Of dogs and (black) men
Interesting — provocative — article in the San Francisco Chronicle today which asks if we care more about dogs than about black people. The writer assumes that the media coverage of Michael Vick was biased against him because he was black. And, she assumes that our society, in general, cares more about cruelty to animals than cruelty to blacks.
I live in a very rural county. Every person I have known in the last five years with a pit bull-type breed has been white, including one of my vet techs. Maybe in some large urban areas people equate these dogs with black people, but not everyone does. And these dogs don't just exist in the inner cities with black people.
Was the media coverage biased against Mr. Vick? Was he tried and convicted in the media? Perhaps there was a rush to judgement, but that seemed to come from the public as much as from the media. Perhaps what's most important to consider is whether or not the coverage would have been the same had Mr. Vick been white. Under the circumstances, I think there probably would have been the same revulsion. Just consider the recent report on steroids in baseball, which certainly named white players, and the public reaction. The bitterness and disappointment of many fans and people in the general public have been deeply felt. And there aren't even any animals involved in that situation.
Do people care more about animals and cruelty to them than they do about blacks and cruelty to them? That's a hard question to answer. I think we should all care about people's rights and want people to be treated right. On the other hand, animals are often innocent and helpless in situations and need people to speak for them. Mr. Vick was wealthy and able to afford good legal representation. The dogs on his property needed other help.
If you're going to try to assert that people care more about animals than black people, I think you need to find a better example than Michael Vick. If I have to choose between caring about him or his dogs, I know which ones will win, and it's got nothing to do with Mr. Vick being black.
Of dogs and (black) men
Pamela M. Johnson
Thursday, December 20, 2007
In our society, does the issue of animal abuse cause more of a stir than the abuse of black people?
No doubt, the laws of the land must be respected. Nevertheless, there 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.
In some parts of the globe, dog fighting is legal, for example in parts of Russia and in Japan (but not in Tokyo). In urban America, many inhabitants don't see anything wrong with dog fighting. In fact, isn't it similar to any other sport where animals are killed? While dog fighting may be the most widely known combat sport, so are other "blood sports" - deer hunting, bird hunting, for example - where animals are killed for entertainment.
Then we have the sport of boxing, where black people have dominated. Two opponents are placed in a ring to fight it out brutally - another blood sport - but this one is legal. So where do we draw the line?
Dog fighting once was legal in the United States, and in fact was sanctioned and promoted during the Colonial period through the late 19th century, according to a 2005 study by the College of Law of the Michigan State University. As of 2007, dog fighting is a felony in 48 states and a misdemeanor in Idaho and Wyoming.
Perhaps the real problem, then, is that dog fighting has been related to an underground subculture, criminal enterprise - gangs, thugs and, most recently, people residing in inner cities, inner cities that just happen to be largely populated by black people.
Did Michael Vick make a mistake when he fought dogs? Absolutely - at least, under the law. However, was the 23-month sentence followed by three years supervised probation imposed upon Vick, along with his persuaded consent to deposit nearly $1 million in an escrow account to reimburse costs of caring for the confiscated dogs, excessive? In our society, is a dog's life worth more than a human's - especially a black person's?
Pamela M. Johnson is the author and publisher of "From a Hard Rock to a Gem: a Memoir of a Lost Soul," (Macavelli Press, 2003).
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
