Countless numbers of pro football players have committed rape, physical assaults, and armed robberies They have been inveterate spouse and girlfriend abusers, and have even been accused of a double murder (no, not O.J., more on him later). Yet none of them have ever had an airplane fly over their training camp with a banner that read abuser, killer, robber, assailant, or thug. None have ever been taunted, jeered, and harangued by packs of sign-waving demonstrators screaming for their blood when they showed up at the courthouse. None of them have ever brought the wrath of the entire sports world -- sportswriters, fans, league officials, advertisers, sports talk jocks, and bloggers down on their heads. None have ever had senators, congresspersons, and packs of advocacy groups publicly demand that they be drummed out of their profession.
Even America's favorite former football celeb turned pariah, O.J. Simpson for a time had legions of fans, advocacy groups, some writers and commentators, and the majority of blacks, passionately defend him, or at least the presumption of his innocence. Even after Simpson brought the wrath of the nation down on his head following his acquittal some still cut him some slack. That included rabid O.J. haters who said that the jury had spoken.
With disgraced Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick none of this applies. The moment the public got wind that the feds had their eyes on him and the issue was dog fighting, Vick was dog meat. With the sole exception of the Atlanta branch of the NAACP, which held a brief, perfunctory press conference, and lightly urged the public not to rush to judgment, Vick quickly snatched the pariah mantle from O.J.
So why have Americans wildly overblown him? There are three reasons. Americans pay devoted, emotional, and hypocritical lip service to their love of animals. I say "hypocritical" because many of the individuals that work themselves into a lather at the hint of a cross word or look at an animal won't utter a peep in protest to stop the killing and maiming of old men, women, and children in Iraq. They won't send a letter, fax or email to protest the genocide in Darfur and the Congo, or that occurred in Rwanda. They were stone silent on the hundreds of men that rotted on America's death row for years and came within a hairs breath of having their lives snuffed out but were later exonerated. But animals are different, the animal rights defenders say. They can't defend themselves. The inference is that humans can. Try selling that tired, self-serving line to the victims of war, genocide and the injustices in the criminal justice system. They are dead precisely because they were defenseless.
Vick had the misfortune of being rich and famous. In years gone by that combination virtually guaranteed celebrity criminals a never-go-to-jail-card. If they had enough cash, name ID, and pub, the public, police and prosecutors would step gingerly around them, or even openly cheer them on. Not anymore. If their name is Paris, Lohan, Simpson, Tyson, Michael Jackson, and now Vick, a public sick to death of the outrageous legal double standard that hand slaps celebrities for their criminal deeds, screams even louder for tossing the book at them. The double standard hasn't completely evaporated in the legal system. There are prosecutors and judges that are still thrilled at the thought of getting an autograph from or mugging for a photo with a badly behaving celeb. It's just not fashionable to say they are.
Then there's race. The feds didn't go after Vick because of his race. But the court of public opinion is a far different matter. It is the height of naiveté to think that the vitriol that many spew at Vick or any other rich, famous black athlete or celebrity that gets in hot water isn't fueled by hidden racial bias and ill-feeling. There's simply no evidence to back up the shout from some that they'll hammer a white athlete or celeb as hard when they are guilty of a crime or bad behavior. This is more ostrich-like pretense that race has no bearing on anything in America. Yet for me to even dare whisper the R word about Vick insures that I will be royally lambasted for playing the race card. In fact, I was accused of screaming racism in a previous piece on Vick when I never once mentioned the word race in the piece.
The supreme irony in the Vick saga is that he had everything going for him; fame, riches, fan and sportswriter adulation, and fawning sponsors. In the end those assets turned out to be a vicious double-edged sword that hacked him apart. They stoked public anger, hostility and vengeance. Vick is as much a victim of the ugly passions of the times as for his crimes. Vick and hysteria for now are horrible synonyms for those passions.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) in English and Spanish will be out in October.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
The reasoning isn't twisted. Just don't get all selectively "Ghandi". I said nothing of the scores of people condeming Mike Vick. They can say what they want, although its odd to me that 4,150 U.S. pet deaths being linked to pet food with wheat protein tainted with toxic chemicals from China gets less attention than Vick's pet death tally. I just think its the height of hypocrisy to have a league that exploits humans for violent entertainment and gambling be so quick to ban a player for being accused of exploiting animals for violent entertainment and gambling.
