A Vegan’s Perspective on Dogfighting and Michael Vick
by Guest Contributor Dany Sigwalt
Rumors are flying about Michael Vick’s future in the NFL. He has been conditionally reinstated to the NFL, and is now looking for a new home team.
Michael Vick, of course, was the NFL superstar quarterback who was charged as a “key figure” in April of 2007 of an extensive illegal interstate dog fighting ring. He was released from federal prison after serving 23 months. Although the Atlanta Falcons, the team he was with when he was lifted to celebrity ,dropped his contract after multiple attempts to trade him to another team in the NFL, many are still encouraging teams to “forgive him” for his actions. The NFL is now considering reinstating Vick into the NFL, with a possible four game suspension at the beginning of the 2009 season.
Last night, I got into my first conversation about Vick and really even dog fighting since this fiasco broke into the media two years ago. Up until a few weeks ago, I was convinced that single issue animal rights activism (like anti-fur or boycotting KFC until they improve their treatment of animals they eventually kill) was ineffective and merely helping people feel comfortable about choices that don’t address my core concerns regarding animal rights. We live in a world where 10 billion land animals are reared and murdered for consumption in the US alone to support an unsustainable lifestyle that harms everyone involved. I have a hard time believing that throwing red paint on a person wearing fur would create the shift in our collective consciousness to end human exploitation of nonhuman animals. Vegans often locate the root of our projection of power and violence onto animals in speciesm. Speciesm, like racism, sexism and other “-isms” involve an analysis of privilege and oppression, wherein humans project unwarranted power over nonhuman animals, simply because of the availability of exploitable bodies.
Holding both anti-racist and anti-speciest ideologies, I frequently find myself disagreeing with the majority of what I have heard and read regarding the Michael Vick Case. As much as I hate single issue campaigns, I do think that if people are unable to acknowledge the person-ness and worthiness of a good life of animals we have accepted as a species to be members of our families, there is little hope of breaking down the cognitive processes that allow us to forget that the cow on our plate was a sister and a daughter, who I think are as deserving of life as you or me. My intersectional anti-oppression ideologies force me to realize that dog fighting circles are frequently located in low income communities and communities of color where the practice has provided a resource for financial survival. Taking this into consideration, I think that the real question is how those of us who are invested in ending dog fighting rings can create a campaign, or a movement, that takes these issues into consideration, a long with the larger issues of the policing of of black bodies, economic alienation, and the powerlessness that living in an oppressive world that leads violence against human and nonhuman animals alike.
First, we must understand that the legal system is still extraordinarily racist and classist. Vick was raised in an environment where he was not taught that it is a moral “wrong” to breed and train dogs to exist for the sole purpose of fighting them. Not only that, but as mentioned above, dog fighting frequently offers an alternate source of income. The whole issue of dog fighting, to my mind, presently speaks to the overt ways in which the law exists to serve particular groups of peoples’ moral compasses. Just as the war on drugs largely exists to strengthen the prison industrial complex, and serves the unique few who are privileged enough to own stock in the corporations that are making a profit off of the incarceration of bodies of color.
Both of these laws, and their sensationalist media coverage, maintain a culture of fear of the “other,” for harming their own bodies and those of the dogs they are fighting. Vick did not hurt another human, and yet, the media swarm around him, fueled by his celebrity as well as his wealth, and yet, is vilified and presented as a monster to be feared and punished — not at all dissimilar from the ways in which black men at large are regarded in our society.
The way I see it, there is really no innocence or guilt in this case. There are, of course, notes to be made about the differences between Vick’s crime and the laws that poor inner city folks of color are committing.
For starters, the majority of those locked up in this country are behind bars because of non-violent crimes. This, more often than not, is code used for drug dealing. Remember, in a country holding 5000 grams of cocaine in powder form is on par within the judicial system as 50 grams of crack cocaine, the criminal justice system is founded on, and frequently slants to the moral and social mores of those in power. When it comes to black and white bodies, the former is too frequently on the right side of the law for me to be able to sleep comfortably at night with a police car sitting parked next to my house in what used to be inner-city (now heavily gentrified) DC. Although, to my mind, Vick’s crimes were clearly violent (have you seen pictures of post-fight dogs?), our legal system only understands violence as being both physical and against humans.
Like drug laws and mandatory curfews, the color of the law is evident to anyone wishing to open their eyes to it. But, unlike Vick, the culture of “non-violent” crime is frequently linked to material want. Located in our capitalist system, folks of color are, understandably enough, bitter about their alienation from consumer culture solely because of lack of dollars and seek to forgo the system laid out for them (that they likely would not be granted access into because of the realities of institutionalized racism), and seek to create new pathways for wealth for themselves outside of that racist system. Dog fighting is one of the venues offered to these folks.
But Vick had access to wealth through his football career. His dog-fighting was tied to a desire for power and an adrenaline rush. We have to remember that dog-fighting, and arrests for them, happen every day, and that the frenzy around Vick is due to his celebrity status. Now there is a question about whether or not he “should be” reinstated to the NFL. This seems to hinge on the question of whether or not the man has “learned his lesson.” There is, of course, an implication in this, from the cultural majority, that Vick has in fact committed a moral wrong with his actions, and that he must repent for his sins before he is again granted access to wealth and celebrity.
But, what if he legitimately doesn’t believe that what he has done is wrong? People don’t eagerly create widespread economies and subcultures around things they themselves believe to be morally reprehensible, and this was the world that Michael Vick grew up in. Considering the fact that dog-fighting is commonly a phenomenon that takes place in low income/communities of color, widespread media campaigns with pictures and slogans, like Vick is scheduled to do, as part of his repentance, don’t strike me as a viable solution.
With little racial diversity within the organization itself, the Humane Society of the United States will have free reign over Michael Vick’s image to push their agenda. I’m really interested to see how they use his image to appeal to young men of color to stop dog fighting, but have little faith that it will make a dent in the number of dog fighting circles in the country.
The real irony in all of this is the idea that prisons exist in order to reform criminals who have wavered from the social contract. Prisons are cages for people, just like farms become cages for people. There is no restorative justice in either of these situations. The Prison Industrial Complex in invested in maintaining the highest number of inmates within their system as is possible. “Restorative” justice doesn’t factor into this; they are invested in prisoner recidivism, or return to incarceration after being released.
If we want to begin to create a world where animal exploitation AND racial/class based injustices are things of the past, and we wish to create a focus, or have a leg in the anti-dog fighting sphere, it can’t be left up to a white dominated animal welfare organization like the Human Society of the US, even if Michael Vick himself is the new face behind the movement. I don’t have much faith in messages on television to do anything. Dog fighting rings are always in flux, they are constantly being shut down by police raids, and reopening in new locations. If we want to put an end to them, we need to look to alternatives which exist outside of the so-called criminal “justice” system.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
atlasien wrote:
Personally, I don’t think there is any solution that does not involve the use of state power. Like domestic violence, I think it’s a case where activists desperately want to be able to circumvent state power and the criminal justice system… but can’t.
I don’t want to accuse you of pie-in-the-sky thinking — the critiques you are offering are totally true and fact-based and necessary to hear — but I also get frustrated when I hear demands for extra-judicial solutions but no outlining of these solutions.
