s killed someone right now to compare against. News and pop culture focus changes from time to time. A month earlier or a month later and maybe the media focus would be totally different, depending on what else was happening in the world.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:52 am ¶

9. tasha wrote:

   . . . not to mention that all of this was going on in Peta’s backyard. frankly I think all of the race baiting is a bit premature. Vick hasn’t even been sentenced yet, and his sentence will probably be minimal, due his celebrity status and this being his first offense. I think his acceptance of a plea deal can most likely be attributed to the compelling evidence gathered at the crime scene and Vick’s associates striking their own deals with the authorities, rather than race. Gee, what happened to “honor among thieves” and “Stop Snitchin’?” Vick’s boys rolled on him quick! Maybe his pals used their kennel profits to hire lawyers that were well versed in the merits of game theory and “prisoner’s dilemma.” The NAACP should concern itself with black men who really are getting short shrifted by the legal system, ones who don’t have millions at their disposal for top notch legal counsel, not a wealthy celebrity with vast resources who’s set to confess to a crime.

   Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶

10. Jennifer Colucci wrote:

    Does anyone remember the NAACP going after Don Imus? That man said 3 wrong words and lost his job!!!! Now The NAACP wants to rehabilitate him after prison so he can play football and proceed to entertain fans of football?? Ummm what is wrong with this… YOU CAN”T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!! Imus never killed anyone and I don’t see the president of the NAACP saying we should forive him and let him back on the airwaves!

    I have started a petition: Please feel free to sign and forward

    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ct8978ct/petition.html

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:18 pm ¶

11. Mimi wrote:

    I find it sorry that it comes down to “outrage” and “negative publicity”. How shallow is that? Doesn’t it make people mad that if this had happened to me or one of my neighbor’s that we’d probably be doing a lot more time than he’s looking at? Do you think the NAACP would be rooting me on?

    On top of that this is a major dog fighting ring, 66 dogs were seized on his property. This was not a case of bad judgement on one occasion, it was an enterprise.

    How does someone throw away millions of dollars like that? All this even after the publicity he received for the herpes and water bottle incidents. If you could put yourself in his shoes, would you try and tell me that it wasn’t just plain stupid, or that you wouldn’t have done things differently?

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:21 pm ¶

12. benny wrote:

    Cruelty to animals is built into the foundation of our society. What Michael Vick stands accused of is pretty mild compared to what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses every day, on a scale multiplied by millions.

    Yet it’s hard to muster up any kind of outrage about this without forcing ourselves to question our fondness for meat.

    As someone else pointed out before, the Michael Vick case is a windfall for animal rights activists because a) he’s rich and famous, and b) people love their dogs. They don’t get too many stories like this, so it’s hard to blame them for wanting to take it as far as it can go.

    Activists for minority rights, gay rights, and women’s rights figured out a long time ago that they can and should work together. Animal rights is really not so far around the corner. This kind of competition for outrage is ultimately counterproductive, I think.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶

13. atlasien wrote:

    I just wrote about this actually, and called the post “Sick of Vick”… as an Atlantan the story is inescapable.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:28 pm ¶

14. La - msviswan wrote:

    “cw wrote:
    I don’t think the outrage would have been the same had the athlete in question would have been white.”

    That’s true too, but for me I don’t like the priority PETA sometimes present. As for this case, I’m just annoyed with the NAACP, don’t they have better and more important things to do? However, I don’t know if it was a white man things would have gone smoother (well, as far as PETA is concerned). I only say this because I honestly think the PETA people do not like other humans regardless of color (humor).

    As for the Kobe case, I agree with Wendi, it was ALL over. However, notice society did not scandalize that white female or marginalize all white women as they did with the black women in the Tyson and Duke case.

    Even so, I once heard of a case where a father went after and killed a fox after the fox killed his toddler in the backyard. And guess who went after the father….

    I’m not saying what Vick did was excusable, but with animal rights people, you can’t win.
    Animals = 10
    Humans/Women = 0

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:30 pm ¶

15. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    First offenders, no matter their status or wealth, often recieve more lienient treatment by the courts. Only in the most severe violent crimes or drug cases is there an exception. Rehabilitating a first offender is not something given to Vick because he plays ball. Vick’s biggest legal problem isn’t the animal cruelty, it’s the criminal conspiracy charges as I understand it.

    While the public is rightly concerned that there isn’t enough done regarding cruelty to animals, there is a hierarchy, and this lies somewhere in between crimes against the person and crimes against property. Many people, even those who wouldn’t think of treating animals in this way, view animals as property. That said, it isn’t surprising that the Atlanta NAACP officials are pleading for consideration for Vick.

    Jack’s spot on about the false choice. I hardly think that most or even some people are more concerned about animal cruelty than violence against women. It certainly appears that way, because this being a national case, and with everyone with a dial-up connection having a way to make themselves heard, there seems to be huge din about this.

    Now, just think about what might have occurred if blogs and several 24 hour news networks and so on had been in vogue during the OJ Simpson trial. Makes my stomach churn just thinking about the massive public reaction and constant talking about it, and it was bad enough when the situation was going on!

    This is a story prime for national media sensationalism, so everyone will have a voice about it. It was that way with Simpson, too.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:48 pm ¶

16. Mark N. wrote:

    As a total sports fanatic, I’ve been following this case obsessively. I think part of fascination has to also do with how far Vick seems to have fallen. He was one of the faces marketed heavily by the league as the face of the NFL, sort of a ‘fallen hero’ story arc.
    Anyway, a lot of the issues have been covered quite well by a lot of the other posters and much better than I could do but I did wanna talk a little about whether or not he belongs back in the NFL.

    I’m completely convinced a team will take a chance on him if the NFL doesn’t ban him outright, especially if an ‘outlaw’ team like the Raiders continue to flounder and need a shot of notoriety to keep their fans interested. The NFL seems like the ultimate 2nd, even 3rd chance league, even under Commish Godell’s stricter regime. Some pundits have suggested that a team may not bring him back as a QB though, since QB’s are supposed to be the team leaders and face of a franchise.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 12:58 pm ¶

17. La - msviswan wrote:

    “Imus never killed anyone and I don’t see the president of the NAACP saying we should forgive him and let him back on the airwaves!”

    Vick didn’t kill anyone either. Also, I could care less if he does in fact go down for this. He did commit a crime towards animals. However, Imus is a racist misogynist also did his damage and therefore deserving of what he got.

    Sorry I don’t see why there’s a comparison with Imus, unless you’re making this Dogs vs. black women.

    Just speaking my mind too..

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:04 pm ¶

18. benny wrote:

    La - msviswan wrote:

    Even so, I once heard of a case where a father went after and killed a fox after the fox killed his toddler in the backyard. And guess who went after the father…

    What a clever way to frame your argument. Gosh, my guess would be… PETA? Except it wasn’t PETA, just some nutjobs in the animal rights community, and the toddler was only allegedly bitten, not killed.

    I only say this because I honestly think the PETA people do not like other humans regardless of color (humor).

    Not sure how that kind of humour fits on a website run and read by people whose concerns about race and gender could be mocked as being equally ill-tempered.

    I often think the animosity that other activists sometimes display towards animal rights activists is precisely because animal rights has so much to do with human rights, rather than the opposite. It gets too close for comfort, and forces us to confront the inner hypocrisies and contradictions of our own beliefs.

    We get angry when we hear stories about malnourished babies in Third World countries, about child soldiers and prostitutes and whatnot. Yet, the pork chop on your plate was carved from the carcass of an animal who, just moments before, was cowering in the corner of the cramped, feces-encrusted pen where it had lived its entire life, whimpering and pleading not to be killed. And we’re supposed to feel no empathy or guilt about this… why?