Hutchinson suggests that those who give a damn about dog fighting and about anyone who supports it are hypocritical because maybe some of them don't say anything about Darfur. I beg to differ. I'm out there saying things about Darfur all the time. I was one of the very few who opposed our invasion of Afghanistan right at the start because it involved the killing of innocent civilians.
I'm incensed about all of these things. Does this mean I shouldn't care about animals who are trained to fight, who live horrible lives and have dreadful deaths? Where does compassion begin?
That's quite an assertion. In fact, I challenge you to give an example of white athlete or celeb of Vick's stature who has committed a similar crime (rape, physical assault, armed robbery, spouse and/or girlfriend abuse, or murder) and has been treated with any less vitriol by the court of public opinion. The fact is Vick is not a victim. He's a thug and dog-fighting is a thug's sport. That said, I'm with you on your first two reasons for the public outrage. Sure the animal lovers take it to the extreme, and Vick is famous so they know they'll get that much more publicity for their cause. But race? Mr. Hutchinson, you can do better than that.
---
To the folks comparing hunting to dog-fighting,
That's like comparing an after-dinner drink to heroin. Hunting is a gentleman's sport; dog-fighting is a thug's sport. In its most common form hunting pits a hunter's skill and patience against the cunning and instincts of his/her prey. A law abiding and ethical hunter uses guns or archery equipment that give the animal a sporting chance of survival. Hunting also serves nature by keeping the numbers of game animals to maintainable levels. With the exception of trophy hunting, hunters eat their quarry. Dog fighting is quite different. It is pure cruelty. It involves one of man's oldest domesticated animals; animals that have been bred to an unnatural state of aggression, which are then pitted against each other. The training often involves unaggressive breeds of dogs (retrievers, beagles etc.) which are ripped to shreds by these beasts that have been themselves been stoked to aggression by being treated inhumanely. Black, white, brown, whatever dog-fighting is the sport of thugs.
You may not approve of hunting, but there is no comparison to dog-fighting.
Killing a dog on a leash is by no means a sport. It's like fishing out of a barrel.
Vick and his cronies were cruel to animals, pure and simple. They knew what they were doing and arrogance kept them under a false security blanket.
But it is also true that unfounded charges of racism directed against one's neighbor without justification cause deep pain and anguish.
It seems to me that attributing any significant part of Michael Vick's problems to racial bias doesn't help Michael Vick or the never ending fight against racism. Rightly or wrongly that's how I see it.
Very few people have found themselves in a war and most Americans would behave very well in that situation. If confronted with the very real killing of innocent men, women, and children, Americans would act to stop it.
People see Vick's victims as children. Dogs and children do look to adult humans for love and support, not murder. People are outraged and justifiably so. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the dogs. If people defend Vick by saying he came from a culture that condones dog fighting, they are simply making excuses for his behavior.
His behavior is completely without humanity. While not everyone who abuses animals would kill a human, every fetish killer-sexual, violent, serial, or other psychopathic killer abused animals early in their violent past.
Anyone who is defending him seriously needs to examine their own tolerance for violence toward any helpless victims. Why should he get pass? We really aren't discussing other Americans--we are talking about his specific behavior. Behavior that if it went without punishment--do pro contracts still have morals clauses--we as a culture condone that behavior.
Many Americans have had enough of the golden boy athletic star who rapes, murders, violates women. More Americans probably support stricter punishment by the NFL regarding the indecent behavior--but the business of pro sports demands that Americans learn to explain and excuse the bad-boy behavior.
If a man would kill dogs for sport, what will he do to women and children.
Within days of the murder of Nicole Simpson, I was saddened to hear black callers to my local Pacifica station (KPFK) defending OJ not on the grounds that he should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but because she was cheating on him and "she deserved it."
Vick admits to torturing animals to death. And it doesn't equate with either slaughtering animals for food (we at least hope they aren't tortured) or hunting - which is kinder than raising animals for meat because they live something like a normal life before being killed for food - which is what happens to most ruminants in any case. Even without human intervention.