I think this issue is especially important… even if you are not a vegan or believer in speciesism, dogfighting in the U.S. is almost always accompanied by abuse towards children and women. This is from an interview with an Atlanta animal control officer:
Another issue where animal and human rights intersect: abusers often keep their victims in line with threats to kill their pets. Women who try to escape and go to a shelter are often dissuaded when the shelter won’t take pets, and leaving their animal behind means it would get tortured and killed. These are not isolated incidents… it’s an incredibly common pattern of abuse.
The animal control officer I quoted above suggested, as a solution, a special license for pit bulls, and not allowing anyone under 25 to own them. Of course, every time restrictions like these are brought up they are attacked severely by a broad citing civil liberty rights. I think this debate often comes down to “interests of community” versus “interest of individual property-owners/dog-owners”.
In a world where we didn’t have all the dehumanizing, racist forces that encourage lower-income communities to value things like dog-fighting, then we wouldn’t have dog-fighting. But we do. So how do we deal with that fact until we get to that perfect world? I don’t see any route that doesn’t involve the current, highly flawed criminal justice system.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
Oops, one sentence above should read “by a broad coalition citing civil liberty rights”.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
Marcy Webb wrote:
I am hoping Michael Vick can turn his life around. What he did to those dogs is reprehensible. But, he’s served his time. Let’s see what he does with his proverbial new lease on life.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
Oh, and sorry for the verbosity, but this issue really does touch a nerve with me… I am especially touchy since I just had a very negative encounter with a police officer yesterday… I was trying to save a turtle (it could have been an endangered box turtle but more likely some type of cooter) crossing the road by picking it up and moving it to the other side of the road. A police car pulled up behind me and the officer screamed at me through his loudspeaker “GET THE FRIG OFF THE ROAD”. I was petrified and actually waved the turtle in my hands at him to show it wasn’t a weapon so he wouldn’t taser me… then I quickly followed his instructions. I should have brought the turtle with me an released it elsewhere, but I was so scared I didn’t think straight, and put it back on the same side of the road it had been coming from. Upset at all this, I blogged about it and wrote a complaining email to the Dekalb County CEO. I’m a fairly unthreatening-looking Asian woman so I shudder to think what would have happened if I’d been a turtle-wielding black man.
Basically, I understand the flaws of the criminal justice system because I’ve experienced them myself, on the turtle incident, and also with other less ludicrous confrontations… I just don’t see the alternatives to working with the current flawed system. If they do exist, I would really, really love to know more about them.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
Maus wrote:
“But, what if he legitimately doesn’t believe that what he has done is wrong? People don’t eagerly create widespread economies and subcultures around things they themselves believe to be morally reprehensible”
Sounds specious to me. There are plenty of industries, “cultural” or not that involve tolerance for morally reprehensible acts and transactions.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 12:50 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Maus: I agree. In fact I’d go one step further and say that people can easily create create economies and subcultures around things they know to be wrong BECAUSE of the very fact that they’re wrong… it’s the thrill of breaking social taboos. The wrongness is part of the thrill. It’s about using group participation in order to reinforce a strong identity defiant of the mainstream order.
The worship of gangster figures is a great example. There’s a lower-class industry/subculture around it, but also an upper-class, Hollywood, “socially-sanctioned rebellion” industry.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
DCBred wrote:
@atlasien
Not saying it’s not true…I’m sure it may be, but you offer no statistical evidence for your claim that animal abuse is usually accompanied by domestic violence among family members. Only one man’s statement.
Also, pit bulls are given a bad rep. They’re not anymore likely to want to engage in fighting than the owners who raise them want them to. They’ve been bred for their aggressiveness and size because they’ve been the dog of choice for many dog fighters for hundreds of years so genetics plays a big role but they can be nurtured to be less aggressive.
Fact: “Pit Bulls score an 83.4% passing rate with the American Temperament Test Society. That’s better than the popular Border Collie (a breed who scores 79.6%).”
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 1:37 pm ¶
Eathan wrote:
He paid his debt to society. Just like the guy working at McDonalds has a right to earn a living.. let the man work. Everyone deserves a second chance to fix a mistake(s).
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
Kavita wrote:
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this post. The hypocrisy of many people voicing their opinions on this issue kills me. I was at a work dinner when all of this was breaking where my boss and a colleague said they hoped Vick got LIFE for his crime . . . and then proceeded to devour two steaks.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
ds wrote:
I thought there were a lot of wonderful insights in this article, but two statements gave me pause:
1) “Vick was raised in an environment where he was not taught that it is a moral ‘wrong’ to breed and train dogs to exist for the sole purpose of fighting them.”
2) “… this was the world that Michael Vick grew up in. Considering the fact that dog-fighting is commonly a phenomenon that takes place in low income/communities of color…”
I don’t know the cultural nuances of Michael Vick’s upbringing, but I wonder why the author suggests that Vick’s “environment” kept him from encountering the reality that dog-fighting is morally reprehensible and illegal. People do things that they feel are morally wrong all the time – sometimes, they feel as if there is some personal benefit to gain, sometimes they disregard the pain that it causes others.
I understand that there are systematic trends that we see nationwide across low income communities and communities of color. However, even if dogfighting does occur in higher rates in these areas, I’m not convinced that there is a widespread acceptance of dog fighting as morally acceptable – it may be viewed as something people have to do to get by, and not something you do when financially secure or have star power. This latter argument would also remove the justification for Vick to engaged in it.
I agree that, criminal “justice” in America disproportionally penalizes low-income people and people of color, and clearly restoration and rehabilitation need more support within the “justice” system. However, I would be careful in saying “there is really no innocence or guilt in this case”. Was Vick not guilty of promoting dogfighting? Did Vick really not know it was illegal or morally reprehensible, or was he simply ambivalent to the suffering of animals in light of the camaraderie and the adrenaline rush he got from participation? I won’t assume to get into Vick’s head to know the answer to these, but I think that ascribing his actions to “culture of poverty” that accepts dogfighting as acceptable presents a dangerous precedent.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 2:05 pm ¶
Emily wrote:
Great points, DS. I think the “culture of poverty” argument is dangerously relativist.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 2:40 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
@atlasien–Hold on….the cop tripped over your wanting to rescue a turtle? A TURTLE? Damn, I’m really, really sorry that you had to go through that because some fool just wanted to act up.
@Dany–I appreciate and agree with a lot of your analysis on the Vick situation. There’s just something hanging in the air in the post, which rests in this statement:
the media swarm around him, fueled by his celebrity as well as his wealth, and yet, is vilified and presented as a monster to be feared and punished — not at all dissimilar from the ways in which black men at large are regarded in our society.
