Our understanding of animals is relative.
So that judging dogfighting has nothing to do with how you value the life of a dog. It's about sociology, and understanding that in different places, different animals mean different things. For someone like me, who grew up with two dogs and projected human qualities on them for my entire life, dogfighting is unimaginable. The thought of using them for sport and disposing of them afterward... It produces a physical shiver.
But if I'd grown up in a place where dogfighting was a regular occurrence, I suspect I'd feel that sensitivity would disappear. In the same way I see a cow and have no idea what to do or how to interact, but a midwestern farmer sees a cow and knows to feed it and care for it, so that one day that cow can be sold and brutally slaughtered.
We understand animals differently, and for someone like Vick, dogfighting wasn't foreign and barbaric. It's a disturbing notion, and indeed, the culture of dogfighting indicates a callous, ignorant slice of society. But it's ignorance, not evil. And for all the rhetoric we've heard about Vick's inhumanity and inhumanity of his crimes, it's sort of ass backwards.
Ultimately, demonizing Michael Vick demands a willful disregard for understanding humans. How we behave, and why in some places, that behavior deviates from the accepted norms of a sophisticated society. Dogs aren't meant to be fought, we say.
But in backwater Virginia, clearly, nobody got the memo about respecting animal rights. And a few hundred miles away, on the racetracks in Kentucky, they're still racing horses every weekend, euthanizing the ones that pull up lame. So wait a second: Who sets the standard? Why don't all these angry sportswriters have a problem with the Kentucky Derby?
I'm not advocating dogfighting here, but horse racing's mentioned as an instructive example. If we're going to talk about Vick's crimes, it's a conversation that requires a far more nuanced outlook than most of us are ready to dedicate to this.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF ANDREW SHARP'S ARTICLE!
Ed. Note.: I am hosting the NFL Week 3 live blog on Sunday. I will also be hosting a Mets-Phillies live blog tomorrow night if and only if the Nationals defeat the Braves earlier in the afternoon. Should that happen, then the Phillies will be a win away from clinching their 4th straight NL East pennant.
The above of what you say about Michael Vick and the ay he grew up might be true, however, does that give him the right or anyone else the right to beat a dog to death or torture that said dog all because of the failure to win a fight. There have been many people including celebrities who have grown up in terrible places and terrible conditions and still have not gone out to kill innocent animals.I'm not even saying that Michael Vick doesn't have the right to earn a living - what I don't like is him making a living on a sport that is so high profile and that this scumbag is only 20 minutes away from where I live. I am an animal lover don't understand why people slaughter animals for meat don't understand why they still have a Kentucky Derby don't understand why they do a lot of the things they do animals - but I can tell you this I am glad that there are people like me out here that respect all living creatures and I am not a minority - I hope to be part of a bigger majority and we will be.
ReplyDeleteSo Diana you've never ever made a mistake in your life that you've regretted?
ReplyDelete@ Diane: I do not think you read the whole article, but I will respond anyway. I respect living creatures as well, but that does not mean I can't forgive Vick for his mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while you may have grown up in an environment to love and care for animals at all times, that does not mean everyone else in this country has. Like the article says, he is not an evil monster, just someone "guilty of having a perverse understanding of dogs as a vehicle for entertainment and sport."
He's learned his lesson and transformed himself both on and off the football field.