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:08 pm ¶

19. berrybrowne wrote:

    1) As blogger The Field Negro pointed out a while back http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2007/07/dog-days-for-mike.html
    Michael Vick could have picked a crime more likely to get him into trouble with white America. First, take the disproportionate outrage with which americans regard the salaries of professional athletes. IMO that has a lot to do with a subconscious belief that there just shouldn’t be a way that the “raw, primitive” athletic ability of african american men can allow a kid “off the street” to make millions. Add to that the rarity of a black quarterback and much talked-about beliefs that black folks just don’t have the intellectual ability to play a “thinking” position, and I think society is just thrilled that Vick has given them a reason to hate him and fire him. Second, of COURSE america cares more about dogs than - well - just about any type of oppressed people group. I think the current affluent american dog lifestyle is out of control: gourmet dog bakeries, an entire area of estate planning focused on ensuring that pets maintain their lifestyle after the death of their owners, even the relief with which pet reunion stories were greeted in the aftermath of Katrina, while human beings were still waiting on roofs. I just think it’s indicative of the growing gap between rich and poor that we can look down our noses are homeless people on the street while we fight for the right of dogs to join their owners at outdoor restaurants. don’t get me wrong, i like dogs, but i’m beginning to think that not owning one is a political statement.

    oh yeah, and vick should get another shot.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶

20. berrybrowne wrote:

    oh - and i almost forgot - i agree that this isn’t a case for the naacp to step in - necessarily. definitely the jena 6 deserve more focus. and his behavior was horribly wrong. i just think the backlash opens many additional issues for consideration…

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:35 pm ¶

21. Rachel wrote:

    Jack said, “First, it’s a false choice argument — we can be offended at violence on women as well as cruelty to animals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.”

    Yeah, but you damn well better be more ticked off about women. In fact, even the idea of talking about women as equivalent to dogs is disusting. And it speaks volumes about how we view violence against women. I have heard several comments like, “Dogs are pure and innocent and don’t deserve to be abused, but women they know better they should just get out.”

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:39 pm ¶

22. La - msviswan wrote:

    benny said:

    “Not sure how that kind of humour fits on a website run and read by people whose concerns about race and gender could be mocked as being equally ill-tempered.”

    Well perhaps I should have put in (sarcasm) instead? I was actually being generous when I said that.

    “I often think the animosity that other activists sometimes display towards animal rights activists is precisely because animal rights has so much to do with human rights, rather than the opposite. It gets too close for comfort, and forces us to confront the inner hypocrisies and contradictions of our own beliefs.”

    I’m not too sure who’s side you’re on or what you’re getting at. But, ban horse track race and horse back riding while you’re at it too, it’s only fair. Oh! Since we’re being candid… I often wonder if a lot of those same “animal” rights activist would honestly pass up the chance to own an African slave in order to generate money if history had to repeat itself “hypothetically”. Yeah I went there. Hypocrisy runs rampant indeed.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶

23. Kyle wrote:

    I agree with benny that the guilt disconnect between starving livestock and starving babies is an important factor in the response to the Vick case. Somebody in the popular media should point out the relative concern for dogs over other animals or even people as a critical factor in the response to Vick’s involvement in dogfighting.

    An unfortunate concern in this process is that the red tape for domestic abuse and the meat industry is significantly more convulated than for animal rights abuses. Worse, the discussion of what part of the red tape is necessarry for checks and balances and what is discriminatory and disabling steals an enormous amount of press time from the actual cases, and the media and public interest shifts before fair justice can be achieved in all instances.

    Also, people don’t like when you beat up on cute things. It’s probably why kitten fighting never caught on.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:46 pm ¶

24. cinechica wrote:

    Just wanted to say that I’ve read Errol Lewis’ column in the Daily News today, and the recent poplicks.com post, both regarding Vick, and they’ve both thrown a whole lotta light on the situation for me.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/col/louis/index.html
    http://poplicks.com/2007/08/message-to-those-outraged-by-michael.html

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:49 pm ¶

25. Kai wrote:

    There are a number of threads that must be disentangled here:

    1. Obviously anyone who gets busted for running a dog-fighting business needs to pay the price and do the time. That much isn’t really at issue.

    2. Dogs and cats occupy a special place in most people’s hearts and minds; and yes, many people love pets more than they love other human beings. Cruelty to animals is a constant state of affairs, in a multitude of industries from food to scientific research to hunting; imperialist war is a daily affair too, which ravages humans and even more animals caught in the war-zone; but these tend not to stir the same emotions as dog-fighting. These apparent inconsistencies, along with some questionable tactics, make many people distrust animal-rights groups.

    3. Violence against women is largely downplayed by the male-dominated media, from pop music to pro sports, which is oftentimes itself a propagator and merchant of sexism, misogyny, and victim-blaming rape culture.

    4. To my mind, Michael Vick represents a far bigger cultural milestone than Kobe Bryant because he isn’t just another black athlete; he’s a black quarterback whose success flies in the face of decades of white racist theory that black folks lack the brains and leadership skills to be great quarterbacks. Hang out in the corner of a white sports bar and you’ll still hear white folks badmouthing Vick with code language: he runs fast but his decision-making is slow; he’s strong but dumb. This makes Vick’s downfall particularly juicy for the white media-sports establishment, demonstrating the “mistake” of investing in a star black quarterback.

    5. The NAACP and many black folks sense these racist dynamics, and therefore rush to defend Vick against being singled out for disproportionately harsh punishment, especially seeing that the flaws of white stars are so often covered up and overlooked, the paths of great white hopes in sports are paved in gold, while the ascendancy of someone like Vick is against all odds. Hang out in the corner of a black sports bar and you’ll hear people theorizing that the whole scandal is a framed set-up by the white sports establishment; the mistrust runs so deep, and is unfortunately so well-founded in history, that skepticism toward the media and law enforcement at times seems near-insurmountable.

    Take all these charged threads (and a few I haven’t listed), role them up into a big knotted ball, begin applying flames to various random locations, and watch it burn, baby.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:52 pm ¶

26. Tiffany in Houston wrote:

    First of all: I want to be clear that I don’t condone what Mike Vick did and he should take his punishment like a man, do his time and then should have the opportunity for redemption like anyone else.

    HOWEVER: PETA lost all credibility with me when they compared slavery and animal cruelty. After that bullshit, their rhetoric goes in one ear and out the other. And no animal life trumps a human life in my book, (for the most part because all humans don’t have humanity).

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 1:58 pm ¶

27. Jack D. wrote:

    re Rachel’s comment, “Yeah, but you damn well better be more ticked off about women. In fact, even the idea of talking about women as equivalent to dogs is disgusting. And it speaks volumes about how we view violence against women.”:

    No one here has suggested dogs are equal to women. In fact, even though the false-choice premise is insulting for asking people to be outraged at one or the other, it does not actually imply they are equivalent options. It’s akin to forcing someone to pick between a vacation on the beach or being able to play trombone — they’re both valid options AND not exclusive to each other.

    (And try to avoid telling someone how they had damned well feel about anything.)

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:08 pm ¶

28. Winn wrote:

    Thank you Benny! Here, here! I’m sick to death of the false dichotomy presented whenever issues like this arise: either you care about humans or you care about animals! Apparently, to do both is impossible. PETA does not represent all those who advocate for animal rights, anymore than the NAACP represents the beliefs or attitudes of all African-Americans. I’ll grant that Vick’s race may play a role in the level of vitriol directed against him, but there are also regional, cultural and philosophical issues at play here that are independent of race. I also agree that in some quarters, there has been a stronger backlash against Vick than against some athletes accused of violent crimes against women. But this is hardly a universal response, nor does it dilute the impact of what Vick is accused of. I wonder what lies behind the argument that concern for animal rights and welfare somehow undermines concern for women or human rights. In my mind, they are intertwined. After all, humans use animals for food, labour, entertainment, research, medicine, companionship, education, building materials, industry, personal wealth…It seems their welfare is pretty connected to ours, and we are far more dependent on them than they on us. I won’t feel guilty about doing some advocating on behalf of those who do so much for us, but cannot advocate for themselves.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:13 pm ¶

29. atlasien wrote:

    Damn, 27 comments already!