IMO, Vick wasn’t made an example of just because he was a celebrity. (Compared to the other enthusiasts/trainers/etc. of this “sport” who live in poor, inner-city neighborhoods of color, yes, he’s more famous.) The media’s narratives around his reprehensible acts hinged on his Black maleness, namely a Black man who makes a living in the brutal sport of football (in which Black men are seen as “naturals”) whose viciousness couldn’t be “classed up” with multimillion-dollar sports contracts and was exhibited in getting involved in what’s viewed as a “low-class” sport that involves an animal that Americans of many races, ethnicities, genders, and socio-economic strata highly value and treasure as pets–dogs. In this narrative, he became the latest avatar of the Black Brute.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 2:57 pm ¶
drydock wrote:
The crack vs cocaine disparity laws came into effect after the death of basketball star Len Bias. Democrats like Tip O’Neill and the Congressional Black Caucus led the way in passing this piece of legislation. Leftists like Oakland’s mayor Ron Dellums signed on to this noxious law. The War on Drugs/imprisonment of Black Americans doesn’t exist simply as a profit-driven reality, as this post suggests. In communities where (drug) violence is out of control, there is usually a base of support for repressive laws.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@DCBred: The animal control officer’s experience is backed up by numerous studies of the link between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence. Here’s one link to a paper on the subject that has numerous links to studies in the links below it. Here’s another link:
Correlation is not causation of course, but there is definitely some causation involved in all of this.
I don’t think all kinds of animal abuse lead to child abuse. Animal abuse is defined differently by different cultures. For example, my father comes from a rural background where it was normal to hit dogs with sticks and stones or kick them to keep them at a healthy distance. In the present day U.S., this would definitely be defined as “animal abuse” but the way he was raised, it was just something you had to do, no matter who you were. However, in the kind of animal abuse involved with dog fighting, violent assertion of masculinity is the whole point… it fulfills psychic cravings, not economic needs. It feeds into an attitude where the stronger have the right to abuse the weaker, and that often gets carried back into the home and taken out on the children.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 3:11 pm ¶
maus wrote:
“Also, pit bulls are given a bad rep. They’re not anymore likely to want to engage in fighting than the owners who raise them want them to. They’ve been bred for their aggressiveness and size because they’ve been the dog of choice for many dog fighters for hundreds of years so genetics plays a big role but they can be nurtured to be less aggressive.”
While nurture is possible, the problem is generally that the sort of people willing to train and nurture their animals aren’t usually drawn to fighting dogs in the first place. I generally like having dogs with a good genetic “personality” without needing a lot of training to overcome their breeding and habits (let alone other health-related defects.)
Most people have a hard enough time raising their children right, they seem to put even less effort into creating a healthy pet relationship.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
At the heart of dog fighting (or cock fighting or animal fighting) is gambling. We call it “abusive” because it is seen as “low class”–mainly the province of low income urban areas or low income rural areas.
Meanwhile in horse racing (also involving gambling) the harm that racing horses face is glamorized as “the sport of kings.”
I appreciate the concern shown for the dogs from Vick’s illegal business. (Funny how few people seem concerned about the tax cheating involved in this and similar large scale gambling ventures.) However, it is hard for me to not be a speciest when I see people’s concern for pets translate to expensive health care procedures for their animals that human children and adults often cannot get.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:18 pm ¶
Alexis wrote:
I’m really unsure about how I feel about this situtaion. On one hand, the legal system is clearly broken and is in dire need of fixing, but on the other hand, it’s been broken for a long time; Vick should have realized that the legal system is a game slanted against people with his background and should have planned accordingly. I’m not suggesting complacency, but challenging the law is unwise.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Erika wrote:
Pit bulls I’ve met, who come from homes where they are loved and nurtured, are the best dogs ever. They’re friendly, love people, and love giving kisses. I don’t think breed-specific legislations would help much, and would make a lot of great, non-aggressive pit bulls homeless.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:32 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ds
“I understand that there are systematic trends that we see nationwide across low income communities and communities of color. However, even if dogfighting does occur in higher rates in these areas, I’m not convinced that there is a widespread acceptance of dog fighting as morally acceptable – it may be viewed as something people have to do to get by, and not something you do when financially secure or have star power. This latter argument would also remove the justification for Vick to engaged in it.”
Cosign. Just what I was thinking. I often think this socioeconomic explanation is offered mostly by people who have never lived in an actual ghetto. I did. And the notion that environment predisposed me or my neighbors to criminality is (however well intentioned) extremely offensive. Poverty is not criminality. There are plenty of people who grew up as Michael Vick did who are not torturing dogs to death.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:49 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
There is no doubt that the reaction to Michael Vick’s actions were heavily race and class influenced. Hunting is celebrated, while dog fighting is denounced (at least when public figures are implicated), when I don’t know if there is much difference between the two. Personally, I am what might be described as a speciesist, but I don’t know if that is the crux of the post here (unless I misinterpreted it). I am not saying that Vick should be excused for his actions, but it still strikes me as absurd that Vick can be vilified in the way that he has for what he did to those dogs, while people lauded Palin for her stance and participation in “helicopter hunting” or Cheney received an apology after shooting that guy in the face.
Dany-
You made a point early in the post about how “We live in a world where 10 billion land animals are reared and murdered for consumption in the US alone to support an unsustainable lifestyle that harms everyone involved.” Do you have more information regarding these statements, particularly the “unsustainability” of this lifestyle and the way in which it “harms everyone involved.” I’d be curious to learn more about this issue.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 4:54 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@PPR_Scribe
No. Polo is the “Sport of Kings.” Horse racing is just horse racing. Besides, it is hardly a whites-only sport.
Your point is well taken, but horses aren’t fighting each other to the death, they are racing. The conditions race horses live under are not ideal either, but I don’t think you can compare dogfighting to horse racing in terms of sheer brutality.
If we are looking for a racialized angle to compare the Vick dogfighting coverage to, a better analogue would be (largely) white, suburban and rural puppy mills, which supply pet stores. There have been a lot of news stories decrying the horrendous, abusive conditions in those but none have activated anything close to the “Black Brute” trope that AJ pointed to re: Michael Vick.
So I don’t think the key is comparing animals to humans (as vegans do) or comparing one gambling sport to another (as you have done) but rather to compare the discourses around both, as AJ did.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 5:15 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
Joseph, I cannot speak for polo, but horse racing is (also, perhaps) known as the sport of kings.
It is interesting that many paint the dog fighting as a case of economic need, or moral failing, or other similar conditions. Key to the organized fighting–both large and small scale–is gambling.
We cannot understand the fighting culture (including the professional fighting between humans) without understanding gambling and its culture. Gambling involves aspects of sporting, entertainment/leisure, participation in a community and ritual, and psychological addiction. Hope for a big payoff is also involved and may be tied to economic need/poverty. But the reasons why people continue to gamble (even after losing repeatedly) have little to do, logically, with poverty.
In that light, the puppy mills are an inappropriate analogy. (Though they, too, involve profit margins.) Simply removing economic need or “educating” folks about the mistreatment of animals will no more stop dog fighting than it will stop any other gambling activity, including legal ones.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 5:47 pm ¶
bluemorpho wrote:
@ds, Joseph
Cosign and thanks. That was rankling me but I couldn’t think of how to say it. I had been teaching in a low-income school for five years before I had totally divested myself of the assumption that poverty predisposes people to criminality. Many of my colleagues still follow this pattern of thought, and it’s hard to break up the racist/classist pseudo-logic that underpins it.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
FM wrote:
Comparing dog fighting with eating a steak, horse racing or even hunting is ludicrous. I’m a vegetarian who hates hunting and horse racing, but they are just not on the same level in violence and cruelty as pitting two dogs against each other to the death, for the entertainment of humans. And let’s not forget the charges of Vick personally electrocuting and slamming dogs to the ground to kill them. These all just sounds like excuses to me.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶
Miles Ellison wrote:
There’s a saying in the horse racing industry: “stable to table in 7 days.” Horses that are no longer competitive on the track are shipped slaughterhouses, killed, and served as food. That’s pretty brutal, and it’s associated with a respected sport, although horse racing is gambling, not an actual sport.
