Full Debate on Vick with Kathat Pollitt
Who's the Victim in the Case of Michael Vick?
Michael Vick has a 10-year contract with the Atlanta Falcons for $130 million. His skill at running, kicking and throwing a football has won him the admiration of millions -- until now. As you probably know, Vick has been charged with involvement in the cruel and illegal "sport" of dog fighting. Americans may not care if an athlete beats his wife, but we love our pets. Breeding and training dogs to fight and kill, disposing of the losers by hanging, electrocution, slamming them repeatedly onto the floor -- this is definitely taking machismo too far.
In his recent piece for The Nation's website, Dave Zirin makes some valid points. Yes, Vick deserves some semblance of the presumption of innocence in the media. (Vick claims others ran the dog fight business from his Virginia house without his knowledge when he wasn't present.) And yes, there's racism in some of the virulent attacks on him on sports and news websites. References to lynching, the n-word and OJ do suggest something besides love of animals.
But I was appalled by Zirin's attempt to shift focus away from Vick to "the self-righteousness of the media" and the hypocrisy of "American culture" which "celebrates violent sports -- especially football -- and is insensitive to the consequences that the weekly scrum has on the bodies and minds of its players" like Earl Campbell and Andre Waters and other middle-aged ex-footballers who suffered long-term damage from old injuries. Like the accusations of racism, this sounds like a rather desperate bid to change the subject. Why should one concern displace the other? Can't one both feel revulsion at animal torture and want the game to be safer? At least the the players were volunteers, richly rewarded for the risks they took. Nobody asked the dogs if they wanted to have their throats ripped out.
There's probably a sense in which Michael Vick is a victim. But it's the same sense in which everyone , from Alberto Gonzales to Paris Hilton, is shaped by social forces outside their control. If you take that view, though, everyone should get amnesty: the racist cop, the Enron executive, the porn-loving tormenters of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and all the other people we love to attack at The Nation. Why do I think we are not going to recommend our readers lighten up on, say, Scooter Libby, on the grounds that working for Dick Cheney would warp anyone's moral fibre? We only deploy the blame-society argument on behalf of people we already sympathize with.
As human beings go, Michael Vick had more freedom of action than most. Nobody claims he electrocuted dogs to put food on the table. If -- note I said if -- he's found guilty, he should get the same sentence other people get who are convicted of the same crimes. Increased sensitivity to animal welfare may have its annoying pieties and hypocrisies but it marks a true contemporary moral advance and it's not as if we humans have so many of those to show for ourselves. It's good that dog fighting is banned. And if football is really as morally destructive as Zirin claims -- if it really turns ordinary men into sadists through a culture of "trickle-down violence" -- then maybe we should ban it too.
Katha Pollitt: The Minnow Hunter
First and foremost I want to thank Katha Pollitt and all of the Nation web-heads for responding to my piece Who Let the Dogs Out on Michael Vick? I'm particularly grateful that Ms. Pollitt, who likes sports about as much as George W. Bush enjoys Russian novels, chose to enter the fray. But my gratitude is tempered by being rather puzzled with her and all who believe that I am somehow "excusing" dog fighting in my column. I do nothing of the sort. I actually wrote, "Fighting dogs is an ugly, brutal business, and none of [what I write] is to excuse anything that may or may not have happened." Seems pretty clear.
But that didn't stop Ms. Pollitt who remained "appalled", by what she believed to be my "attempt to shift focus away from Vick to the self-righteousness of the media." I understand that Katha Pollitt doesn't read a lot of what passes for sports journalism or spends her spare time listening to sports radio: this probably speaks well for her. But if she did even a cursory swim in these unfamiliar waters before writing her piece, she might have found my words less appalling.
To hear the panting sentinels of sports radio wax sanctimonious about the charges against Mr. Vick, and then in the next sentence call to "hang him high" or "lock him in a cage with a pit bull" is disgusting: especially in advance of a conviction. To hear these same people inveigh against the violence of dog fighting while celebrating violence in sport the bloodier the better - is just rank hypocrisy.
But my critique of the media is not all that appalls Ms. Pollitt. She also writes, "At least the the players were volunteers, richly rewarded for the risks they took. Nobody asked the dogs if they wanted to have their throats ripped out.
There's probably a sense in which Michael Vick is a victim. But it's the same sense in which everyone , from Alberto Gonzales to Paris Hilton, is shaped by social forces outside their control." In other words, pro athletes possess more free will than dogs. Stop the presses. But to compare a Michael Vick or a broken down Earl Campbell, or an Andre Waters dead at 45 with the brain of an 85 year old with Alzheimers as Pollitt does - to a Paris Hilton or Scooter Libby reveals a basic ignorance about the 'athletic industrial complex' in this country. Joe DiMaggio said fifty years ago, "A ball player's got to be kept hungry to become a big leaguer. That's why no boy from a rich family ever made the big leagues." Vick and others are free not to play professional football. They are also free to work in McDonalds, or go to a public school that treats them like prisoners.
Major League Baseball invests millions in player development in the Dominican Republic, a country with a poverty line over 60%, where young kids drop out of school at age 10 or 11 with big league dreams. As one player said to me, "The options in the [Dominican Republic] are jail, the army, the factory, or baseball."
The purpose is not to excuse but to explain. It's a fact that we live in a profoundly violent society. We are carrying out two military occupations, spend 500 billion dollars on "defense", and have over 300 million guns in circulation. It shouldn't surprise us that violent sports from the NFL to Ultimate Fighting, find a wide audience. It also shouldn't surprise us that players in these sports engage in past times that one would deem anti-social.