    Here’s an interesting Vick perspective from a local Atlanta paper: interview with a veteran African-American county Animal Control officer.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶

30. makethelogobigger wrote:

    Mike Tyson raped a woman and still people paid to see him. Nobody mentioned race with him.

    Michael Jackson did what he did and yet his fans would still buy his CDs after, but nobody mentioned race with him either.

    Pete Rose, Mac and now maybe Lance hurt the integrity of their game. No race mention.

    OJ, well, nobody seems to like him. Forget race there.

    Kobe dodged a late-night bullet, no race there except one or two from what I saw.

    Yet Vick’s troubles are because he’s black? Maybe the race agenda needs to be left at the door before entering this house.

    This is about many things, but it’s as much about the fall of a celebrity as anything–almost.

    Right behind the biggest sin: he committed a felony when he himself killed or had animals killed. Ironic, how we love pets more than people, well, at least some do. Animal lovers can complain all they want, but I never heard one come out and speak up against spousal abuse when stories broke. Warren Moon. Jason Kidd, Jackson Brown, etc. The list is long and envious.

    As for Vick, I wrote about this too but from a different POV that I’m not hearing echoed. Race is an element in the story only because duh, he’s black.

    Other than that, this is about violence in sports and the culture surrounding it. These dudes are taught early on to hit harder and faster than the other guy. Don’t back down. The NFL above all else is about fighting on a one-on-one basis every play.

    Don’t think that that mindset was foreign to him.

    As for if he should get another shot in the league, it’s moot. He just will. It’s the NFL and he’s too good not to. He whips out Apology 2.0, does the talk show circuit, and all is forgiven. The NFL gives lots of people second chances involved with murders and other crimes. This guy’s too talented not to show up somewhere.

    Hate it, love it, but the league is about talent, and if you can play, let alone alter the dynamic of a game like Vick? He’ll sit for two years and some coach will take a chance.

    They always do.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:18 pm ¶

31. Lloyd Webber wrote:

    TO be honest, I got sick of everyone and their mother jumping on the hate Michael Vick bandwagon. What he did was wrong, yes. But can anyone honestly say that if it had been some hockey player there would be this level of outrage. After all, did’t Todd Bertuzzi break some guy’s neck, and didn’t Danny Heatley kill a teammate by driving drunk. They’re still playing in the NHL , and their punishments were minimal (and I’m being charitable here)

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:41 pm ¶

32. Mimi wrote:

    Kai, can you describe this “disproportionately harsh punishment”? Since he plead guilty I read that prosecutor’s recommended 12-18 months. In all I guess none of us can really say anything about his punishment because he has not been sentenced yet and the NFL has not wrapped up it’s own investigations.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 2:57 pm ¶

33. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    No, no, Vick’s troubles aren’t because he’s Black. Kai discussed the undercurrents present, unavoidable IMO, when talking about wealthy, famous, successful (on field) Black athletes. I see it in the dicussion on Bonds and I see it in Vick’s case (nor does it help that he dresses and carries himself in a way that strikes fear into the heart of some non-Black people). Guys like Bonds and Vick, not always on great terms with the media, seem to be much more vilified than other equally surly White athletes. This isn’t to say they’re always treated worse in the media; John Rocker got rocked as much as Sheffield did when they jammed a size 13 in their mouth. Still, there are people who reserve a bit of skepticism with Black athletes who don’t carefully cultivate their media persona (Jordan).

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 3:16 pm ¶

34. Kai wrote:

    Mimi, hehe, I didn’t say that Vick is in fact currently receiving disproportionately harsh punishment. Give it another shot.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 3:28 pm ¶

35. Kenda wrote:

    My problem with this whole Michael Vick situation is the lack of perspective. I know part of this has to do with the magnitude of his celebrity, but I cannot remember anyone who has received this type of across the board condemnation. There are celebrities who have committed much more serious offenses.

    What Vick did was wrong and disturbing and he deserves to be punished, but I am not going to hop on the Vick hate wagon when players accused of much worse get slaps on the wrist.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 3:46 pm ¶

36. Mimi wrote:

    Kai, aha! Threads, not you. Got it.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶

37. Danni wrote:

    Please take note that animal right activists (be they for animal welfare or the abolition of animal use for humans) come from every facet on American life. I know abolitionist type vegans of every race/gender/sexuality/class identity. So when it’s overwhelmingly unreasonable to assume somehow that animal rights activists are racist or place the wellbeing of animals above those of human beings is naive at best.

    People generally aren’t receptive to the ideas of specism, but it it alive and well. Just because we have become accustomed to using animals to make our lives simpler doesn’t mean that we somehow have a divine right to do so. The struggle for equity for all people operates under the same premise that there is a group that is unfairly asserting power over another group for their own benefit. (And of course, when that power it’s when that people become defensive.. so you might want to think about that)

    I also want to point out, at the very least, that PeTA (which I do hate, with a passion, despite being one of the most passionate animal rights activist most of my friends have ever met) didn’t come up with the analogies of animal abuse and slavery/the holocaust. I’m not sure where it came from originally, but I know that the adverts that came out comparing holocaust prisoners to factory farmed animals was supported by holocaust victims themselves. Obviously, this wasn’t the case with the slavery analogies, but in my mind it makes it less problematic and COMPLETELY ineffective because those comparisons are useful for academic/intellectual animal rights work, it doesn’t work for initial outreach/education.

    Basically though, I wanted to reiterate as mentioned above that a) PeTA is on some bullshit, and doesn’t speak for all (or even most…) animal rights activist. and b) the animal rights world IS NOT some white washed world of privilege. Want proof? Check out the Sistah Vegan Project…
    sistahveganproject.com

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 4:02 pm ¶

38. Orville wrote:

    I definitely believe there is a major racial element which blurs the story themes of this unfortunate case. Its a perfect example of how the white media have a blood thirst and their hatred for young black men knows no boundaries. On the one hand I don’t agree with the way Michael Vick treated those dogs. However, I also am cognizant of the pernicious racism of the mainstream American media when it comes to young black males. Its white American media playing the white card very well. They try to act as though this story is really about the “dogs” when it is really about their obvious disgust and hatred for young black men. The white card tries to circumvent racism and pretend that racism is not a factor here when obviously it is. We are on the internet. We are not in the editorial board meetings where these racist editors come up with these stories to go after Michel Vick. People need to be cognizant that this is SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.

    The racist editors, producers, story board editors at the mainstream American media TV, print, and newspaper media once again love these kinds of stories the “dangerous” young black men. These kinds of disgusting racist stories feed the white media and they love it with a blood thirst.

    All I got to say to all those young black guys that are famous I mean really watch out. The minute they do something that is wrong or questionable the white mainstream media comes after them with a fury. Its hypocritical, its racist, and its deleterious. And then the white media go and say blacks are playing the race card. Well as far as I am concerned they are playing the white card. I know this sounds harsh, I don’t own dogs and I will own a dog because I don’t care for them. The white media are acting as though Michael Vick killed a human being when the guy harmed some dogs.

