Is Vick’s conviction a sign that we care more about pit bulls than people?
By Gina Spadafori
December 20, 2007
That’s the point of yet another spin on the “people who care about animals don’t care about people” nonsense. Except this time, it’s more than that: It’s a sign that we don’t care about black people in particular. Pamela M. Johnson opines for the San Francisco Chronicles SFGate.com Web site:
[T] here are some in the African American community condemning the biased press coverage of the “dog abuse” case filed against NFL player Michael Vick. The press had him tried and convicted before his arraignment and trial. Video coverage of the case often showed visceral images of dogs tearing into each other, thereby manipulating the emotions of the viewers to prejudge Vick as guilty.
In American culture, ethnic groups external to African Americans appear to have become more upset over dog fighting than African Americans are. If we were to look at animal welfare rights versus the rights of African Americans, one might conclude the welfare of animals gets more attention in some circles than the welfare of black people in this country. There are more groups fighting for the rights of animals than for the rights of African Americans.
We reside in a country whose Constitution originally equated each black person to three-fifths of a white person. Where in the Constitution does it say dogs are worth more than a man? Nevertheless, people come together in droves to address and prosecute animal abuse, far more than to deal with the issue of the abuse of blacks. Killing of animals is more vigorously pursued and more harshly punished than the killing of black people, by both longer sentences and longer probationary periods. The government in this case has shown far more vigor pursuing charges over the death of a dog than solving the serious, often life-threatening, issues affecting black human beings in this country, such as poverty, crime, drug abuse, unemployment and poor schools.
We see more in the news regarding cruelty to animals than cruelty to black people. Why is it more socially acceptable to talk about animal rights than black peoples’ rights and the brutality imposed upon this ethnic group? This doesn’t make sense, especially if you are a Christian and hold Christian beliefs. Animals have no part in the Resurrection, but human beings do.
A bigger load of claptrap I’ve rarely read. And if you read on, she makes the point that dog-fighting is legal in a lot of places, was once legal in the United States, and is really no different from hunting, since animals die in that pursuit, too. (And note she puts quotation marks around “dog abuse” to suggest Vick’s behavior is debatably acceptable.)
Few things mark a writer as lazy, by the way, than using “there are some who believe” and “one might conclude.” There are some who believe the earth is flat and that it’s OK to beat up on your significant other if it suits you. One might conclude that doesn’t mean we should listen to such morons.
As we’ve written here many times, it ain’t an either-or proposition. Caring about animals does not preclude anyone from caring about people, the environment or even chocolate. We’re able to multitask on the caring front, amazingly.
Sorry, but I’m not giving Sick Vick a pass for his “hobby,” which consisted of the long-term torture of animals for his entertainment. Peddle it somewhere else, Ms. Johnson, because some people believe you’re full of crap. In fact, one might conclude you absolutely are.
Speaking of resurrection, I read an earlier incarnation of this stupidity in regards to Katrina and New Orleans. It went something along the lines of ‘people are spending more time, money, and effort to rehome the animals of New Orleans than the people.’
Not only is that a lie, it’s pandering to the same “Look at me, I call Racism! Racism!” ethic of sub-par “journalists.” And I use “journalist” here like that hack Johnson uses “abuse” to clearly question my belief that the term should be applied to her.
Idiots like her are on the wrong side of every issue. She conveniently forgot to mention that the government dolled out more aid $ per person to New Orleans BEFORE Katrina than almost any other community and the level of spending on the people and the area after is going to be astronomical before it is all said and done. It will probably be the biggest government give away in history.
She also conveniently forgot to mention that Michael Vick (and PLENTY of other Blacks) are paid more per year than 99.999% of anyone who has ever lived, and certainly more than 99.999% of people alive and working today.
Gosh, is that racism? Or is it meritocracy? Michael Vick was paid $61,910,630.00 from 2001-2006. You’d be hard pressed to find any other single cause that another group spent so much money on during that time frame other than a celebrity, CEO, or athlete.
That must mean that we value Michael Vick above —and to the detriment off—the President, all of Congress, all of our teachers, all of our parents, almost all of our clergy, our children, our homes, our pets and anything that we haven’t spent 60 million dollars on this century.
If you turn Ms. Johnson’s logic back on her, I’m sure we’d find that she’s racist since she’s spent more money on herself than anyone else, and thus she prefers her race than all others. That would also make her sexist. I’m sure Ms. Johnson has spent more money on toilet paper than she has on causes that support “African Americans” so I guess she values toilet paper above people. She has spent way more money on designer coffee than she has on starving children in Africa, so again, she must care more about her morning Robusto than dying people. She’s clearly spent more money on vacations to sandy resorts by the sea, so clearly she must value her own luxury than she cares for the slaughter of innocent people in Darfur.
