Inching Toward Insanity: Why Michael Vick is
Not a Fascist
by Dave Zirin
"How
can we rally for the pit bull when one million Iraqis are dead and the US media
barely yawns?"
This article was originally published on Mr. Zirin's site, Edge of Sports.
Let's get this out of the way early: I don't support the
fighting of dogs. I am not sitting here in a Michael Vick jersey snacking on
Labrador fajitas thinking that his 12 month plea bargain is the
greatest injustice since Sacco and Vanzetti. Please don't send me emails saying
that I hate dogs. Please don't write that I am a "supporter" of
Michael Vick, whatever the hell that means.
I don't love dogs. I don't hate dogs. I will say I'm not a vegetarian. I love a good haggis.I gargle with gravy. I think short ribs are a "side." None of that
means I hate dogs or think Vick is some kind of political prisoner. Like many,
I eat meat, abhor dog fighting, and am comfortable with that hypocrisy.
But all that said - now that we have gorged on disclaimers - I find the
reaction to this entire dog fighting case to be a frightening example of the
worst kind of group-think: an unreflective mob-mentality run amok. I will not
dwell on the various Internet postings that call for Vick to be lynched,
beaten, or put in a phone booth with pit bulls. In less than five seconds of
mouse-work, you too can buy a "Save a Pit Bull & Neuter Vick"
T-shirt. They are easy enough to find since he Internet has always proven comfortable quarters for enterprising bottom feeding
parasites.
"I find the reaction to this entire dog fighting case to be a
frightening example of the worst kind of group-think: an unreflective
mob-mentality run amok."
I will also not harp on the sundry sports columnists using this opportunity to
cluck about black athletes, "hip hop gangsta" culture, and what
happens when you hold onto your "boyz." I think they speak for
themselves. They are as predictable as a setting sun, their arguments and prose
so mundane one wonders if they have a computer program where they enter key
words like "gangsta," "hip hop," and "boyz" and
just watch as the graphs spew themselves.
And I certainly do not wish to draw any unnecessary attention to Senator Robert
Byrd of West Virginia and the bizarre Senate floor speech in which he condemned
Michael Vick to Hades, saying, "I am confident that the hottest places in
Hell are reserved for the souls of sick and brutal people who hold God's
creatures in such brutal and cruel contempt!" I am also way too classy to
may hay out of the fact that Byrd's "youthful indiscretion" was
joining the Ku Klux Klan, a group that used dogs on black people the same way
people want dogs used on Mr. Vick.
There is simply no need to take aim at these obvious targets when our best
sports columnists - people to treasure in these fetid waters - decide to ride
the wave.
Such a writer is Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post. On Thursday she wrote,
"If an animal didn't perform well enough, if it wasn't champion enough, if
it was in Vick's judgment flawed, he strangled it, drowned it, electrocuted it or beat it to death on the ground.
Vick and his pals deliberately enslaved and tormented weaker creatures, and
killed those they considered inferior. The dogs had faces and voices that would
have eloquently expressed their agony, and Vick hurt them anyway, repeatedly.
The crimes may have been committed against canines, but at issue is basic
humanity. Commit those crimes against people, and the words we'd use for it are
fascism, and genocide. Don't kid yourself: The people who are so angry at Vick
are angry for all the right reasons."
If it had run in the Onion, I wouldn't have blinked. But this is the Washington
Post, an esteemed paper of record. And this is Sally Jenkins. First, the
contention, repeated everywhere as if fact, that Vick "strangled, drowned,
electrocuted or beat dogs to death" was in the indictment, not the guilty
plea. In other words, it remains an unproven accusation. If anything, Vick
pleaded guilty because all of his friends pled deals when it became clear that
the federal government wanted - as they always do - to land the big celebrity
catch. The same justice department that says of Barry Bonds, "He's our Al
Capone" wanted Vick. That's the headline. That's what keeps their budgets
fat.
"All of Vicks' friends pled deals when it became clear that the
federal government wanted - as they always do - to land the big celebrity
catch."