    I know for sure if Michael Vick was a young white male the media coverage in the United States would be different. In a way I do have empathy for him because I absolutely do not agree with the racist treatment he is receiving. I am glad the NAACP stood up for him. The racists in the USA media always have a field day when someone young, black, and male, does something wrong. If Michael Vick was white I bet this story would of been over by now.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 4:07 pm ¶

39. Orville wrote:

    Everone should read Canadian black feminist Dionne Brand’s two non fiction books “Bread Out of Stone” and “A Map to the door of no return”. Although I am not American in my country the Canadian media is known for its racist prejudices against young black men. Brand’s work points out the news is framed its put together. And consistently public enemy number one is indeed young black men.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 4:11 pm ¶

40. Orville wrote:

    PETA is a racist organization that has no veracity or credibility at all.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 4:21 pm ¶

41. Orville wrote:

    I am not American and I can say race is indeed a factor in the Michael Vick case. Anyone that doesn’t think race isn’t a factor really needs to pay attention to the American media a bit more. Perhaps, these people live in a fantasy world where they think the racist editors at the USA newspapers are looking “beyond” race. Well in the real world race always matters. And in this case race is a major factor in the overwhelming negativity against this young black man. If Vick was a white guy that white American media would be over this by now.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶

42. La - msviswan wrote:

    Danni said:

    “Please take note that animal right activists (be they for animal welfare or the abolition of animal use for humans) come from every facet on American life. I know abolitionist type vegans of every race/gender/sexuality/class identity. “

    It’s a statistical fact that caucasian people make up the very vast majority of the animal rights pie. Black people come in at one of the lowest numbers. It’s not that black people don’t love pets or animals, black people have always had to reserve their energy for the unjust issues that concern black people. To use the 2% blacks among the animal rights and the extremists groups as leverage to dismiss the racism within, is notwithstanding.

    “So when it’s overwhelmingly unreasonable to assume somehow that animal rights activists are racist or place the wellbeing of animals above those of human beings is naive at best. “

    There are white people that still don’t view non-white people as humans or even equal to - yes 2008. Some of them will tell you they rather critters. Also, I live in a small black populated community in a Caribbean US territory. I had a white female coworker who was visibly distraught all day because she saw a dead dog on the side of the road while she drove to work that morning. This same woman who only give a faint sorrowful sigh, four years earlier when she heard about a four yr old black child who died after being flung from a car after sneaking out his bed 3 am, unto the highway. Trust me, I have more stories under my belt and I’m sure many non-white people have them too.

    . “The struggle for equity for all people operates under the same premise that there is a group that is unfairly asserting power over another group for their own benefit.”

    I’m keeping in mind we are still comparing humans to animals.

    I agree with Kai’s assessment. I just want to say, when I first joined this discussion, I was more annoyed with dog vs. women rights. I was also annoyed because I felt there was no need for the NAACP to step in, which of course over shadows the concerns for black women, which I feel need needs more attention from them at the moment. However, reading so many of the comments above, I can now see why the NAACP felt compelled to step in on this issue. Shame.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

43. tasha wrote:

    I’m about to ramble, so I’m warning everyone in advance. Kai, others . . . I keep hearing suggestions that the Vick scenario received more scrutiny than the Bryant case, but what proof is there of this? Why do you believe that that the furvor over Vick is more intense than the Bryant rape charge controversey? I don’t like the idea of using race agendas to try to ellicit sympathy for what’s happening to Vick. This isn’t about a black man being accused of rape by a white woman. No, this is far dumber. This is about a rich athlete who had wealth and fame and yet willingly financed something felonius. Then one of his boys got arrested on a drug charge (weed, i think), leading the “man” to his house, where the fuzz didn’t have to even look hard to find evidence to get an indictment. Then, these stoic men who thought nothing of torturing dogs, who were supposed to be so “hardcore”, turned state’s evidence on their benefactor, faster than the time it takes Vick to run the ball into endzone. Then, after po-po had their ducks and stoolies in a row, Vick copped a plea. And I’m supposed to feel sorry for him, why? Instead of asking why it seems as if Vick’s career might be ruined over housepets, Ask yourself why would Vick choose to jeopardize his career over housepets? I mean, you really can’t make this stuff up. Animal tortue aside, if you close your eyes, the Vick scenario could be an episode or Arliss. And Michael Vick is not more culturally relevant than Kobe Bryant. Kobe’s jersey outsells Vick’s. Kobe’s Q rating is higher. Michael Vick is not the first, or only, or even the best black QB in the NFL. Vick’s salary and popularity have more to do with the dimension he brings to QB, not the fact that he’s a black man playing QB. If Vick were a white hockey player, his woes wouldn’t be so highly publicized, but then again, white hockey players don’t make what Vick makes in playing salary and endorsements, because in America the NFL has a a higher profile than the NHL.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

44. Winn wrote:

    La-msviswan wrote:

    It’s a statistical fact that caucasian people make up the very vast majority of the animal rights pie. Black people come in at one of the lowest numbers.

    I’m interested in knowing where you obtained these amorphous “statistics” that are neither specified nor cited. I understand that you have a great deal of contempt for the animal rights movement; your comments have made that very clear. But to make sweeping generalizations without support is disingenous and disrespectful, especially to those of us who are of color, female, and animal rights activists. There are some legitimate issues for discussion here, but denigrating an entire movement, and particularly dismissing the views and impact of that movement’s members who are of color, is unfair and once again sets up a false dichotomy: you either care about oppressed folks of color or you sympathize with whitey and their concerns. One of the things that draws me again and again to Racialicious is the welcoming community created for a diversity of people, both of color and not, with disparate political and social views but a level of respect. If I embrace an ideology or lifestyle that differs from yours, I shouldn’t have to prove my racial bona fides to engage in respectful dialogue. I can disagree with someone without cavalierly dismissing their beliefs and certainly without implying that they are siding with the dominant group over the concerns of women of color (or whatever group I decide they should be most concerned about).

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 6:20 pm ¶

45. Metropolis wrote:

    I find this dismissal of the anger and outrage over the behavior of Michael Vick to be as disturbing as Mr. Vick’s behavior.

    Ultimately, the rush to embrace, excuse, and tolerate violent, destructive, and inhumane behavior, the total abandonment of standards of right and wrong(”except “snitching” of all things), and the dismissal of ethical and moral behaviors which affirm life and build peaceful productive communities is destroying black lives and which will ultimately contribute to our total annihilation if left unconfronted.

    Most of these arguments (”Why are they so angry about a dog and not a woman” “It’s only cause he’s black.” “No body was angry about Kobe”) are merely suppositions — NOT FACTS. Their purpose is to turn your attention away from taking a real hard look at what is reprehensible, vile behavior from a very prominent member of the black community.

    It is truly time to grow up. What kind of community, what kind of neighborhood, family, nation do you want to live in? What kind of people do you want to live next door to? What type of children are you trying to raise? Those who will hang, electrocute dogs, strangle and bash the heads of dogs against the ground? There were 66 dogs confiscated and 33 corpses found on the premises.

    What are you trying to defend? Why? Isn’t it time we begin to defend moral excellence, wisdom, nobility of character, virtue, instead of the most base, sociopathic behavior because it comes with a million dollar salary?

    Maybe the outrage is that my people are killing one another with impunity and justifying it in a million ways, and don’t even seem to see the connection. I don’t want to to be forced to condone or excuse his behavior when I hear the news every day of some further atrocity being commited down the street by my own people.

    I want better. I want a people who understand that life is precious — their lives and the lives of others. I want a people who cling to ideals and believe, hope and strive for excellence, not just some nihilistic insanity that I can do whatever I want and damn the rest of you.

    No man is an island. We live in community. And what you defend and justify today has implications for your tomorrow.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 6:45 pm ¶

46. hoo_boy wrote:

    Two small but key clarifications:

    (1) It’s the *Atlanta chapter* of the NAACP supporting Vick. National hasn’t issued a word on this, and doesn’t control chapters.

