Michael Vick’s return to the NFL last Thursday demonstrated, if nothing else, that Americans are tired of debating dog-fighting and the appropriateness of Vick’s 23 month sentence for violating federal dog-fighting laws. Only a couple of anti-Vick demonstrators showed up at the game. In fact, by far the largest number of demonstrators at the game were civil rights activists, many members of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP and the Black Clergy of Philadelphia. The pro-Vick demonstrators were there to protest the harsh treatment that Vick received, and, in their view, continues to receive, from animal rights groups and the American legal system.
The national debate triggered by Vick’s arrest and conviction revealed that most middle and upper class Americans viewed dog-fighting as barbaric and properly criminal. On the other hand, it also made many aware for the first time that there were racial, socio-economic, and regional dimensions to the debate. While few openly called for the repeal of all dog-fighting laws, it became clear that many African-Americans and rural whites, particularly Southerners and those with lower incomes, did not view dog fighting as a particularly serious offense. Many in these groups still find it a fascinating and exhilarating spectator sport, and, consequently, view the laws against it as trivial and unfair. From their perspective the issue was not so much one of animal rights but the ability of the majority to impose their cultural views on a relatively powerless minority.
Although dog-fighting has been illegal in every state for some time now—Vick’s home state of Virginia outlawed “commercialized” dog-fighting and betting on dog-fights at the end of the 19th century—the sport once had a long and surprisingly upper class pedigree. Queen Elizabeth I was a great fan of dog-fighting and prevented Parliament from outlawing the sport during her reign. Dog-fighting, along with bear baiting, cock fighting, gander pulling, and other blood sports were quite popular in colonial Virginia and helped to unite individuals of different races and economic classes, including slaves and their masters.
Even after dog-fighting was outlawed, at least in the South there was a long tradition of law enforcement officials looking the other way, or sometimes joining in the activity. (In that regard, it was like “moonshining.”) To this day, the kindred sport of cock fighting remains legal in Virginia (so long as it is done solely for the enjoyment of the spectators and no money changes hands), and a recent effort to abolish it in the Old Dominion failed, in part because the state’s farmers are among the nation’s leading breeders of fighting roosters. More over, hunting, fishing, and horse racing continue to be perfectly legal although it is hard to believe that the animals involved derive much pleasure from the sport.
I spent a good part of the summer in my hometown of Pearisburg, Virginia (pop. 2200). While I was there, the topic of conversation frequently turned to Michael Vick. Although the town has a black town councilman which it elected in at large voting, it is predominantly white and very conservative. Almost without exception, however, everyone seemed to view seemed to feel that Vick had gotten an extremely raw deal.
While it is true that the town is overwhelming populated by fans of Virginia Tech (Vick’s alma mater), I don’t think that that was the reason for their views. (They would have felt the same, I think, even if he had played for UVa or West Virginia University.) For what they viewed as at best a minor infraction against an animal, Vick was punished as though he had committed a serious offense against another human being.
I am sure that nothing would please Michael Vick more than for the public to completely forget about his dog-fighting experiences. However, as the focus of civil rights disputes increasingly shifts from issues of race to issues of culture, Vick may be a symbol of resistance for those who embrace rural, lower class Southern values instead of those of the middle-class majority.
In some ways, I think it is not so much the harsh treatment and shaming that Vick had to endure that upsets people just in relation to his “relatively small” infraction, but the fact that other athletes have done far worse things (allegedly) and not been treated so harshly. An example of this is Ray Lewis, who was acquitted of murder eight or nine years ago. Many people still believe he committed the crime and was not convicted because of who he is, where as Vick was convicted because of his prominence.
While there may be cultural differences to be explored in the Michael Vick situation, I respectfully feel that your post misses some key points. There is no comparison between what Vick did and hunting, fishing, or horse racing. People engaged in horse racing do not electrocute their slow horses. They do not drown them. They do not hang them. They do not beat them to death. While we can debate how humane horse racing is, the horse owners do not typically display the level of sadistic cruelty that Vick did. Those engaged in hunting and fishing generally try to be as humane as possible in their pursuits as well.
Perhaps it is important to examine whether there are cultural differences that resulted in Vick’s sentence, though I feel he got what he deserved. But to say that those differences are merely predicated on a cultural approval or disapproval of dog fighting is to minimize this specific situation. Vick did not only enjoy dog fighting. He enjoyed finding new, creative, and “entertaining” ways to kill dogs. He did not only have dogs that died in sport, he brutally killed them for fun. I think there are far more productive paths to go down in regards to a discussion on race and culture than examining whether deriving enjoyment from the murder of defenseless animals is merely a cultural difference. In fact, I think labeling Vick a “civil rights martyr” may be counterproductive to what could be such a meaningful discussion.
I agree with Ben’s commment – especially in light of the fact that Dontae Stallworth got a slap on the wrist for killing a human being a lot of people see it as disproportionate that Vick did jail time for his involvement in animal cruelty. That being said – I am the owner of two loving and wonderful pitbulls and therefore what Vick did and the entire dog-fighting culture makes me sick. There are a lot of cultural acts and traditions that have been outlawed in this country because they were determined to be too dangerous or inhumane – dogfighting is the same. Vick’s arrest led to a tremendous crackdown on dogfighting rings around the country and in my humble opinion he got off light compared to how those animals suffered at his hands.
I realize that I am about two years too late in responding, but I still feel the need to elucidate my repulsion at this post.
The closing remarks of this post are evidently the beliefs of an uniformed cultural relativist:
“Vick may be a symbol of resistance for those who embrace rural, lower class Southern values instead of those of the middle-class majority.”
We, as “rational” human beings and moral agents, need to start taking responsibility for our actions. Morality, I’m sorry to say, does not depend on one’s income level or whether or not you are a minority. You are not excused from acting immorally or permitted to devise your own special moral rules just because you may be poor, a minority, or what not.
Here is a simple argument we can all benefit from:
1. Inflicting unnecessary pain upon a sentient being is morally wrong.
2. Dog fighting necessarily entails that unnecessary pain is inflicted upon a sentient being.
Therefore, dog fighting is morally wrong.
The conclusion of this argument, regardless of your culture, is true.
Vick, by no means, is a civil rights martyr, rather, he is symbol of a perpetual desire to excuse immoral actions for those cultural relativists who wish to define morality in their own terms.