The animal cruelty issue was a gateway that provided a means of vilifying Michael Vick in a racist way without being blatantly obvious.
It’s funny how people displayed so much concern for pit bulls when a prominent black athlete was involved in dogfighting, but not when these same cuddly animals were chewing the faces off of infants on other occasions. The only other time I saw such an outpouring of compassion for pit bulls was when a black police officer in NJ shot a pit bull that was clamped onto his arm. The animal rights groups in NJ went crazy with outrage, an outrage that is missing when the police shoot some unarmed black PERSON.
There was a story on HBO’s Real Sports about dogfighting last year, where they interviewed a guy who trained dogs to fight. They hid his face and disguised his voice, which makes me think that the coverage of Michael Vick had everything to with racist scolding and nothing to do with animal cruelty.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 6:21 pm ¶
Jorge wrote:
I am confused as the the following: the author does not propose an alternative to incarceration, or an alternative to an educational campaign by the Humane Society.
So what are we supposed to do? If killing an animal is murder, what should be the punishment if not incarceration or worse? How would restorative justice work in the case of animal abuse?
Vick served his time, he’s going to clean up his image and get on with his life.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 6:25 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
Also, you have to look at what are done to animals that we use to test shampoo, lotion, hair spray, etc. on to make sure it’s not harmful to humans.
Animal rights activists can and do protest that as well; however, they’ve never caught “big game” like Mike Vick, so they’ll play it to the bone.
As if conflict diamonds are a “new” thing, right? African people have been getting killed and maimed so European and American women can believe that a “diamond is forever,” pay an exorbitant profit which won’t be used to heal the land of the diamond’s origin.
But, hey, now we can sleep well because Mike Vick’s been legally emasculated and all can feel better about it? Please.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 7:06 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@bluemorpho
Cheers.
@PPR_Scribe
I get your point about comparing cultures of gambling that grow up around various activities and I do not disagree in principle. But that is not what I was talking about. There is more than one way to look at this… Like the way I suggested, for example.
@FM
Cosign.
@Miles Ellison
No one is arguing that the mainstream media’s response to Michael Vick’s arrest wasn’t racist. But you cannot seriously be suggesting that “the coverage of Michael Vick had everything to with racist scolding and nothing to do with animal cruelty”… Miles, The man tortured dogs to death.
Dogfighting, which Michael Vick enthusiastically participated in, IS animal cruelty.
Dude could have been one of those giant blue Sesame Street monsters and people still would have had something to say about it. And they would be right. What he did was very, very fucked up. And that doesn’t change because other people, who are not Michael Vick, also do things that aren’t dogfighting but are bad in other ways. And it doesn’t change because once he was caught, pre-existing racist tropes (i.e. the Black Brute) were activated. I am all for interrogating those tropes but not at the expense of soft-pedaling the crime itself.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶
AS wrote:
I don’t believe this. How has Michael Vick become some civil rights cause?
Vick is not playing because he still has a 6 game suspension to serve. But he is not banned from the league. Teams are free to sign him and he is free to accept those offers. The problem for him is not that the NFL has banned him, it is that, as of this time, no team wants him. Twenty-eight of the 32 teams in the league have publicly said they do not want him. The other four have not said anything about him. So, why are so many of you acting like someone is barring him from from the league? Will you guys take up my cause if I want to join the league and do not get to lace up and take the field because no team will sign me? No? Why? Because, say it with me, playing in the NFL is not an inalienable right. He is permitted to have gainful employment, sure. But no one is obligated to hire him. No one. Vick would not pass the background check of even the lowliest of jobs and therefore would not be hired. Why? Because no company wants to deal with the fallout from knowingly hiring a convicted felon and having him commit a crime.
Let’s think about why no team would want Michael Vick. First of all, the quarterback is often the face of the team. It is the most important position, it is the only position engaged in every play on offense, it is the most prominent position, and every offensive play is dependent on what he does with the ball. No one can name the offensive line of the New England Patriots, but most people have heard of Tom Brady. In fact, I would bet most people cannot name another player on the Pats. Most people cannot name the backfield of the Dallas Cowboys, but they probably know the name Tony Romo. Bret Favre is a big name where ever he goes. When he went to the New York Jets, no other Jets jersey, or any other jersey for that matter, had never sold so quickly.
Who on earth would want Vick as the de facto spokesperson and ambassador to the world?
This is Vick on paper:
1. A convicted felon
2. A man who has not played since 2006
3. A man who cost the previous owner of the team he was on to eat 32 million dollars.
4. A man who could only behave once confined (he could not keep the terms of his bail, as apparently, not getting high was too difficult).
5. A player who uses drugs.
6. The cause of what is without a doubt the ugliest investigation in sports history.
7. A man who is likely in no physical condition to play in the NFL (and no one will see him as he has missed training camp).
Do you think an NFL owner wants to give a man tens of millions of dollars for that? Would any of you Vick apologists give him tens of millions of dollars?
The NFL is a business, not a charity and not the confessional box at your local parish were you can confess your sins and have them wiped away by saying ten Hail Marys. The NFL gets most of its income from the licensing of team uniforms and names, as well as the revenue generated by the sale of television rights and the proceeds from ads. As such, image is everything because big money is riding on it. The NFL does not want to devalue those ads when corporations start bitching that they are getting flooded with emails, calls, and letters from disgruntled consumers who say that they will boycott their products until they cease advertising with the NFL because of Vick. Corporations advertise to bring in buyers, not to lose them. The more corporations back away, rather than fight for that ad time, the less valuable that ad time becomes. The outcry Vick might cause makes ad time less valuable and then everybody loses money. Nobody wants that.
Vick is also a risk because there is currently no evidence that he can perform at the NFL level. Has missed two (three?) seasons, he has not been to any training camps. His release coincided with the time when training camp was in session and teams were trying to nail down the terms of the draft class, so no coach has had time to go out to his home to see if he can do anything. He has not even played in any semi-pro leagues. He seems to be in decent shape, but is he in NFL shape? That is doubtful. To be in NFL shape you have to follow a specific diet and work out regime. Being in prison kept Vick from doing this. Vick may have an “excuse,” but excuses do not win games or mitigate the disaster that is having an out of shape guy at the QB position. A team could wind up with a PR disaster who cannot play. It would be the ultimate in epic fails.
Michael Vick is showing the same sense of entitlement that likely lead him to flagrantly break the law. He thinks that he should be welcomed with open arms into the league. He is probably unwilling to take the sort of contract a person in his position deserves, if he deserves anything. Vick should be signed as an injury-first second or third string QB with minimal salary. He thinks he should be the starting quarterback around whom the offense should be built. That’s not going to happen, so we must wonder if Vick has heard offers he does not like and arrogantly turned them down. That is not impossible to imagine because he was the star of a team, so being a bench warmer would be insulting and difficult. Before you go bitching for him, make sure he hasn’t been bitching for himself.