    (2) The *feds* busted Vick, not rural local law enforcement in VA, raising all manner of issues about who else knew exactly (and participated in) the activities at said dogpen.

    Separate note: for truly howl inducing comments, someone please post this morning’s “Today” show clip with PETA rep and Atlanta NAACP guy? Heard it in the background, but near the end, you’ll hear PETA- woman utter a “no difference if […] green, purple…” You won’t be disappointed, I promise.

    I’m feeling for the innocent dogs soon to lose their lives because of this nonsense. Reduced to collateral, the “Vick 53″ could’ve been someone’s pets (maybe they still can again?)

    And someone smack Marbury for comparing this to “deer hunting”?

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 7:11 pm ¶

47. La - msviswan wrote:

    Winn siad:

    ” But to make sweeping generalizations without support is disingenous and disrespectful, especially to those of us who are of color, female, and animal rights activists. “

    Then you just simply make up that very minute percentile I mentioned before. I don’t see your argument. You could always prove me wrong, since you disagree that caucasian people happen to make up the very vast majority of the animal rights activist groups.

    I’m also curious, as a female (despite your race), where do you stand with the original topic issue? Animal rights vs. Women rights etc. BTW I’m trying my best not to overwhelm this topic with my comments but I couldn’t help myself just now..

    Peace to you

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 8:54 pm ¶

48. Luke wrote:

    I don’t think the outrage is at all justified and the sort of hyperbole i’ve seen people use in describing Michael Vick just goes to show where American priorities are. When people train and fight other dogs, I think people forget that it hurts, you know, the dogs. People can talk all they want about studies on how kids who abuse animals grow up to be abusers but we’re talking about the here and now. There are men who have abused their wives (read: people, human beings), girlfriends, ex-girlfriends and yet they still have high-paying jobs and receive no sort of penalty from their employers or from their professional leagues.

    As far as I know, Michael Vick didn’t beat his girlfriend, his ex-girlfriend, his ladyfriend or some woman that he knows. Meanwhile, Julio Lugo, Jason Kidd, Dmiti Young, Sam Brandon, Jason Richardon, Barry Bonds, Ron Artest, Santonio Holmes and Elijah Dukes all did and they all are currently employed for millions of dollars. I don’t see their jerseys being taken off store shelves or their baseball/basketball/football cards being pulled.

    However, I don’t know if i’d go so far as to say that dog-fighting is a “sport”, but I don’t disagree with him when he suggests that it’s interesting how we can decry dogfighting yet be completely OK with murdering other animals with 12-gauge shotguns with your 10 year old son and call it a “father-son bonding experience.”

    Does it matter that some people are trying to come to Vick’s defense by calling dog-fighting “cultural”? Yes, because once again we have people trying to wipe away stupid things other people have done by saying that it’s just something that racial community A does and racial community B will never understand even though we’re really not supposed to say that it’s “racial” when we say “cultural.” And even more, some would say that had this been a white athlete, the criticism wouldn’t be so harsh. Is it true? Probably. It’s easy for folks to say that if Tom Brady suddenly was found out to have run “Crazy Kennelz” or something, people would be up in arms just as quickly, but there isn’t the same sort of cultural imagery and stereotype of white men, masculinity and dogs (particularly “fighting dogs”) so it’d be irresponsible to say that he’d be treated the same way. When people assume that dog-fighting is a “black thing” and the main fall guy, the “big fish” is a black guy, everything goes on him. If it were a Tom Brady, someone who people wouldn’t take to be the picture of dog-fighting, it’d be an investigation into who else was into the dog-fighting itself. I think for Michael Vick, his race plays a factor in that he inevitably becomes the representative for dog-fighting as being something culturally part of the black community.

    I think what’s been most jaw-dropping to see is the sheer outcry from the public and the hatred being spewed at Vick. You’d think that the man had just been linked to Bin Laden, not a dog-fighting ring. What speaks volumes is when people who are so vocal during something like this Vick saga have nothing to say during the dozens and dozens of domestic violence charges brought upon professional athletes or, as Junichi of Poplicks points out, when news of torture in Abu Ghraib was released.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 9:27 pm ¶

49. hoo_boy wrote:

    Jamie Foxx helps out from his Sirius show (The Foxxhole):

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20414907/

    Foxx: “I know that cruelty to animals is bad, but sometimes people shoot people and kill people and dont get time… I think in this situation, he really didnt know the extent of it, so I always give him the benefit of the doubt.”

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 9:35 pm ¶

50. Michelle wrote:

    #45, right on!

    I think your post begs the question of some of the other larger issues in this case. I am glad that someone said it.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:37 pm ¶

51. Winn wrote:

    La-msviswan said:

    “I’m also curious, as a female (despite your race), where do you stand with the original topic issue? Animal rights vs. Women rights etc. ”

    I thought I’d made myself clear on that issue. I consider it a false dichotomy: I don’t accept that you must choose one and disavow the other. I’ve been active in both women’s rights, specifically that of disenfranchised women of color, for many years, and animal rights almost as long. I am hardly alone; I draw my inspiration from the work of numerous ecofeminists like Vandana Shiva, Karen J. Warren, Val Plumwood and others, whose work examines the intersection between sexism, racism, colonialism, speciesism, and the general domination of nature. I refute most isms, including specieism.

    Also, by ascribing me to a “very minute percentile” without specifics to back up that assertion, you expect me to accept your supposition that I am marginalized within the animal rights movement without any foundation other than your personal observation. My point wasn’t to get into a pissing contest over statistics, but to suggest that generalizations are not particularly instructive or helpful, and often serve to silence the voices of those with whom we disagree.

    Peace to you as well.

    Posted 23 Aug 2007 at 11:47 pm ¶

52. benny wrote:

    La - msviswan wrote:

    I had a white female coworker who was visibly distraught all day because she saw a dead dog on the side of the road while she drove to work that morning. This same woman who only give a faint sorrowful sigh, four years earlier when she heard about a four yr old black child who died after being flung from a car…”

    You’re giving your coworker grief for the discrepancy between her two reactions, even though she only heard about the dead baby as a secondhand account, while she saw the dead dog with her own eyes. I don’t know this woman, but objectively that’s a rather terrible example to use to convey your point.

    Here’s a thought experiment: would you support building an animal shelter if it saved the lives of 100 dogs a year, or would you support building a special education school in that location instead, which taught 100 children with autism? What if it were 200 dogs versus 50 autistic children? 1000 dogs versus 10 kids?

    Past some tipping point, people would choose to support the animal shelter, and we have to concede that choosing animals over humans in that particular scenario is the most rational, intelligent position that any person would take.

    This is why it’s counterproductive to force people to choose between animal rights vs. human rights. Instead, we can point out that feeling compassion towards one is no different from feeling compassion towards the other. It doesn’t have to be a competition.

    And if you’re still not convinced, I could point out how the consumption of meat is related to health problems that overwhelmingly affect minorities, environmental issues that affect mostly nonwhite Third World countries, etc. It will take some time for me to gather up the sources, so I’ll do it only if you’re genuinely interested.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 2:06 am ¶

53. Jess wrote:

    While I understand where Jessica Valenti and others who have raised similar questions are coming from, I can’t help but think it’s a tiny bit misguided.

    It seems to imply there *shouldn’t* be the outrage there is about a case of animal cruelty. But there should. It is outrageous.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 3:03 am ¶

54. AssamTea wrote:

    I don’t understand why some are assuming that animal rights activists are responsible for the media attention Vick has received. Animal rights activists only make up a small percentage of the American public and they are always voicing their outrage over animal abuse cases. If these activists actually had the power and influence that some of you believe they have, we would be hearing about all sorts of animal cruelty cases all the time.

    The question we should be asking is, why is the general American public (not the animals rights activists) so interested in Vick? Is it because he is black?

