The thought occured to me a couple of weeks ago when I saw a picture similar to the one to the left and wondered, how can anyone support Mike Vick?
ESPN, which has done a better job of reporting on the Vick case than 90% of the media outlets out there, have a very good article on their site this week from former KC Star Writer Wright Thompson on the history of racial relations in Atlanta...and how the Mike Vick saga fits into this history of race relations.
I'm not going to sit here and support Mike Vick. I feel pretty confident that dog fighting happened on property Vick owned. And I'm not going to give a sermon about racism. I'm hardly qualified to do that. This is a dog blog after all. But it's been pretty amazing to me that in a single marrow subject of dog ownership in America, how often race plays a role in what I write.
I think about the Ohio Supreme Court when they say that pit bull bans are constitutional and a supporting proof point is that many of these dogs live in "urban" areas -- does "urban" mean densly populated or does it mean Black? What about all of the "only drug dealers own pit bulls" comments? Does anyone seriously think that a dog ordinance will curb drug dealing or do they think its another way to harrass a certain segment of the population? Or think about when a local mayor says that the city should consider a ban on certain breeds of dogs, not because the bullies that live in his city are a problem now, but he wants to prevent more of "the types of people who own these types of dogs" from moving to town. Exactly who he is wanting to keep out?
While it may seem crazy at first that people stand fast in their support of Vick, it's hard to be critical until you've walked a proverbial mile in their shoes. I remember that most people think I'm crazy too each time I speak in support of 'pit bulls'.
And if Vick is really found guilty of what he's accused of doing, he let a lot of people down in Atlanta, that felt like they were making progress.
I guess what I'm saying is be careful when casting judgment. If I asked you, what is the first image that pops into your head when you think about your average pit bull owner? How about your average Yorkie owner?
And if you think that maybe race, or at least general prejudice, is a factor with the "pit bull issue" or Michael Vick -- maybe there are other areas we haven't considered?
I've heard it all. Only white trailor trash, or Mexicans, or n====== own pit bulls. Its outrageous really. I see DMX and Jay-Z portraying Pit Bulls as pure fighting dogs, and neo-nazis owning Pit Bulls as gaurd dogs for the aryan race. There's also a famous Cuban anti-Castro rapper that goes by the name "Pitbull." And there is MMA fighting team that's called The NYC Pit Bulls.
But also, I don't know if anyone here remembers that song "dry your eyes mate" by the Streets (they played it a lot on 96.5) but anyway, the group is from England, that's right, England! Home to that dangerous dog act we keep hearing about. Anyway the singer is distort about losing is girl friend in the video and along side with him though is man's best friend, or in his case, his loyal Pit Bull. You can see it on youtube. The movie "SNATCH!" (set in England) also shows that anyone that wants a Pit Bull can get one. As a pet or to be used in fighting, but not to attack people, they use Rottwilers for that instead.
And Rachael Ray....god yes....Rachael Ray
(I'm sure no one got the point I was trying to make, so lets try this. What do John Stewart of the Daily Show and I have in common. Answer, we're both American Pit Bull Terrier owners......Like that hot Rachael Ray)
Posted by: Tony | August 08, 2007 at 10:27 PM
The first thing that pops into my head when I think of a 'pit bull' owner is a college-educated Caucasian woman in her thirties who has a decent income and owns her own house, among other things.
That's because the MyDogVotes survey found that the average 'pit bull' owner fits that profile.
In Aurora, CO they were thinking of bringing in a ban because Denver had one and they didn't want 'those people' moving to Aurora.
There is a distinctly prejudicial aspect to 'breed' bans - both racial and socioeconomic.
I think that's why dim-witted bureaucrats who admit their stupidity by promoting a ban on a shape of dog are often surprised at the level and quality of the opposition to the scheme.
Breed/mutt bans are nothing more than the witch hunt of our generation. Every generation has one. People of a certain reduced mental capacity seem to need to have someone (or something) to hate.
Some day I hope that our species achieves its potential and comes out of the muck. I doubt I'll live to see it, though.
Posted by: Caveat | August 09, 2007 at 07:35 AM
I honestly do not understand what race has to do with the Michael Vick case, unless people believe that he is being prosecuted for a crime for which whites would not prosecuted?
All kinds of illegal stuff was found on Vick's property. Whether or not he is found guilty in a court of law, there was enough evidence of serious criminal activity to indict him.
Why would this have to do with race?
I tend to believe that Vick's case has gained the kind of attention that it has because of his status of NFL star.
Posted by: Becky | August 11, 2007 at 02:03 PM
While I am not a fan of Michael Vick or dog fighting, I think their are many indications that he is being railroaded, guilty or not.
Just because HSUS insists that the evidence is damning does not make it so. I think the public is taking HSUS statements about this case at face value. Poindexter was reluctant to proceed because the evidence collected in the initial search was weak. A yard full of pit bulls and some fighting paraphernalia might convict a poor person living in a trailer, but would quickly be torn apart by the kind of defense team that Vic could afford.
Still, the HSUS pushed hard to continue and quickly produced an array of hard evidence that repeatedly disappeared and reappeared from the media coverage of the case. Is anybody really sure about how many dog corpses they found on Vic’s property? What about the blood evidence and the fighting pit? None of these pieces of “evidence” are detailed in the federal indictment. Instead we are left with some pit bulls, some training and breeding equipment, the testimony of four jailhouse snitches, and some tips from a dog fighting hotline. I’m guessing neither side wants this case to go to trial. Vic and associates plea to minimize public exposure and HSUS gets a platform to promote mandatory spay and neuter legislation.
If we really want to stop or minimize dog fighting, we need to stop listening to HSUS experts and proceed the way southern sheriff’s deputies have been since the beginning of time. I know, it takes a lot of hard work to bust a dog fighter in the pit with the dog between his legs, but if all of the resources spent on Vic’s trial-by-media had been directed towards a surveillance operation, we might actually know if he is guilty. Instead, I don’t think we will ever know.
Posted by: Pete | August 17, 2007 at 01:30 PM