In such an atmosphere, taking a plea clearly seemed to Vick and his team like
the best of bad options.
As RL White, head of the Atlanta NAACP said, "At this point, you're not
looking at guilt or innocence. You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my
losses and take a plea.'"
All that said, the part of Jenkins' piece - and almost all the writing on this
subject - most jarring is the way dogs have been so thoroughly
anthropomorphized. Faces? Language? Enslavement? FASCISM? Do we really need to
check-off the actual crimes of fascism from the last century?
Is Michael Vick really the Eichmann of the kennels? Is Jenkins' prose more
insulting to Vick or the people who actually had relatives die at the hands of
Hitler and company? Does this discourse really make us smarter, or just more
enraged?
Katha Pollit of The Nation has written that it says something positive
about humanity that people are in an uproar about dogs and against the
"poisoned narcissists" who make up the athletic community. I think it
is the opposite. The humanization of the dog is the painfully ironic mirror
image of the dehumanization of the rest of us. Just look at the world with
semi-open eyes: How can we rally for the pit bull when one million Iraqis are
dead and the US media barely yawns? How can we humanize dogs with such piety as
Texas puts Kenneth Foster to death - puts him down like a dog for a murder all
sides agree he didn't commit? How can we imbue dogs with "language"
when the actual words of those calling for help in HIV ravaged Africa are being
ignored by our government? How can we cheer violent sports, ignoring - or even
celebrating - the mutilation of people's faces and voices, and weep over the
pit bulls?
As Chicago Tribune columnist Rick Morrisey wrote, "Abuse your dog, and
people howl. Smack around your girlfriend or face charges of sexually
assaulting a woman and people shake their heads and roll their eyes."
"How can we cheer violent sports, ignoring - or
even celebrating - the mutilation of people's faces and voices, and weep over
the pit bulls?"
Morissey is the exception in this point. Preemptive strikes are abounding
against looking at some broader social context. Jemele Hill of ESPN wrote,
"You can say Vick was persecuted unfairly by the white media, say we
should be more concerned with the war in Iraq than an illegal dogfighting ring
or say his downfall wouldn't be a 24-hour news event if he were the
highest-paid white quarterback. But it's impossible to stand on moral high
ground while trying to defend something so low."
Why does one have anything to do with the other? Why does pointing out that
there is a war going on - and that lots more people are suffering than dogs -
mean that you are by definition defending a pit bull ring?
Maybe a better question is, "Why are we surprised people get off on pit
bull fights when there is a war going on?"
The response I will surely get - and have always gotten - for writing this is
that "dogs are innocent." Once again this is a logic that transcends
the bizarre.
Therefore poor people that become boxers, women who get raped, Iraqis picking
up unexploded cluster bombs, are "guilty?" Have exercised "free
will?" That's not logic. That's the doctrine of original sin. I don't know
what led Michael Vick down the road to Bad Newz Kennels. I also don't pretend
to know. But I do know that the world is in rather lousy shape and outrage is
better spent
elsewhere.
Dave Zirin is the author of the new book
"Welcome to the Terrordome:" with an intro by Chuck D (Haymarket).
You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by going tohttp://zirin.com/edgeofsports/?p=subscribe&id=1.
Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
In this week’s segment we discuss a new book analyzing the need to confront counterinsurgency and fight against repression domestically and internationally. But first we hear from an activist on the…
Afeni is an activist and lead organizer with Herb and Temple in Washington, DC. She joins us from Washington to discuss Donald Trump’s declaration of emergency power to take over the operations of…
Joy James is a scholar and a political philosopher who works with organizers. She is editor of the new book Confronting Counterinsurgency: Cop Cities & Democracy’s Terrors, which is published by…
The treachery of the Black misleadership class knows no bounds. While Trump’s latest racist dog whistle about “born criminals” is condemned, double-talking scoundrels may pretend to be horrified…
The Trump administration’s declaration of war on American cities is a logical escalation of the white supremacist project. This is not a policy shift but a clearer revelation of the settler state's…