If she has a pet, I’m sure that she has spent more on that pet than on the homeless, the poor, the wounded and injured, and any other cause. So again, she must really love her fluffy more than all of those things, and she is evil for doing so, according to her own stupid logic.
Comment by Christopher — December 20, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Right on, Gina, right on! :)
A.C.
Comment by A.C. — December 20, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Both A.C. and Gina said it extremely well.
No one should try to pass blame on anyone other than Vick himself. It wasn’t the news media and it wasn’t a race issue. And truth be said, I’m tired of those African Americans who scream “race” for everything. It only serves to separate me further from them.
So that brings us to whether non-African Americans pay more attention to animal rights than to the rigts of African Americans. To that I can only say that African Americans have done an excellent job of setting themselves apart as a separate entity. Animals, on the other hand, are happy to be in my world and therefore it seems natural for me to pay more attention to them and be more concerned with their issues.
It’s time for African American to start calling themselves “American,” don’t you think? That would go a long way towards creating one people as opposed to two.
And Gina, thanks for echoing my beliefs.
Comment by Lynn — December 20, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
That must be the most stupid article I ever read. Slavery and child labor were also legal at one time. Some reporters should have chosen another profession if they cannot stick to subjects that are pertinent but bring up all kind of totally irrevelant issues.
Animal cruelty is committed across all races, it depends on the individual.
Be it dog fighting, puppy mills, torture in the backyard etc.
Plenty of black people who are wonderful loving pet owners, plenty of white people(Amish, Mennonites comes to mind) who are horrible. Granted, cultular upbringing/values does have an impact.
Comment by Serijna — December 20, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
well, we all know what the press really cares about it neither black people nor dogfighting victims. What it cares about is missing white girls
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome)
and Britney Spears, who probably should go missing for awhile.
(sarcasm mode off)
There is no limit to compassion, and
compassion for animals does not preclude compassion for people
it’s NO ONE’s business how people chose to express their compassion.
(like the overseas pet thing you blogged about).
Every example of compassion should be celebrated, not mocked or bemoaned
Comment by EmilyS — December 20, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
I think people are more caring for dogs, no doubt, I mean we feed them, bathe them and pick up after them. And we hate when a dog is killed in a movie, but if people die in a movie even though it’s fake we get sad and upset if the dog dies.
Thanks for the dog tips on your blog
Comment by dog Training Toronto — December 20, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Personally I think people are more apt to react to the abuse of an animal that has no say for itself. The same is true for babies and children that are abused.
I have always believed in equality of people and that extends to when someone does something heinous like Michael Vick did. Black or white his behavior was inexcusable.
Comment by Lilly and Lucy's mom — December 20, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
I declined to read the balance of the article. Why bother? More of the same garbage. You love your pet i.e. you don’t love people. There is a great leap in logic here that anyone can see. One would think that people who proclaimed loudly against this type of criminal behavior would be applauded and not villified. Race and sex don’t enter into every situation. The man broke the law and has been punished. The end.
Comment by Carol — December 20, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Having lived in Chicago and points south of that I can tell you that that town is as racist as it comes. You cant have a convesation with any of the people I know down there without the N word coming up all the time. Its N this and N that and I got a special N gun just in case they come for me at home.
Ive also been wathing the prison industry rise and rise here in Wis. and Ive noticed one thing. The number of young blacks going to prison is substantially higher than whites for the same crimes.
I will not defend Vick. It was wrong and unlike some kid who gets sent up the river for possession of cocaine or crack he had every reason NOT to do something stupid as as wilfully vicious as he did.
But, consider this. If you were watching half of the young men you know go to prison for long terms for relatively minor charges thar hurt no one but themselves would you not eventually become resentful of the dogs?
Think about it.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 20, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
I have to admit that my sympathy goes to the INNOCENTS who depend on others for their food, shelter and protection ~ that would be the children and the animals.
Black, white, purple or orange ~ people make choices and have to live with the consequences of those choices. If there are things that are wrong, then take some action to right the wrongs. But for crying out loud, just yelling “victim” will not make things any different.
I will continue to protect the animals and children because, for some of them, there is no one else.