Maybe Vick could show some respect for the game by playing a year or two in the newly formed UFL and prove, by dominating there, that he is NFL-ready. That league is populated by NFL rejects who want a shot at getting back in, so Vick will have some credibility when making the case that he is capable of performing on the field and behaving off the field.
Dogfighting has consequences for people too. Maybe people are unaware of it, but gambling rings like the one Michael Vick ran along with his dogfighting operation, help generate revenue for gangs. People, indeed Vick himself, were betting 40k per fight. So, with that money, gangs associated with that ring and others, gangs could buy weapons, property, and guns to terrorize the streets. Those streets on which poor black and Latino persons have to live. I personally find dogfighting abhorrent and anyone who engages in it is beneath contempt. Some of you do not think it is a big deal. But, I would hope we can all agree that raising money for gangs is not okay. While Vick was chilling in his mansion, poor people who could never dream of having 28 million dollars to squander had to live with the consequences of his “game,” “hobby,” or whatever euphemism you wish to slap on it. He doesn’t have to walk on those streets or live on those blocks. The people who blindly and stupidly support him do. I think we might all cry for them before we cry for the petulant millionaire who used to play a kid’s game.
I am troubled that many of you are willing to write off dogfighting as if it were some quaint southern hobby. In addition to fighting dogs, Vick took sadistic pleasure in torturing them, maiming them, drowning them, shooting them, electrocuting them, etc. None of you finds this sort of sadism the least bit disturbing? Hunting in this country is legal, as is raising and consuming animals. But hunters do not take pleasure in the suffering of the animals, neither do people who eat steak hope that the cow died a slow painful death. It is chilling that you Vick apologists do not see how those of us who have no sympathy for him, would find that taking pleasure in torturing an animal is grotesque and suggestive of someone who is capable of far worse.
I cannot help but notice that many of you are complaining about the “racist justice system.” Is there any question that Michael Vick was arrested lawfully? Is there any question that the charges against Michael Vick were totally without merit? Does anyone not believe the confession Michael Vick gave as his testimony in his allocution? If the answer to these questions is no, how can you say that this is a case of the justice system exacting a harsh penalty on a person because he is black. If anything, Vick’s celebrity was a disservice to him because that is what elevated his crime to the national news. Regardless, the racist criminal justice system did not come to Michael Vick, he came to them. His sadism, gambling, operation of an illegal gambling ring, and illegal dogfighting put him in squarely in their sights. The disgusting aftermath of his actions were on his property and gave the government all the evidence it needed.
[Mod Note - Everything you have written below here is unacceptable. If you would like to suggest a story to Racialicious, you can do so using del.icio.us, with the instructions in the sidebar. But this thread is about Michael Vick. If you wish to talk about something else, do not post on this thread. - LDP]
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 7:32 pm ¶
Ray wrote:
Thanks for the post. Very interesting and from a unique view point.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
merq wrote:
Great post.
I guess I too am what you would call specist. On the other hand, I’m a dog-lover to a degree that many would probably find disturbing. (Don’t worry, I assure you my dog-love only sometimes turns sexual. heh)
Still, I would argue that the reaction to Vick’s crimes was downright irrational and seriously fucking disturbing. Miles Ellison said upthread what I yelled to the high heavens all through that fiasco.
Black folk (especially men) are executed like flies n this country, and society at large bends over backwards to ignore the obvious pattern, passing off their willful blindness as “objectivity” and even-handedness. Worse, they get indignant and offended when anyone points out the obvious racism in these killings.
I often tell people that the perfect human is a dog, but the rabid, bloodthirsty (and yes, racst) response to the Vick case robbed me of my own outrage at what he did.
So yeah, fuck you Outrage-Addicted American Society. Vick’s done more time than the killers of Omar Edwards, Sean Bell, and Oscar Grant combined. When you start foaming at the mouth on those issues, we can talk Vick.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 9:55 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
I do agree that the media brouhaha over Vick’s trail and sentencing did hold some racial motivations to it. Granted, dogfighting is EXTREMELY cruel, but so is hunting- a largely white hobby and profession- yet there are laws that give people whole SEASONS to partake in it. However, I can’t cosign the whole “culture of poverty” aspect. I would potentially equate drawing a parallel from dogfighting in largely impoverished areas/amongst a particular race to saying that gay people are gay because they were molested as children. Doesn’t add up. I myself grew up living in relative struggle, and I have never so much as heard of dogfighting when I was coming up, let alone found it to be regular enough to be part of “the culture”.
Similarly, Cheyenne Cherry was sentenced to a year in jail for breaking into an apartment and killing a cat. Again, her actions were cruel, but nothing to warrant a web page devoted to racially slandering her, putting up her mother’s phone number and family/friend addresses. But it happened anyway- and hardly anyone took notice. I would guarantee that if Vick and Cherry were white, the media circus would have been circumvented, and the looming question of whether to admit Vick back into the NFL surely would have been answered sooner.
Regarding Vick’s possible return to the NFL, he is still an athlete, who has done his time and, in the eyes of the law, repaid his debt. Now, had people said, “Prospects for reinstating Michael Vick are slim at the time due to the fact that in the scope of the game, he is not in shape and ready to play,” I would totally understand that- not only because it is my viewpoint, but because it makes sense.
He’s a sportsman, the only issue here should be about sports. However, a lot of the wariness is coming from those not even involved in football, still holding some sort of grudge with him because they are unable to reconcile with the fact that Vick is free to do as he pleases, regardless of their personal sentiments.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 10:28 pm ¶
AS wrote:
For anyone who thinks that dogfighting’s alleged legitimacy as part of wider southern culture, I would like to remind you of other “traditions” of the American south.
1. Southerners who opposed the abolition of slavery referred to it as “our peculiar institution.” That was the term used to dismiss anyone who opposed the gross in justice of keeping and trading human beings as chattel. The rest of us were outsiders who simply didn’t understand their “peculiar institution” and therefore had no right to speak on it or change it.
2. Lynching is a southern tradition too. Remember the lyrics to “Strange Fruit?” The Southern tree bears a strange fruit/there’s blood on the leaf/there’s blood on the root.” It isn’t the northern tree, or the mid-West tree, or the Californian tree, it is the southern tree. I would encourage anyone in the Atlanta area to visit the “Without Sanctuary” archives at Emory for a reminder or a fresh lesson on the horrors of this southern tradition. I saw it when it debuted in New York.
3. Segregation was defended as an old southern way of life. Outside agitators, as Bull Connor liked to call the freedom riders, wanted come and disrupt their “way of life.” I believe the governor of Mississippi said that “[their] niggers were happy before all them northern kids came down and upset them.” Once again, those who dared to demand an end to inhumane treatment of others just didn’t understand “their way of life.” The argument was basically: we have been discriminating against people for too long to stop now! How ever will we survive if they come in if they upset our way of life?