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 3:41 am ¶

55. Kyle wrote:

    La - msviswan,

    this has been brought up before, but creating animal rights vs. women rights is a false dichotomy. It supposes that they somehow constantly occupy and vie for the same public space. It would seem this only happens when people suggest that this is naturally the case. I don’t see why choosing either/or or creating anything but a hypothetical nexus is necessary.

    I am interested in exploring the differing media and public attention to animal rights abuse over domestic violence. How heavily is it affected by race power? Are we simply more used to domestic violence being a constant force in our communities? Do we have media and cultural fatigue over it?

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 6:12 am ¶

56. La - msviswan wrote:

    I will try to make this the last I post on this topic. It seems it’s gone another direction and we are not going to see eye to eye or fur to skin. Why bother.

    Winn, you don’t need to get defensive about this, I might almost think you’re feeling some kind of guilt. Now, you do realize animal rights activist go beyond America? Europe, Asia etc… even the animal rights protection in Africa are not predominantly black populated. It’s a world wide statistical fact. It’s ok. One day when the many black Africans are able to rid corruption, misogynic violence, growing AIDS epidemic, feed their young and the black Americans are able to demolish black on black crimes, poor health/education, misogyny etc. …perhaps then more blacks will pitch in for the well deserving animals (considering we still love them too). Until then, you continue to do the wonderful job you do.

    benny, I will consider everyone takes things differently. However, I’ve seen couple dead animals along the road in my life and I felt bad (I own 2 yorkies and 1 cat). But, as a mother hearing about this child and about another mother’s grief - there is no comparison in my book. Especially in such a small community. Sorry for my poor excuse.

    As for your pet shelter vs. autism school theory, would they be placing the either in the poor minority inner cities or the suburbs?

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 8:35 am ¶

57. byrdparker wrote:

    Micheal Vick ’s crime compared to black women ? patriarchy versus feminsim. I don’t see that these topics are relavant in this post .

    There are rules and their are laws that are written , and then their are rules and laws of the street .. Obviously Micheal Vick violated both , otherwise why would some one rat him out only him , when so many others are involved ?

    There are much worse scenarios going on at puppy mills , but they are still in existance !
    I own four dogs , so I am partial .. Vick needs to lose his career , and the government needs to confiscate his money , and give the money to the education system! Also all the politicians , city officials , and or community movers and shakers involved should also get the same penalty as Vick will.
    The question is will Vick snitch on these people?

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 10:23 am ¶

58. tamaso wrote:

    i was interested to note that shortly after the investigation of vick was originally announced, he cut the long braids which he had been wearing. previously declaring that he wouldn’t cut his hair until the falcons won the title, this seems like an obvious image move. whether this was his own decision, or something he was advised to do by his lawyer/publicist is hard to say.

    just wondering if other people picked up on this. interesting, i think, given the negative associations in many peoples minds of braids/cornrows with the thug/gangsta image (see david stern’s dress code vs. a.i. etc.).

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 11:47 am ¶

59. Winn wrote:

    Wow, La-misvswan, I hardly know where to begin!

    You accuse me of feeling guilty with no foundation I can imagine other than your own projections. You, once again, claim something is a statistical fact without one piece of supporting evidence, and suggest that my scope is narrowed to America, ignoring or just being unaware of the fact that the women whose work I cited are all non-American. You imply by conflation that I and others like me ignore systemic and wide-ranging social ills like epidemic disease, poverty, hunger, political corruption, crime, and oh, why don’t we throw in everything from terrorism to city potholes, while instead worrying excessively about Fido and Morris. Your whole post screams contempt and derision, but I’ll just have to let that go and instead keep on “doing the wonderful job that I do” (Thanks, I got the sarcasm. Not subtle, but I suppose it served your purpose).

    I tried to be respectful and courteous, but apparently that was futile. Let’s just agree to disagree, both about our views and about just who is really feeling defensive here.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶

60. dnA wrote:

    The difference between Kobe coverage and Michael Vick coverage:

    I didn’t see anyone arguing the dogs brought it on themselves.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 12:22 pm ¶

61. S wrote:

    O.K., folks here it is:

    Tupac is Dead, O.J.’s guilty, R. Kelly is as much of a pedaphile as Micheal Jackson, and, yes, Vick’s case is high profile cause he’s black AND famous (though he DID break the law and placed himself at the mercy of a justice system he KNEW was biased and always has been). Anyone hear about the rape case againt Payton Manning? If it were just about stardom, then that case would have been just as big as Kobe’s; maybe shorter because it was settled, but widely covered nonetheless. Although it is racist for THE MEDIA to cover these cases more than they do the white athletes, I think these types of discussions should also cover the behavior of many black athletes in the NFL and NBA.

    Let’s exlcude the non-blacks and ask why we have so many black athletes who act like they have no home training, no sense, no respect, etc. You can say “The media makes it look like…” all you want, but the media didn’t fix up those dog fights, didn’t send that chick to Kobe’s room, did not put those kids in Michael’s bed, did not aim R Kelly’s wee-wee at that little teenaged girl, did not NBA players to punch a fan in the stands, did pay a rapper to throw a teenaged boy in to a group of spectators or to violently mock sex acts on a teenaged girl at a concert, did not convince an NBA player to have his pregnant baby-mama killed, did not force T.O./Iverson/Sprewell/Keyshawn/Mike Tyson/Randy Moss/and countless others to act like childish @sses. The NAACP is quick to defend black men whether they are right or wrong. Where are the organizations that will challenge them to act like they have some decency and respect? People can’t hide behind racism forever. Someday, everyone will need to take repsonsibility for themselves. What do I mean? Well, in my city, the local NAACP leaders came to the defense of a black teen who was sentenced quite a few years for robbery. The teen said it was because he was black and that racism was involved. Uh, Noooooooo, actually it was because your dumb tail was caught on surveilence and you got the sentence that every robber has gotten in the last 5 years! Masking the guilt - hiding behind racism. That’s what I mean.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 1:12 pm ¶

62. Orville wrote:

    Why don’t you ask the question why does the media focus on the wrongdoings of young black men?

    Again, no one is speaking about the social constructions of race and gender. There is too much of an imbalance. The editors, reporters, story editors, managing editors, have their own racist anti black prejudices. And this Michael Vick case is a perfect example of that. When I see a balance of race specific articles about the crimes of young white male athletes then you can say race isn’t a factor anymore. But race will always be a factor because that’s how the world works.

    Do you ever question why these articles and news stories become race specific or have a subversive element of racism? Do you think young white men are perfect? The way the American news media acts like as though all young white male athletes are saints. I mean I live in Canada and the disgusting things some of those NHL players do just doesn’t make the news. Vick did wrong and he’s going to pay the price. Yet the American media specifically has a fixation with the “dangerous young black male” stereotype. They love to demonize young black men.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 3:15 pm ¶

63. Mimi wrote:

    British BBC weighs in.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6960788.stm

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 4:55 pm ¶

64. Michelle wrote:

    It seems silly to me that on a website such as this we are actually asking the question “Is race an issue?” I would assume that we are all in agreement that racism, whether it is subconcious, subliminal, deeply ingrained, unconcious, deeply buried, systemic or institutional, is a fact of life in America. If you are a person of color, it affects you and almost everything that you do, whether you know it or not. I would assume that we could get that out of the way to get to the more nuanced points of the case. And many of us are, but…..

    Michael Vick is a black quarterback in the NFL. The undercurrent of racism against black quarterbacks is loud and clear. Not just against him, against all Black quarterbacks. Can anybody say that race plays NO PART AT ALL in anybody’s minds who are discussing, following and reporting on this case? Who was the poster who talked about the sportsbars across the country….that right there is the court of public opinion, which has a bearing on this case.

