Michael Vick, Dogfighting, Racism and the Harm Principle
As most sports fans know, Michael Vick is being investigating for gambling on, sponsoring, attending and hosting dogfights. To be sure, these events are cruel, brutal, inhumane and barbaric and I actually think that getting someone like Vick either nailed on it or publicly admitting he’s wrong and a public commitment to curtail any connections to such organized cruelty would be a positive step forward. If you want solid background on the entire case, read George Dohrmann’s Sports Illustrated article.
I feel, however, that this investigation and public outcry could expose some ugly racial fault-lines around animal cruelty. The history of animal cruelty, or the campaign against it, is, broadly, one of the bourgoise, upper middle and upperclass protest. For example, in England, cockfighting, bear baiting and the whole raff of proletariat animal cruely were banned well before organized artistocratic animal cruelty, like fox hunting. The case against animal cruelty, excepting religous justifications, seems a great example for Brink Lindsay’s generalized thesis that increased wealth brings increased concern for matters outside one’s immediate purview. You can’t care about cruelty to dogs you’ll never see if you’re having trouble feedig yourself. The case against dogfighting seems to be getting settled among established middle and upper middle class folks (among everyone I know, people think it’s just horrible barbarity). It is not the same, however, in the black community, or at least in the hip hop community.
You don’t have to listen to that many DMX albums to know that dogfighting is just another outlet for the machismo so valued and expressed in hip hop. The ongoing national media obsession with Vick is surely to grate some black journalists and many black people the wrong way, just look at Clinton Portis’s declaration that Vick’s misdeeds should be ignored because “hunting is legal.” They may have a point, the media establishment often tends to get more irritated with black athletes doing socially unacceptable things than white athletes. See the kid-gloves treatment of Josh Hancock dying in a one man car accident with a BAC of twice the legal limit and 8.5 grams of weed compared to the national media freakout concerning Pacman Jones. I think that despite the sociology of animal cruelty, you don’t have to be pseudo or subconsciously racist to think that dogfighting is unacceptable, this isn’t an “imperialistic worldview.”
The other set of opposition to these sort of bourgoise restrictions on animal cruelty comes from an unsurprising place, libertarians. Reason magazine has published a few articles, I think, and a bunch of Hit and Run blog posts covering California’s banning of fois gras and congressional efforts to ban slaughter for horse-meat. Libertarians seem to making a decent case, on libertarian grounds, for not banning fois gras. It appears as if the government is enforcing their own personal, bleeding heart preferences on the property of goose farmers and interfering in the free exchange of eaters across the state. Similar cases can be made for dog-fighting, horse slaughter and a whole range of animal cruelty related laws. There is, however, a case based on the harm principle for rather extensive restrictions on “excessive” or “unproductive” animal cruelty, like fois gras or dog-fighting.
The Harm Principle, in a rather narrow interpretation, is (or at least should be) the basis for libertarian or classical liberal governance. And the harm principle seems to dictate that fois gras should be illegal and dogfighting should be banned. All the best evidence points to animals being able to feel pain, reacting negatively to it, and tacking steps to avoid it. Thus there should be a compelling state interest in preventing or minimizing this pain, especially in contexts where the pain brings no great benefits to humans. Fois gras isn’t widely distributed or a major food source for anyone and dogfighting is just organized cruelty with betting. Though I understand libertarians instinctive reaction to expanded government power, protecting against excessive, non-beneficial animal cruelty falls under the purview of even strict adherence to ‘minimal governance’ guidelines like the Harm Principle.
What about the steroids and illegal doping????
Sports fans love steroids and hate dog fighting?
Drunk driving is acceptable, but K-9 abuse not?
Bizarre.
Boycott college and NFL football. Save a dog.
Curt Schilling
June 8, 2007 at 9:02 am
Two quick points (came from Ezra’s).
Dog fighting is not rare in the poor rural Southern white community either–it’s not (just) a “black thing.” There were dogfights in Appalachian TN when I was a boy and I’m pretty sure they still go on.
Generally, quick kills are considered more humane than slow ones. Fox hunting with dogs is a fairly quick way of killing; rifle huntig is a very quick one.
SamChevre
June 8, 2007 at 9:03 am
Agreed. Bull fights are common in Mexico and Spain too.
In Amercia—Latino, white, Korean and black athletes all abuse steroids and many other drugs to compete.
Everyone dopes in the NFL, junior college football too.
Curt Schilling
June 8, 2007 at 11:10 am
Apparently the Feds searched his house yesterday. Here’s a link to the story, http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/383526
fred
June 8, 2007 at 11:58 am
Dog fighting takes place across the world, so I don’t necessary agree with calling it just a “black thing”. I find it disgusting and wrong, but I’m white and middle class. I also consider myself a libertarian… I guess you got my number.
acsportsbooks.com
June 8, 2007 at 1:19 pm
But the steroids are still acceptble
Curt Schilling
June 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hello.
I would consider it a privilege if you would add my blog “The Tygrrrr Express” http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel the quality is high.
Happy June,
eric
P.S. I am a member of the Raider Nation.
blacktygrrrr
June 11, 2007 at 1:19 am
[...] by Matt Zeitlin on July 18th, 2007 I’ve written about the Vick dogfighting situation before, and I’m downright disgusted by it, but I, unlike [...]
Slandering the Good Name of a Good Game « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
July 18, 2007 at 10:15 am
It is an ugly thing. It is just clearly wrong on so many levels. Maybe hunting and slaughterhouse regulations are next. Clearly exposing people to this level of deliberate cruelty, violence, etc will harm them, and learning these behaviors will cause you to act them out in the real world, getting you fired from work, imprisoned, etc. The thing that really strikes me about it is the domination and sadism involved. This is not boxing or cagefighting — there is no level of courage or personal toughness or sacrifice — it is all about a sick vicarious thrill. It is akin to pimping or something like that. We are a democracy and that may mean that your hobby will be voted out. If you do not like it, move — sorry country boy, sorry hip-hop, no soup for you loser. The educated civilized people I think need to stand up more and stamp out this kind of crap. Everyone who is a bad person, even entire cultures or nations, have some kind of sob story. The Germans who became the Nazi’s had a lot to complain about following the versailles treaty, the economic collapse following WWI, the bad treatment of the WWI victors, etc, but that does not mean they were not probably the most evil force in the 20th century and needed to be stamped out.
America needs to man up, stop worrying about offending people, and get serious about technology, education, physical fitness, civility, social support, and jobs. Playtime and letting people run all over being idiots needs to be over — or we will be completely passed by the rest of the world.
James
July 18, 2007 at 7:42 pm
[...] seems to be doing just fine, thank you very much. But on to the substance: as I’ve written before, the history of the animal cruelty movement is one of wealthy people (in England, at least) [...]
Dog Fighting vs Sport Hunting « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
July 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm
What I find most disturbing is the presumed treatment Vick should get compared to others involved. I never see mention of the other people involved being banned from their job and such. It was a heinous act and if found guilty he should face jail time. But if innocent or even after serving what time needed, why should he be “banned” from his “job”? No team should hire him or pay him outrageous contracts, but to say he should be banned seems absurd. Unless of course there is a stipulation in the player’s agreement that you can be banned for a conviction, but as Ricky Williams showed, you can come back.
Even a convicted killer that served his time, should be allowed to work somewhere within the workforce if you believe in our penal system. In no way am I trying to condone his actions, but the outcry directed at him but not at stopping all the other people involved is wrong. It almost relates to my disgust over the Paris Hilton thing. If my neighbor had done the same thing and let out early, no one would care. But a celebrity does something and the world must respond.
Grymmheart
July 21, 2007 at 1:08 am