If anything is a truism, it is that if something is defended as being part of the “southern way of life,” it is likely cruel, heartless, inhumane, indecent, and it involves somebody getting hurt. Where would many, if not most, of the people who visit this site be if every time someone pulled the “southern way of life” card, the government or outside agitators retreated? Aren’t you glad that people did not abandon slaves and black people because they were told they just could not understand these old southern traditions?
I’m not comparing dogfighting to slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow. I am pointing out that dismissing opposition to behavior as a failure to understand southern culture is a dubious argument that has been used to defend the indefensible before. It is the last card an immoral person has to play when confronted with the horrifying consequences his/her behavior has on others. They aren’t wrong, it is that we don’t understand them. When you have to resort to telling people they just do not understand your way of life in order to justify what you are doing, odds are that you are acting outside the accepted conventions of what counts as decent behavior.
The problem then and now is that we do understand these so-called traditions. It is our understanding which compels us to demand that they end.
Posted 03 Aug 2009 at 10:38 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@AS:
“If anything is a truism, it is that if something is defended as being part of the “southern way of life,” it is likely cruel, heartless, inhumane, indecent, and it involves somebody getting hurt.”
I’ll never think of boiled peanuts the same way again!
The anti-south stuff is way over the top… but I do agree that dogfighting is not a tradition worth defending.
@merq: I understand the issue of disproportionate media coverage, but is there any way to measure how coverage of the Michael Vick story detracted from coverage of police brutality against black men? I don’t see such a clearcut either/or situation where attention or outrage given to one necessarily means attention taken from the other.
@ashlynn: I don’t see why a white football player wouldn’t have gotten the same level of individual outrage. I think the difference is that it wouldn’t have reflected on the group of white men (in the media, actions of individual white men never reflect on white men) and the outrage wouldn’t have racial stereotypes attached to it.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 9:11 am ¶
K wrote:
@Eathan
There’s a big difference between “making a living” and raking in NFL salary.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
SIGH. Lord.
@AS: Slavery, lynching, and racial segregation were AMERICAN institutions; the justification may have been regional, but the phenomena were most emphatically not. In fact, slavery was first ratified by the state of Massachusetts in 1622 – before this country was a country, it was a slave nation. Please. I see as much evidence of dogfighting – clipped tails and ears on pits, scars, and so on – here in New York City as I did at where I grew up, in the southeastern U.S. So no. Just NO. I’m annoyed at the idea of these behaviors being circumscribed to a region. What enabled Vick to maim, torture and kill these animals was not his Southern background, his economically-disadvantaged upbringing, or his Blackness – things that he shares with many people who would never dream of doing what he did. Vick committed these sickening crimes because he is, in plain English, a bastard. Yeah, I said it. The “off with his head!”-ing that took place in the immediate aftermath of the chrages was definitely racist, but please believe me when I tell you that NONE OF THAT made this man less of a bastard. Come on, y’all. It takes a lot of conscious decision making and premeditation to do what he did…and more than once. And yet we’re defending this jackhole on general principle? Please. Enough of the bullshit here.
@atlasien: So sorry to hear about the story with the jackass cop. Although it made me smile to read about you saving a li’l cooter (a snapper woulda taken your finger right off!) from traffic.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@atlasien
“I don’t see why a white football player wouldn’t have gotten the same level of individual outrage. I think the difference is that it wouldn’t have reflected on the group of white men (in the media, actions of individual white men never reflect on white men) and the outrage wouldn’t have racial stereotypes attached to it.”
YES. This. Thank you.
@Ashlynn
Cheyenne Cherry broke into her neighbor’s house with a friend and they put the woman’s cat into a hot oven and baked it alive and fled while it screamed. When she was caught she laughed and said it was a “joke”. She’d also previously kidnapped a dog with a bb gun.
Do I agree that some of the response to her heinous actions inappropriately focused on her race? Yes. But race is an inappropriate focus whenever a black person does ANYTHING in this country… become President, ask for a cop’s badge number… anything. That is wrong and it should be discussed. But that does not mean that everyone it happens to is automatically a hero. Cherry’s actions ought to be considered on their own terms, which are disturbing by any metric you want to use.
Hunting is not the same thing as dogfighting any more than horse racing is. These comparisons are specious: Neither is universally accepted, for the reasons people have said re: the impact on the animals involved. And there are plenty of PoC who participate in both. And no, white people who torture dogs and bake cats to death in ovens and then laugh about it to the press do not get parades thrown in their honor. The difference is that their actions are not taken to be representative of their racial or ethnic group.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 11:46 am ¶
Persephone wrote:
Vegetarian, moderate animal-rights supporter here:
I’m surprised by all the people saying that hunting is comparable to dogfighting, when IIRC most hunters hunt for food, not just for “sport.” In my opinion, if people are going to eat animals, it’s much less cruel to shoot an animal that’s had a free, natural life in the wild than to support industrialized meat “farms”.
Totally agreed on horse racing (and dog racing!), though, and on recreational (not for food) hunting.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
For people who claim that most people hunt for food, that is patently false. While many hunters do use the animals they kill for food, their primary goal is not food. These are not starving people, or individuals who live in a society without the ability to purchase or barter for food. They hunt for sport and, if they kill the right kind of animal, they eat it. Even if they are doing it for food, it is rarely a last resort. They are still harming an animal to enjoy something that is not necessary. Perhaps it is not as vile as what Vick did, but this defense is the same crap that leads to us labeling one type of animal exploitation as “noble” and one type as “disgusting”. I’ve a noted speciesist, but I generally disagree with the senseless killing of any animal. To me, both hunting and dog fighting are equally senseless. Perhaps the brutality demonstrated by certain individuals is more personally reprehensible in certain cases than in others, but if this is what we are going to base our legal system on, then I should be locked up for what I used to do with the wasps I captured in my backyard growing up.
Oh wait, I forgot. Wasps aren’t cute and I’m white and can blame it on “being a kid” without it representing the vileness of my race and regional culture.
I’m not defending what Vick did. But the fact remains that the laws that he broke, the level of public outrage, media scrutiny, and prosecution were all heavily influenced by his race, class, and status as an athlete.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶
Shauna wrote:
@BSK: “Hunting is celebrated, while dog fighting is denounced.”
Hunting is real “free range” and “organic” meat–as long as hunters eat what they hunt, and especially if they use all the parts. So if you eat any meat, you can’t call hunting unethical when you buy factory farmed meat or even free-range organic meat. Dogfighting is a more brutal process than a gunshot, and serves no purpose other than entertainment. There are degrees of animal cruelty, and after thinking about it, dogfighting is definitely on the high cruelty end.
For those who don’t know about the horrors of factory farmed meat, there are plenty of websites that describe how it is cruel to animals, horrible for our environment (hence unsustainable), and how eating the amount that the typical American does is unhealthy. If you are only concerned about dogs and not other animals, you can also look up how many dogs are killed each year in shelters because people buy from dog stores rather than adopt, and do not sterilize their animals.
Posted 04 Aug 2009 at 11:52 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
@atlasien: Mmm. I can certainly agree with that, though I do still stand by my original point. Thanks.