When I first heard that a sports figure was in trouble for dog-fighting, (not being a follower of sports at all) I first pictured some white guy. All the mean pit bull guys in my neighborhood are white. They encourage their dogs to kill the neighbors' cats and other pets for practice. I really hate them because I've lost some pets that way - not because they're white.
Defendiing the indefensible will not bring about racial harmony.
OJ is still in denial. By the way, why didn't he find his wife's killer like he pledged he would? He found the killer in the mirror and decided not to out him.
That's quite an assertion. In fact, I challenge you to give an example of white athlete or celeb of Vick's stature who has committed a similar crime (rape, physical assault, armed robbery, spouse and/or girlfriend abuse, or murder) and has been treated with any less vitriol by the court of public opinion. The fact is Vick is not a victim. He's a thug and dog-fighting is a thug's sport. That said, I'm with you on your first two reasons for the public outrage. Sure the animal lovers take it to the extreme, and Vick is famous so they know they'll get that much more publicity for their cause. But race? Mr. Hutchinson, you can do better than that.
---
To the folks comparing hunting to dog-fighting,
That's like comparing an after-dinner drink to heroin. Hunting is a gentleman's sport, dog-fighting is a thug's sport. In its most common form hunting pits a hunter's skill and patience against the cunning and instincts of his/her prey. A law abiding and ethical hunter uses guns or archery equipment that give the animal a sporting chance of survival. Hunting also serves nature by keeping the numbers of game animals to maintainable levels, and as they have done for thousands of years, hunters eat their quarry. Dog fighting is quite different. It is pure cruelty. It involves one of man's oldest domesticated animals; animals that have been bred to an unnatural state of aggression which are then pitted against each other. There is no sportsmanship. The training often involves unaggressive breeds of dogs (retrievers, beagals etc.) which are ripped to shreds by inbred beasts that have been themselves treated inhumanely. Dog-fighting is no sport.
You may not approve of hunting, but there is no comparison to dog-fighting.
There are a lot of law abiding football players. "Countless" is a clear exaggeration. Should Vick be off the hook or given special consideration if other football players committed crimes?
Keep in mind, people are entitled to express disgust at crimes and criminals without all the superfluous background possibilities and speculations that cloud issues.
I don't see a backlash against celebrities. I see an overdue movement for celebrities to face their responsibilities like everyone else. They still have an edge, they can afford the best lawyers.
As for the tragedies in Darfur, Congo, and Rwanda, where were the media to accurately report the events in a timely manner? We are 5% of the world's population. Are we supposed to save everyone on the planet? We don't get enough credit for our benevolence.
Many of us are familiar with Iraq. How do you propose we deal with the Iraq situation when we are the primary cause of the disruption there?
You devalue the humanity of many who oppose capital sentences and their injustices.
The race issue is dodgy. It can't be proven or unproven but it's brought up, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. I believe it's unfair to criticize the public for going after Vick because of his race. He has been praised and celebrated for his football talents for years. Why bring race into this now?
Mr. Hutchison wrote "The supreme irony in the Vick saga is that he had everything going for him; fame, riches, fan and sportswriter adulation, and fawning sponsors."
So why did he blow it? No one told him to gamble and kill dogs.
All in all, you portray Vick as a martyr of our justice system and public opinion. The reality is that if he didn't gamble and didn't kill the dogs, his life would have been the same, we would not be blogging on this issue, and many of us fans would be watching him play football.
Imus lost his job for distasteful words. The verly least a killer should lose is his job.
While I grant it's deplorable there is a lack of equal outrage towards criminal behavior across the board, there is and will always be something so sickening depraved about animal or child abuse.
Vick's abuses were committed with a serial killer-like intent to control, punish, maim, torture, and snuff out. Can anyone doubt these monsters derived great pleasure from all these acts? It is intolerable and strikes to the home and heart. My outrage is something for which I do not apologize. Tough sh*t, if it bugs you and a handful of incredibly misguided civil groups.
I can agree more of us need to look beyond our scope to deal with atrocious behavior of all kinds everywhere. But I also challenge you to look deeper within yourself, beyond your resentment, to reexamine your own stance.
I had to remind my friends that I thought dog fighting occurred among rural white areas and had not really heard this was stereotype of African American men living in metropolitan areas.
I do think Mr. Hutchinson raises some good points but there are certain emotional buttons that get pushed when things involve animals. Thank you for listening.