    That said….he has committed a crime. Let’s not obscure the coverage of the crime with the fact that he is guilty of at least something illegal. I don’t think anybody here is really saying that this is getting the coverage it is getting ONLY because he is Black, but I hear people saying that is a part of the dynamics of this circumstance.

    S…I was too afraid to say what you posted. Thanks for saying it for me. There was a time when Black people in the public eye carried themselves with a certain dignity. They had home-training, as someone else pointed out. I don’t expect everyone to be Jackie Robinson, but Michael Vick is a product of his environment….his environment being the Bad News Housing Projects. When where you live is called, colloquially “Bad News”, what impact does that have on the people who live there and the children who are raised there? Michael Vick is an example of the serious problem we have in the Black community where basic “home training” skills are just no longer taught.

    That’s the problem. Possible solution? Have some animal rights activists go into these communities and organize activities for the children where they take the children to volunteer at local animal shelters. Or maybe you take them to the zoo. Or maybe to the natural history museum. Or maybe to a farm. And maybe animal rights activists or organizations can set up college scholarships for children who show a love and respect for animals.

    If we want a world where respect for all life is taught, we are going to have to do it ourselves. We can’t expect all the 16 year old teenaged mothers and/or the 32 year old grandmothers, to be able to pass along those vital tools to their children and grandchildren.

    Michael Vick can either choose to allow this to destroy him, or he can summon the courage to change and to be a better man. Whether or not he ever plays football again.

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 5:52 pm ¶

65. imdeep wrote:

    Just to underscore the media bias point (while lightening up the mood for a sec), consider this from the (non-athletic) celeb bad behavior universe. How much play did these people get by comparison this week?

    Messed up old white guy
    http://tinyurl.com/3awute

    Messed up younger black chick
    http://tinyurl.com/2wx6rj

    Messed up young multiracial chick:
    http://tinyurl.com/3behav

    Messed up young white chick
    http://tinyurl.com/2mghtx

    Ok Ok Now the serious stuff. There is some connections between beating animals and people, I got enough love in my heart and soul for both, no choice. In the eyes of the law, there’s connection too. Great piece worth the read:

    “The Admissibility of Evidence of Animal Abuse in Criminal Trials for Child and Domestic Abuse.” 63 Boston College Law Review 463 (March 2002).

    http://tinyurl.com/2u4zt

    Great article includes some of the best citations of studies underscoring how the former leads to a cycle of the other two…

    Posted 24 Aug 2007 at 8:39 pm ¶

66. Anonymous wrote:

    all i think about this is.

    so many have killed humans & children like Yates, OJ (allegedly), Chris Benoitt, ppl have raped, ppl eat animals etc.

    but yet Vick has gotten less sympathy than other for killing dog.

    Anyways he was wrong for breaking the law. etc. But why so much press???

    Posted 25 Aug 2007 at 2:13 am ¶

67. Mike wrote:

    I don’t condone dogfighting I it is cruel, like dog racing, horse racing, ect, ect. And I know what the law says if you get caught. But jail time?! For dead dogs? Make the man pay the fine, probation for life hell force him to work for PETA but jail time is absurd. Igf you listen to the organizatios out there commenting on Vick how can this not be racial. They don’t want just jail him they want to punish him for life. Of all the criminal activities related to animals this one gets high profile because he is aa athelete and is black. Contrary to most blk people on this blog, out in the real world Dog fighting is not on top of the list of worries of black people and groups like PETA know it. The only thing this proves is that there are some people who value the life of a dog more than a blk man. Vick is guilty of being an idiot, who needs a good beating to dispel the spoiled jock attitude he has, ironically enough, that was instilled in him from the media, college coaches, and pros, (see white), the moment he could throw and run with the ball. There all two faced, bet on dog racing but not dogfighting, cruel to dogs but not chickens cows and what ever else you can get out of the meat market. the only reason this is illegal is because the gov cant find away to turn a dollar out of it without embaressment like Spain, Mexico and Portugal with there bull fighting. This country has too many reasons to lock up people up I don’t see why there should be another one. I hope the man never see the inside of a jail cell. By the way the way they treat, train and house these are awfully similar to how we treat prisoners.

    Posted 25 Aug 2007 at 4:33 pm ¶

68. Michelle wrote:

    Hey Carmen…
    It occured to me today that perhaps an article about Venus and Serena Williams would be a good way to add more “sports” coverage to the news here.

    More specifically, what are their endorsments versus the Russian women who are in the field right now? Also, you could talk about many of the comments and insinuations where their looks and atheletic prowess are concerned.

    Just a thought…in lieu of the discussions of beauty I thought it might be apropos…..

    It is interesting, because the media has really worked hard to “catch” the Williams sisters doing something “wrong”. Are they really “injured”? Is their father too controlling? They can’t play anymore. I feel that they have had to really fight for respect in their field. I bring this up because there seems to be a certain joy in the fact that Michael Vick has been “caught” in the act. Someone recently pointed out how it seems that people are taking a certain perverse pleasure in seeing Vick go down. Does anybody else see that?

    Posted 26 Aug 2007 at 9:05 pm ¶

69. bdsista wrote:

    Having gone to Tuskegee’s Vet school and owned several animals and yes I am a Black woman, I think the comparison is apples and oranges. As a pet owner in a metropolitan area, I can’t leave my dogs out because someone could steal them as victims in dogfights. Yes the luxury pet thing is wayy out of control, but pets keep the elderly alive and teach children responsibility and how to love and care for others. I agree with Metropolitan, do we want this behavior in our community? It it had been a white athlete, it might have gotten as much press since it would be associated with “Black Thug” behavior. Isn’t that what has helped Eminem make his millions? But, young people emulate the behavior of athletes and musicians more so than the Dr. Ben Carson’s and Oprah’s of this world. Do we want our kids emulating that kind of behavior because it’s part of the lifestyle? I don’t think so and the misogyny is also a part of the lifestyle. Vick had 33 dead dogs and 60+ which may also have to be euthanized if they cannot be rehabilitated. He is a public figure and should know better. You know his momma didn’t raise him to be like that!

    Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 10:00 am ¶

70. Tish Jackson wrote:

    I have to agree with S and Orville. Yes, Vick sucks for what he did, that was some ignorance in the extreme. We all know the government and society at large is gunning for every minority out there seen as usurping white positions. However, the truth is folks ARE happy to see him fall, and the punishments they are advocating–more than one year jail time, additional state charges, permanent exile from the NFL–are freaking ridiculous.

    I may be wrong, but I just feel that if such punishments can’t be applied evenly to everyone, then don’t apply them at all.
    I didn’t see Phil Jackson or David Stern kicking Kobe off the Lakers. As a matter of fact, those fools gave Kobe the private jet to fly to Colorado to attend his rape trial, then come back to LA to play in that night’s Laker game. Which, by the way, I thought was a freaking outrage back then. Not that he raped her (who knows?), but that he had sex with chick miscellaneous WITH NO CONDOM. If I was Vanessa, that Negro wouldn’t be touching me until after a year of massive STD tests. If even then. Nasty punk.

    Anyway, back on topic: the crucifixion of Michael Vick is definitely race related. It also give the Falcons an opportunity to get the white QB they always wanted. Sure, take his money back, suspend him for a year or two, etc. Even give him some jail time. I mean, isn’t that what they did for Ray & Jamal Lewis??????? Yes. And now they are both back in the NFl, playing ball, making their money. However, check this—neither of them are QB either.

    Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶

71. Tish Jackson wrote:

    Just FYI: I am a Black woman and I LOVE animals. Have had them since birth, lived on a farm, worked at shelters, etc etc. But the facts are that a lot of folk love animals like they are human AND THEY ARE NOT. I’m talking honest perspective here. Vick will get his for what he did. The man is reprehensible, and even if Ron Mexico wasn’t passing around herpes, I wouldn’t speak to him in the street. HOWEVER! They were dogs people. Not humans. Priorities???

    Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 3:48 pm ¶

72. Anonymous wrote:

    Tish: I agree to an extent, in that a human life is valued more than an animal’s. That will be evident in the justice penalties.

    HOWEVER… right or wrong, societies are often judged by how they treat the most vulnerable members - be they minors/ disenfranchised/ disabled humans, or animals under human care.

    The media and the public may be more enraged about the animal abuse, but the crux of the case is about supplying money for an illegal gambling operation (which is why it’s federal, really). Sadly, most animal abuse cases are misdemeanors and get no press.

    You think we as a society would care more, seeing as there is a human pathology attached to animal abuse (it’s a warning sign for lack of empathy, at the very least, and it’s often gateway behavior for sociopaths and serial killers).

    Posted 28 Aug 2007 at 7:24 pm ¶

73. Mimi wrote:

    Did anyone actually read imdeep’s post link at http://tinyurl.com/2u4zt? There is a correlation between animal and domestic abuse. The psych profile at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6960788.stm, refers to power and control. I find the argument of lesser of two evils pointless in this case. A person that would watch two living creatures tear each other apart would more than likely feel no remorse for laying his hands on a woman or child. I also hear about Abu Ghraib and the war. If we can dismiss lesser crimes on this imaginary hierarchy, we might as well just let the woman beaters go and only get upset when someone is murdered.

    Posted 29 Aug 2007 at 1:12 pm ¶

74. S wrote:

    “Why don’t you ask the question why does the media focus on the wrongdoings of young black men?”

    @ Orville: I do question it. And I do understand where you are coming from (except for the seemingly silly question about me thinking white men are perfect, of which I never implied). I’d have more to work with if there weren’t so many ACTUALL cases to focus on. Like someone mentioned above, the media is always waiting to “catch” the Williams sisters doing something wrong - even went so far as to comment on Serena’s “large ego” (confidence) while ignoring Sharpova’s. The media has to make something out of nothing to “focus on the wrongdoings” of the Williams sisters. They don’t have to do that for other black athletes. All they have to do is sit back and wait. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be addressed; but I AM saying that people can’t hide behind the media’s bias forever. Even if NO ONE covered these cases, these athletes and entertainers still need to act like they have some dog-on sense!

    We can’t just keep sayin “well, they focus on us too much”. There needs to be a point in time where we say “Straighten up, black people!” regardless of media coverage. I don’t want my boys thinking this “Disrespectful, Thug-life, I-Do-What-I-Want-To-Do” image is cool, neither do I want them to blame racism for why they are being outed.

    Vick KNEW the media was biased BEFORE he broke the law. B-E-F-O-R-E. Yes, this injustice should be changed, but right now, it is what it is, and you know what you are getting into when you are a celebrity breaking the law…and a black one at that.

    See the diffence: Williams sisters: lawful.
    Vick: unlawful.
    I’d be quicker to judge media bias on behalf of the law abiding citizens than I would a criminal. Most people (black or white) would.

    Posted 30 Aug 2007 at 5:51 pm ¶

75. Luscious Librarian wrote:

    Ray Carruth was a football player with the Carolina Panthers who shot and killed his ‘baby momma’ and seriously injured the unborn child. He didn’t get half the coverage Vick is getting. I think it’s very indicative of the state of mind of the nation. Women really are lower than dogs in a lot of people’s minds.

    Posted 31 Aug 2007 at 8:41 pm ¶

76. allheavens wrote:

    Metropolis wrote:

    “Ultimately, the rush to embrace, excuse, and tolerate violent, destructive, and inhumane behavior, the total abandonment of standards of right and wrong (”except “snitching” of all things), and the dismissal of ethical and moral behaviors which affirm life and build peaceful productive communities is destroying black lives and which will ultimately contribute to our total annihilation if left unconfronted.”

    Metropolis, I am not as eloquent as you but let me state my case.

    At the beginning I felt Vick should be punished to the full extent of the law. What he did was cruel; it violated the laws of man and God. It betrayed his moral obligation as a humane being.

    But some of the vitriol directed at Vick by these “right thinking” people fills me with just as much disgust as his actions.

    Because of it I cannot help but think that Vick is guilty in the eyes of many of “three” crimes, first: abusing animals, secondly: being rich and thirdly: being a successful Black male in America.

    Yes, why don’t we just call the whole debacle “Unforgivable Blackness” wouldn’t that be fitting?

    Posted 02 Sep 2007 at 11:53 pm ¶

77. Michelle wrote:

    S….

    You are right, Vick knew what the world was like for Black men and he could not have thought he would be beyond the law. He knew that….he THOUGHT he wouldn’t get CAUGHT because his boys would have his back, or he was too slick/smart/fly/fast/tight with his game to get caught.

    But, he has found Jesus so I guess some good has come out of all those little doggies lives.

    FYI, I just was at work (I work outdoors sometimes) and the secruity guard basically found a pitbull in the neighborhood where we were working (a lower/working class neighborhood with a hugd ethnic mix of people)…it had seemingly run away from home and was looking for something safer and better. The dog had obviously been beaten and terribly abused. It was afraid of men mostly, but skittish in general. The dog, within a few hours, was waging it’s tail, looking up and not down and not flinching or cowering when it was approached. The last image I had of that animal was it laying at the feet of the secruity guard (who had fallen in love at first sight, by the way) happily panting away, with it’s paw draped lovingly and protectively over the secruity guard’s foot. It broke my heart.

    I think it is interesting however, that the media, in general, did not have a problem with the cruel and obviously dangerous practice of hunting. Our vice-president could have killed a person in his quest for killing innocent birds, who are raised only to be hunted, and yet he was never even investigated when he indangered the life of a White man, no less!

    Posted 03 Sep 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶

78. Michelle wrote:

    ooops….endangered..silly me!

    Posted 04 Sep 2007 at 2:03 pm ¶

79. abw wrote:

    I think Micheal Vick was wrong as rain! He should be heavily fined and I do not mind jail time. But this thing can mess up his career. I would rather they give him a serious fine than nearly destroy his career.One issue I do have is that they are using him as the poster boy for this when folks have been participating in this and other blood sports for years. There are famous folks-some white-guilty of the same stuff why use him for this role. Anyway, some blacks-especially those in the spotlight- should reconsider participating in silly,negative counterproductive activities/actions if they do not want to be the posterchild for bad stuff -or don’t wan’t to be seen in a negative light either. The y will keep getting bad press if they don’t. It don’t help that folk don’t mind finding out bad stuff on famous folks in general and famous black folk in particular. Some of us should stop being repeat offenders at some point too!

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 2:13 am ¶

80. abw wrote:

    Exactly Luscious Librarian-athletes that abuse,rape, and kill women have gotten less press than Vick. That is the other thing that annoys me along with the self-righteous right backlash Vick receive even before he was tried!

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 2:15 am ¶

81. abw wrote:

    Earlier I said I do not mind jail time. I don’t-I just don’t think it should be forever. The fine for the punishment of killing dogs should be longer to me. Anyway on here and sites relating to this, people have correctly noted that people that commit/condone animal abuse condone domestic abuse in many cases. This is true-but some of the worst tyrants in history(that are responsible for mass genocide/murder/execution) have been known to be friendly to animals. I see where folks that admire animals are coming from-I just had to throw that out.

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 2:24 am ¶

82. abw wrote:

    Benny, there are cases where it is hard for domestic abuse shelters to stay open while it is much easier for dog shelters to stay open. Something is wrong with that!

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 2:26 am ¶

Post a Comment