Gone to the Dogs

Everyone knows by now, Atlanta Falcons star quarter-back Michael Vick has been indicted for his role in the illegal dog-fighting sport. He and two other men were charged on July 17: Purnell A. Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach, and Quanis L. Phillips, 28, of Atlanta. Also charged was Tony Taylor, 34, another co-defendent. Taylor has pleaded guilty, and will testify about the whole dog fighting ring.

So, what are we to make of this? Vick certainly didn't need the money. And it isn't a racial thing--the dog fighting sport. It isn't a particularly black custom. One simply has to wonder, then, Why?

Men have pitted animals against each other, and men against other men, for millennia. It has been custom in nearly every culture in the world. It's something men do. Is it barbaric? Is it heathen? Or is it just what men do?

Vick is a professional football player. He's constantly up against other men, in a forceful, physically competitive way. Joe Namath, former NYJets quarter-back, once said (in Sports Illustrated, back in the '60's) that professional football was a school of brutality. Michael Mandelbaum repeated the same thoughts more recently, in his book, The Meaning of Sports (2004). Reviewer Pet Hamill says:

Warlike, nonlethal brutality is the essence of football. The line is the infantry, Mr. Mandelbaum says. The running backs are the cavalry. The backfield, especially the quarterback, is the artillery, "hurling deadly objects over the adversary's first line of defense." The quarterback throws the "long bomb" or is "blitzed" by the opposing defenders. Coaches (the models are Bear Bryant and Vince Lombardi) rule their teams as if they were George S. Patton-style generals.

from, Pete Hamill, NYT, June 9, 2004

If that's true, about brutality, then there is certainly nothing foreign to football in dog fights. And haven't we all heard the expression, "I got no dog in this fight"? A dog fight is a metaphor of any kind of contest. A dog fight is universal, archetypal contest.

Fighter dogs training their lethal skills on hogs, another
lovely custom: Hog dog rodeos

Ah, but it strikes Americans, Puritan-based American society, as ghastly. It is appalling to our senses, and makes us sick to even think of. And to think that people watch dogs kill each othe--for sport? For entertainment? For enjoyment? How could we sink so low!

I"m saying it isn't really all that low. It's what people do. All of us. We fight. It is the spirit of the race. We're fighting now in Iraq. Muslims slaughter each other on a daily basis, and are ready to slaughter non-Muslims as well. The world is a blood bath.

I'm saying the offense at dog fighting, or cock fighting (also illegal) is a bit misplaced. Liberals (like Senator Byrd who denounced dog fighting as "barbaric") advocate abortion, whole-sale. Liberals who stand up for animal rights sit down for the rights of the unborn. I know that sounds like an artifical juxtaposition for dramatic effect, but, it is nevertheless true. What's the different between slaughtering the unborn and watching dogs fight? For that matter, between boxing and dog fighting? What about that other sport, no holds barred fighting between men?

Japanese dog fighting

I don't share the moral outrage at dog fighting. I would never be involved, because I don't think it is healthy, psychologically. I don't think animals have souls, but I do think they have feelings. I would assume that people who like to see dogs fight have a psychological issues, therefore. But then, wouldn't that have to apply to football, boxing, wrestling, and many other things?

Blood and cruelty seem very much a part of our daily diet down here on earth. Violence is par for the course.

And yes, lots of people like having a pit bull on a leash because it is a sign of strength, meanness, cruelty--and above all--power. But that's basically juvenile. It is vicarious expression of a very scared, insecure person, no doubt. Dog fighting is vicarious cruelty. That's about the long and short of it. The people involved may seem to be perfectly normal people. Many sex offenders, molesters, and rapists do too.

I'm just not sure what the correct assessment of this situation is. Vick was part of an illegal gaming operation, the key word being "illegal." Enough said, really. Whatever the psychological evaluation of the case, the bottom line is that dog-fighting is illegal. Vick was into it. He knew it. There was no misunderstanding. For that, he is amply guilty. Just how morally wrong dog-fighting might be is simply another issue.

Vick gambled with his career. He lost. He is a careless man, morally. The behavior around this dog ring is vice-like. Addictive. This is a hidded element, certainly, but a very strong one. What appalls you in the beginning can turn around and become fascinating and highly desirable. Tobacco and alcohol certainly work that way. Like most vices, these are acquired tastes. The first natural reaction is physical revulsion. But, once one becomces acclimated (deceived?), it all becomes pleasurable.

Professional athletic managers and other players are saying 'go easy' on Vick. What is the point of that? Naturally, NAACP leaders are saying the same thing. (That point is obvious.)

They didn't go easy on Paris Hilton. She did time. Lots of it. (Twenty-three days of it.) Most "minorities" and illegal Mexicans in LA don't do more than two days for a DUI, if that. Some are released the same day. Go easy on Vick? Why? The people want their star quarter-back? He's black? He misunderstood something? What would be the reason to "go easy?"

Finally, I'd say there are sports, then there are abused sports. Men love contest. Women too. There have to be healthy contests. I think some are far more healthy than others. While I have compared footbal with dog fighting, there really isn't a comparison. Football is not a fight to the death. True football, true sport, does not intend injury on the opponent. It's not about blood. It is a match of skills and strength, not injury. War is war. Sports may seem to be similar, and every liberal would see any physical contest as 'evil,' but this is superficial. I realize liberals don't want men to be men, but men are men. Sports is essentially immune to emasculation.

Dog fights do not bring about healthy human relations, to my knowledge. Human athletes find all kinds of encouragement in human relations, especially team athletes, but also solo players, like runners, vaulters, etc. I would never say that competing against another person for the mastery is a particularly healthy activity, but it can be very productive. The antithesis of the Christian spirit perhaps, an athletic competition can bring a man out of the ghetto. Unfortunately, without true religion, he brings the ghetto with him.

Mandelbaum's book likes to blame religion for the whole phenomenon of competition, the whole inspiration of war. I say no, true religion is the attempt to harness the lethal spirit of dominance. True relgion seeks to uplift the fallen, not to knock people down. It is false religion that aggrandizes the killer, such as we see in modern Islam.

Posted by David Yeagley at July 30, 2007 06:02 PM