@Joseph: Did I say anything about Cheyenne or Vick being a hero? Unless you are referring to another incident which ties in to their stories? I found her actions to be downright cruel, but I also found the response to her actions to be almost of equal measure.
Certainly, there are plenty of PoC who hunt. And no, most hunters don’t hunt for food. They call their prey “game” for a reason. It is just as much a recreational sport as dogfighting; even if Sarah Palin brought that moose home for dinner, I’d bet the house that she had a boatload of fun doing it- as most hunters do.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 12:29 am ¶
BSK wrote:
Shauna-
I do eat meat and am not necessarily calling hunting unethical. Rather, I am trying to point out what I feel is a disproportionate amount of outrage between hunting and dog fighting. Perhaps dog fighting is on the “higher end” of the animal cruelty spectrum, but I don’t know that hunting is *that* far behind. But given the way that we react, you’d think that hunting was some noble endeavor. I would argue that hunting is pretty torturous to the animals though. Only the most experienced hunters can kill with one shot, so most animals are shot numerous times and bleed out. Then think about bow hunters, who deliberately use a less lethal (aka more painful) way of killing to increase the difficulty (aka fun).
My greater point is that people want to see and directly or indirectly engage in all sorts of activities that contribute to animal cruelty (even eating regular, store-bought meat, as you point out), but then want to get all sanctimonious over Vick and his actions. Yes, dog fighting is probably worse overall than most of these actions, but not SO much worse to justify the greatly divergent reactions. Generally, people are more likely to criticize the actions they view apart from their own lifestyle and defend the actions they take part on in. But I think the way in which people “otherized” Vick’s actions was largely predicated upon his race, class, and regional culture, or at least perceptions of this.
Personally, I wasn’t so outraged by what Vick did. Again, I wouldn’t defend it, but given the way in which my own decisions contribute to what may constitute animal cruelty, I am in no place to judge. And given that I generally reserve my outrage for issues relating to humans before animals, I only have so much outrage left. Like I said, I am speciest, though I respect the viewpoints and stances of those opposed to this mindset.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 8:07 am ¶
FM wrote:
Regardless of whether or not you believe hunting is close to dog fighting (which I do not), one big difference is the animals used. Americans, for the most part, love dogs. They are pets. In many families, they’re part of the family. That’s why we get on our high horses about cultures that eat dogs, and it’s the same reason why eating horses is normal in Europe but here in America, where horses are romanticized and beloved, it’s a big no-no for most. I’m not saying this all is right — I believe all animals and living creatures should be treated with the same level of respect for life. But you can’t deny that there’s a huge difference between dogs and deer for most Americans.
Also, hunting is FAR from being universally accepted. I always thought it was looked at as a redneck, rural, primitive pastime by many Americans. So I don’t understand this nonsense about everybody loving hunting while hating dog fighting.
Anyway, if I were an animal (besides human of course), I would much rather live naturally in the wild, then be shot one day by a hunter, than be born and bred into a sick ring where I’d be trained to rip and be ripped to pieces. And perhaps even be electrocuted if I’ve been so badly mauled that I’m of no use anymore. Who wouldn’t?
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 10:49 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Ashlynn
No, you said Vick was a “a sportsman, (so) the only issue here should be about sports.” And, given that the man tortured dogs to death for sport, I disagree.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 11:03 am ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:
I have to admit that I didn’t read all of the comments here thoroughly but a few people said that dogfighting is “just as cruel” as hunting…and I’m wondering how that can be backed up? Yes SOME people do hunt for food, but I’d gather that most don’t. They may eat the deer, goose, duck, etc., but they certainly don’t eat all of what they kill and they don’t eat for the purpose of hunting. They hunt for fun and just happen to get some meat out of it. At least that’s how all of the men that I know that hunt describe it. Actually a bunch of the avid hunters I know are farmers and literally say that they hunt because they hate animals. They really said that. I’m not really an “animal-lover” per se, I don’t dislike animals but keeping them well is not a big cause of mine, but it struck me as kind of cruel. But you have to see it from their point of view and from the standpoint of the culture in which they grew up. Yes, they pour gasoline down gopher holes and then throw a lit match into them. Yes they will shoot deer and then just let it rot in the field. But a few of them grew up on farms where the deer, gophers, etc. threatened their family’s very precarious livelihood by eating their crops…so I guess they don’t have warm fuzzy feelings towards them. Plus, I think some cultures (this was Western rural Michigan…and I’ve noticed the same general feelings in rural Maryland) grow up thinking of animals as things to use. Its sad, but who am I to judge them? I feel the EXACT same way about this situation. I don’t know what type of culture Vick was raised in. I don’t know whether he was taught that animals are things. I don’t know that where he grew up dogs ranked up there amongst the things to worry about…like my farmer friends, they might have had more pressing things that occupied their minds (food, safety, getting the crops in on time). First and foremost, I think that people were very vicious in their condemnation of Vick. I do think they felt more comfortable expressing their outrage towards HIM (and not appropriately, towards HIS ACTIONS) because he is a Black man. However, to me, it isn’t about race. Its about how some people are raised to think about animals. In many, many cultures across the globe (including in the U.S.) animals are treated as nothing but objects to use. There are also pockets of people that see animals as living beings that are worthy of respect and have a right to life. There are also people who hold somewhat contradictory views (like myself)…ie: they don’t like it when animals are hurt or mistreated…but they have no problem eating chicken that was raised on a large farm in which the chickens were debeaked, thrown around by the feet, and held in coops with thousands of other birds…kind of sounds like torture to me. But, I like chicken. So I deal. Because we are not a society that universally believes that “animals are people too” (what a ridiculous bumper sticker) I don’t see why we all act aflutter when people dogfight, cockfight, bull fight,etc. How are these activities worse than rodeo riding, horse racing, or even factory farming? Sorry, but I just don’t see it. Its very subjective as far as what is considered “cruel” and what is considered “sport”. No one can tell me that people go out and shoot squirrel so that they can eat them. Its a sport. So why is one okay and the other is not?
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 3:32 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:
The third sentence should read “and they don’t hunt for the purpose of eating.”
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
FM wrote:
While it’s interesting to discuss perceptions of other types of animal cruelty, I get the sense that a lot of people here don’t seem to think what Vick did was that bad. I find that sad. What Vick did was horrifyingly cruel; how can you call yourself a human being and not see that? Just because ____ is also cruel doesn’t make Vick’s crime any less severe.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:
@FM so everyone who doesn’t agree with you is non-human? That’s a pretty specious assertion, don’t you think? You may feel very strongly about this issue, but that’s what stands out about human beings versus other animals–we can and do have different opinions. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about dog fighting or any other animal issue. You may find this to be a black or white issue. I disagree. I think issues of animal cruelty are often gray areas, thus my discussion of the varying things that our society okays versus the ones that we don’t. I find it interesting how people judge some things to be alright and others to be “horrifyingly cruel”. I don’t think anyone (including myself) said that because ___ is also cruel means that Vick’s crime was less severe…but then again, why are people allowed to slaughter animals for sport and keep them in inhumane conditions to provide lots of eggs and chicken for people who eat it but people aren’t allowed to dog fight? Because of our society’s perception of these acts of cruelty. I’m not saying that what he did was okay; but I AM saying that all of it is very subjective and based upon what our community has decided is and is not alright. I think a lot of this has to do with what often goes along with dog fighting. I can’t for the life of me see why else it is so demonized when hunting is so glorified.