Michael Vick is a pitiful excuse for a human being and I don’t care what his excuses are. He deliberately and willfully tortured and killed innocents for his own entertainment. That has not a thing to do with the color of his skin, but the color of his soul.
Comment by catmom5 — December 20, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
Bernie, I’m not sure that the following is worth considering:
“If you were watching half of the young men you know go to prison for long terms for relatively minor charges thar hurt no one but themselves would you not eventually become resentful of the dogs?”
What you don’t know is how many times each of the prisoners had been in jail before. [More past offenses, longer sentences for smaller crimes.]
Comment by Lynn — December 20, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Lynn, no, we do in fact know that young black with no priors are going to prison for significant terms, for relatively minor offenses that young white men with a similar lack of priors are getting fines, probation, or much shorter terms for. This is a fact, not open to debate, and it’s a big factor in black resentment.
I just don’t agree that it means we shouldn’t be protecting the dogs and cats, who aren’t responsible (or descended from those responsible) for the history of racism in this country. Or that we shouldn’t punish Michael Vick, who was in fact one of the privileged in this society, and if he and his business managers aren’t complete idiots, will still be living a very comfortable life indeed when he gets out, for his abuse and torture of dogs, for years, on a large scale.
A non-trivial point, for me, is that even if you buy the arguments about cultural differences and the different way dogs and dog-fighting are regarded, Michael Vick is still a sick guy. Pretend for a moment that you don’t think that dog fighting is abusive in itself, and you’re still left with the fact that Vick did things most professional dog fighters wouldn’t do—drown, electrocute, hang, or beat to death losing dogs, rather than just shoot them, or kill them by lethal injection, either of which would have been quicker and easier for the person doing the job.
This is one seriously sick guy, and a refusal to look past his skin color to what he did is seriously short-sighted.
Comment by Lis — December 21, 2007 @ 7:48 am
Lynn,
You said it yourself. “You don’t know…”
Yes, we dont know.
The fact that we are willing to paint entire classes of people with such a broad brush is the root of the problem.
When I go to the shelter and see these dogs, some of the begging, others angry and firghtened I think to myself, how can I save or contribute to the savings of each of them, even the billigerent ones.
When I or any of us see people being carted off to prison do we have the same sentiments?
Do we think that but for a little effort on our parts that human going to that cell might have a better life?
Yes, people make choices. But like Congo the dog those choices are within the confines of what we have been taught. He is what his owner and environment made him and he acted accordingly. He is in prison for that.
I noted that Gov. Arnold S. is considering releaseing 20,000 non-violent prisoners to solve the budget crisis in CA. Whether thats a good idea or not will depend greatly on what kind of home these “dawgs” go to and what awaits them on the outside. If the State just pockets the savings I suspect it will go badly. But who among us would take a hard to place dog from a shelter without investing in training?
In this Christmas season I am reminded of the line from Dickens when the men come to Scrooge looking donations for the poor and he responds, “Are there no prisons?” Both the prisons and the shelters are full.
In the blog above this one we see the photos of the sick and dying dog abandoned and neglected in what should have been his chance to get a new start. Shelters and pounds euthanize dogs because the people and officials responsible for their operation see no value in those animals and see “disposal” as their final solution. I share the outrage. But I refuse to compartmentalize those feelings to dogs alone. Neither prisons nor shelters should be final desinations if it can be avoided.
These people are expressing their outrage at those of us who to them, seem to value the dogs more than them. There is a good deal of history behind that. I am not advocating a retreat on the hopes we have for the better treatment of animals. I am saying that we had better find ways to extend that same concern for our fellow man lest it (like Congo) come back to bite us.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 21, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Lis and Bernie,
I don’t want to turn this topic into one that discusses disparity of prison sentencing for first-time offenders on the basis of race. Not the place for it. However, let me point out that even quantitative meta-analyses have resulted in divergent conclusions that are all over the map.
Regarding Gov. Arnold S and the contemplated early release of lowest tier prisoners: it’s not simply a money issue. There are other mitigating circumstances that prevail. And no, CA does not pocket the money. We’re too busy indirectly supporting illegal aliens, hence the budget problem.
My experience with the African-American culture is that far too often those with lower levels of education can’t get beyond the racial divide and are unwilling/unable to make a personal, unbiased examination of the facts.
My grandparents told their kids and their grandchildren: Go to school and learn how to think AND stay out of trouble. I find it difficult to be compassionate towards those who won’t seize the opportunity for a free education.
Oh, yes, Congo’s been home for several weeks now.
Comment by Lynn — December 21, 2007 @ 7:56 pm