If Vick is guilty, he's guilty. But given the violence in our world, I can't help think of the quote by Eugene Debs who said, "There is something wrong in this country, the judicial nets are so adjusted as to catch the minnows and let the whales slip through..." With her latest essay I hope Ms. Pollitt, who normally tackles the whales with brilliance and flair, enjoyed her brief rhetorical exercise in minnow hunting.
More On Michael Vick
The Nation -- In The Nation's web-letter section , Dave Zirin replies to my post about his column on Michael Vick. In the nicest possible way, he suggests that I'm out of my depth in tackling a sports subject. He's certainly right that I'm no expert on sports or sports media. How big an expert you need to be in this case is another question.
Zirin's big point is that Vick and other football stars do not have the moral agency I attribute to them, because they come from poor backgrounds and have few alternatives : "Vick and others are free not to play professional football. They are also free to work in McDonalds, or go to a public school that treats them like prisoners."
That may be so. I wasn't condemning Vick for playing football, though, but for allegedly running a barbaric and illegal dogfighting business. What does dogfighting have to do with escaping from a life flipping burgers? Or -- Zirin's other distracting topic -- with the prevalence of sports injuries? True, as Zirin notes, there are greater evils in the world than animal torture, and animal torture does not exist in a vacuum: "We are carrying out two military occupations, spend $500 billion on "defense" and have over 300 million guns in circulation. It shouldn't surprise us that violent sports, from the NFL to Ultimate Fighting, find a wide audience. It also shouldn't surprise us that players in these sports engage in past times [sic] that one would deem anti-social."
Yes, yes: violence in, violence out. Not only am I not surprised that our warlike and violence-loving society produces lots of, um, violence, I've made the same point myself. But every now and then, a crime is so gratuitously horrible it stands out. To blame Vick's alleged crimes on society and outrage against them on racism feels like an evasion, like political boilerplate.
I do have trouble seeing sports stars -- zillionaires idolized by millions and held up as role models to children (and how idiotic is that?) --as mere victims of the system. To me they seem more likely to be testosterone-poisoned narcissists who think they can get away with anything, and often do. The celebrity culture of entitlement -- that's the system they operate in, not the Old South. It may be true, as Zirin says, that only poor kids become professional players, because the work is so hard and the struggle so great -- but whatever Vick's origins it's hard to see as a peon someone who is making $13 million dollars a year. As for racism , that may be true of the radio frothers-- maybe one day a white star will be accused of animal torture and we can compare the public response. But it doesn't describe me, or the many Nation readers who've written in to express their outrage.
If charging racism doesn't play at The Nation, you probably need a better argument.
Katha Pollitt and the Black Athlete
Ms. Pollitt should know that if she chooses to debate a sports writer, we believe very strongly in the concept of "last licks". That means since she replied to my reply, I am swinging for the fences with my last ups.
Is Ms. Pollitt out of her depth in turning her laser pen onto sports? Sadly, the answer is yes.
For example she writes, "Whatever Vick's origins it's hard to see as a peon someone who is making $13 million dollars a year."
Clearly Ms. Pollitt took the well-publicized $130 million Vick is supposed to be making and divided it by the ten-year length of his contract. Of course, as even an ESPN channel surfer can tell you, that's not how it works. Vick was slated to make $6 million this year, and NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Players can be cut at any time and not see another dime. This scandal, whether he is found to be innocent or guilty, will cost Vick and his family millions.
Then she writes, "maybe one day a white star will be accused of animal torture and we can compare the public response. But it doesn't describe me, or the many Nation readers who've written in to express their outrage."
But this ducks a basic question that far transcends the world of sports: would a white player ever be targeted for such an investigation? And even if so, would a white player be scrutinized as severely as Vick, while being held up as an example of everything that is wrong in sports? This is the central point about this entire situation that Ms. Pollitt either willfully ignores--or about which she is simply ignorant: the very real racism faced by professional black athletes. Have you ever wondered why we never hear about white athletes breaking the law? Are we really willing to believe that white athletes just drink a big yummy glass of vitamin D milk before every at bat? That they don't drink and drive, don't smoke weed, or don't hit their loved ones?
Arguably, if suspended NFL player Tank Johnson were white would he still be a member of the Chicago Bears because the police never would have pulled him over in Arizona at three in the morning driving through a white neighborhood. When white athletes are pulled over, are their SUVs searched for drugs or guns--or are they asked for an autograph?
When St. Louis Cardinal pitcher Josh Hancock, who was white, tragically died in a drunk driving accident in the spring with marijuana found on his person, it wasn't then used to have a hand wringing discussion about "the state of the white athlete" or "hip hop prison culture". This happens every time there is any kind of arrest of white athletes. Here today in the news, gone tomorrow.
Moreover, the hypocrisy on the question of violence and NFL cannot be shouted loudly enough. Professional football is not only a violent sport but it practically celebrates the violence--as does the media that covers it. This is evident from worshipping the big hits (ESPN's "You just got Jacked!") to rolling out the Blue Angels and the military ads every Superbowl. For their opening training camp festivities, the Chicago Bears invited Army recruiters to table. I don't recall hearing any hew and cry from the mass media about the NFL glorification of war and the thousands of soldiers and Iraq civilians being maimed and murdered.
Of course Ms. Pollitt understands this all to well. She is an important voice against war and oppression. But Ms. Pollitt sounds like Dick Cheney at a solar energy convention when trying to explain racism and the professional athlete. Not so much out of her depth as out of her element.
0 Reader Comments | Add a comment
PLEASE NOTE: This forum is for dialog between Edge of Sports readers. Discuss!
Submit your comment below:
Dave Zirin is the author of the book: "Welcome to the Terrordome: The Pain, Politics and Promise of Sports" (Haymarket). You can receive his column Edge of Sports, every week by
going to dave@edgeofsports.com.
Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com