And also, dogfighting might be terribly cruel, but enough for people to say he should be put to death over it? A little extreme. Personally, I think a more appropriate punishment for this sort of crime is education as to why its wrong and some time volunteering with animals in a shelter. Or, perhaps, to be made to donate money to local shelters (in a case in which the individual had money to pay a fine, otherwise I think they should have to do community service at a shelter). TO ME, unless it is egregious, I don’t think it should carry felony status. After all, in most states a domestic violence conviction is a misdemeanor. So you can slap your wife but God forbid you harm a dog…
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 8:28 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:
@ BSK, I sign on to your post, 100%. I feel the same way.
Posted 05 Aug 2009 at 8:32 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
@Joseph,
Yes, he is a sportsman, but in my particular view, that doesn’t make him a hero. Vick spent his time in jail and unfortunately it’s not up to the NFL to decide whether her has learned his lesson or has become any sensitive to the crime he committed. Their concern is- or should be, rather- can the man still play? Is he a physical risk, and if so, a risk worth taking? However, one would be foolish to not acknowledge that sports, celebrity, and the recklessness that may accompany it do mix very often. The League gives hundreds of hours and lectures and courses devoted to conducting oneself as a sportsman, and most follow it, some don’t. Vick didn’t follow his, but he has faced those repercussions, and if reinstated, he will be another poster child for keeping your nose clean, so to speak. Whatever team takes him will sit down with him and negotiate some terms regarding his public image. Despite all that, though, bottom line, if dude can still play, he will play, and especially since his time has been served, the extraneous after effects and details fall to the wayside in the midst of that.
Posted 06 Aug 2009 at 12:47 am ¶
merq wrote:
@atalasien:
I think you misunderstood my post. I’m not saying the coverage of one detracted from the other.
What I’m saying is that even if society at large wanted to pass off the rabidly racist reaction to the Vick case as mere humanitarian outrage, then why don’t they seem to care nearly as much about the killings of these other humans.
It’s like the people who are fervently opposed to veal-consumption, but scarf down schools of baby octopi in a sitting. Why? Like black men, they just aren’t seen as particularly adorable, so the causes and nature of their deaths aren’t deemed quite as odious.
Essentially, I’m not saying outrage over Vick led to less outrage over the police-killings of innocent black men. I’m saying there was very little outrage over this trend before, during, and after Vick. In fact, there’s a marked refusal to even acknowledge such a trend exists.
Posted 07 Aug 2009 at 2:00 am ¶
petitfours wrote:
I’m sorry but this post really rubs me the wrong way. It seems to boil down to the argument that growing up poor, Southern, and black culturally predisposes someone to animal cruelty. This is nonsense.
Posted 07 Aug 2009 at 2:58 am ¶
Amory wrote:
@ Atlasien & others interested in alternatives to the legal system:
check out Philly’s Pissed (phillyspissed.net)
and then, Generation Five (http://www.generationfive.org)
has an amazing document on the use of transformative justice for dealing with sexual assault ( http://www.generationfive.org/index.asp?sec=3&pg=48 )
definitely can be applied to other situations and used to build radical community/ alternatives to the criminal legal system!
Posted 08 Aug 2009 at 10:26 pm ¶
Mary wrote:
I get the same feeling. I think it’s really skirting the line of the condescending argument “They just don’t know any better.”
Posted 10 Aug 2009 at 8:58 am ¶
Kopekler wrote:
Very interesting post, but, like others, I can not buy 100% into the cultural norms being an “out” for doing something quite cruel and something you probably know to be illegal. Using this logic, it is perfectly ok to stone an adulterer to death if you grew up in Afghanistan because that is your norm. This just does not cut it for me. And it is not like he did it to put food on the table.
That said, I do agree that the public reaction was much, much more vicious because he was a black player. Had he been white, I think he would still have gone to jail, but the reaction would have been a more general “anti-dogfighting” one than an “anti-Vick” one.
I don’t know too much about NFL hiring practices, so do not know if he can’t get signed into a position because of his past or that he is no longer pro material anymore. Would be interesting to hear the reasons he has not been signed.
However, if he does get in I think it would be a nice gesture for him to give some money to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary because they will be caring for his unadoptable dogs for the rest of their lives and finding homes for the adoptable ones.
Posted 10 Aug 2009 at 9:17 am ¶
Joy wrote:
I think some people have confused disgust at the disproportionate reaction to Vick and his crime as being apologists for him or supporting cruelty to animals.
NO. I think what some people tried to point out is that while dog fighting is (to many) heinous the response to Vick compared to the response to what happens when actual people are hurt or killed or to when other people of similar status but different color commit crimes that may be of significant weight (technically speaking) the sense of outrage and vilification of those people is conspicuously lacking.
ALSO it is my opinion that anyone who simultaneously tries to vilify dog fighting while excusing or differentiating hunting and/or eating meat is *Sadly* mistaken. It would be more accurate for you to say outright that you think it is wrong to force dogs to kill each other and to torture dogs who can no longer fight but that you do not have a problem with animals being shot, maimed, drugged, crammed into cages, never allowed to get exercise or fresh air, castrated, branded, have their horns ripped out, have beaks and toes burned off, or other horrors so that you can eat chicken, steak, pork, or what have you.
Granted some people do not subscribe to the animals as people ideology. I respect that. Just don’t defend one thing while thinking that it is not on the same level with another.
Hopefully all the people who realize that dog fighting should not be tolerated will recognize that all our other furry and feathered friends deserve the same level of respect and consideration.
Posted 10 Aug 2009 at 3:49 pm ¶
Jeff wrote:
Great writing. All this Vick talk in the main stream media is failing to discuss this issue the way you have.
Rich white culture makes the laws. It is ok for rich white people to breed dogs, eat roast beef sandwiches and take those bred dogs out on a deer hunt. All perfectly legal. But black people breed dogs for fighting, send them to jail. Just makes no sense at all.
Clearly Vick should be back in the NFL, and if he is not allowed back in either should any of the other hunters or meat eating NFL players.
Thanks for writing this, THANKS!
One great thing about the Vick case is it has given me an in to discuss animal issues.
So many dog loving meat eaters are upset by Vick’s actions. As a 13 year vegan I’m upset that THEY are upset, but use the topic to talk to them about the animal abuse they are a part of with every meal.
Posted 12 Aug 2009 at 10:10 pm ¶
faustus wrote:
i’m not a vegan but your post here has made me think a great deal more about the subject than i have before. thank you for that… which i guess is my point… if nothing comes from this other than the fact that issues discussed here and particularly dog fighting, have now come to the forefront and people are discussing it, that is at least a positive thing.
aside of the debate as to the real cruelty to aninals, where there is poverty there is violence. its take many forms but they go hand in hand. dog fighting or humans fighting for money didn’t start with mike vick and it won’t end with mike vick. but though vick i think we have a better insight and better chance now of humanizing the debate as to the treatment of animals and maybe stopping much abuse before it starts.
Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 11:15 am ¶