Yes, It's Because He's Black

Here is an amusing accusation of racial bias and moral equivalence from a Ms. Kathy Rudy. . . an associate professor of women's studies at Duke University - shocked?

Vick treated his dogs very cruelly; there is no question about that. But I see one important difference between these more socially acceptable mistreatments and the anger focused on Vick: Vick is black, and most of the folks in charge of the other activities are white.

The infamous "But", followed by "white people are bad too."

Some might argue that the difference between dogfighting and these other forms of animal abuse is that dogfighting is illegal. That's true, but the fact that dogfighting is illegal while other institutions remain acceptable is because dogfighting no longer a sport of the middle and upper class.

Technically, when you combine the "middle" and "upper" classes of Americans you get a "majority". If you use wealth as the defining factor between middle and lower classes in the US, then the lower class represents about 13.3% of the population. Because we live in a democracy, there aren't a lot of issues that the lower class is going to decide unilaterally.

Dogfighting (and cock fighting) used to be "sports" enjoyed by the upper classes in the United States and were, then, perfectly legal.

In ancient Rome, the Coliseum hosted battles between the gladiators. Two hundred years ago, Americans bought and sold slaves to tend the fields and run their households. Today in many parts of the world, a woman can be stoned to death for having premarital sex. Values change. Is she advocating that Vick should go free because white upper class society enjoyed this sport 50 years ago?

In the last 50 years, however, they have become the domain mostly of blacks, Latinos and poor whites — and were ruled illegal. Now, while white middle and upper classes continue to watch horses run to the point of exhaustion and risk breaking their legs, they regard dogfighting as something that only low-class "thugs and drug dealers" find entertaining. Indeed, a reading of many of the Vick news stories indicts him and his friends as much for being involved in hip-hop subculture as for fighting dogs. Several proponents of animal rights have used the Vick case to draw attention to the widespread abuse of animals, but they are primarily trying to persuade people to become vegans.

I enjoy the Preakness as much as the next American; however, I agree horse racing needs to change. Having said that, there is no moral equivalence between sending two dogs in to kill each other and racing a thoroughbred around a track a couple of times. Dog fighting is illegal because society believes that sending two dogs into a ring with the intent and the expectation that one or both will die in the process is immoral. It is not equal to "that cow would look great on the seats in my Lexus." I have no idea what that last sentence is doing in there. Editors?

I look at this another way: If we find dogfighting unacceptable but we can live with other forms of animal abuse, what is the underlying distinction? Could it have more to do with the culture surrounding the human beings involved and less to do with the animals?

I love this form of argument. It is the same approach the global warming set uses. Some group of nuts unilaterally decides that the world is flat, or that Bush caused Katrina or that the earth will self implode in 5 years, and the argument is settled. We all agree that global warming is bad; therefore, how can you justify driving an SUV.

However, I've been involved with animal rights and animal welfare both intellectually and personally for many years now, and in my experience animal advocacy is predominantly, if not exclusively, a white movement. Animal advocates must start building coalitions with other social movements and non-white minorities if we hope to bring about widespread change for animals.

Hum. Why is animal rights a white movement. What do minorities and "lower" class individuals have in common - apparently besides dog fighting? Perhaps lack of education. Perhaps a large segment of the underclass, or "lower" class if Ms. Rudy prefers, are undereducated. Perhaps because Ms. Rudy, and this is just an assumption on my part, believes that the poor should be stuck in schools that couldn't educate cat to use a litter box while society continues to throw money to educators who still can't educate. Perhaps if parents and students a had a choice they would choose schools and educators who have proven their ability to educate students. Perhaps then "lower" class citizens could determine for themselves that dog fighting, or horse racing, is bad. But that is my soapbox issue.

Whether or not dogs are fought more by minorities than white people is actually unknown, but the media representations of the last several weeks make it appear that black culture and dogfighting are inextricably intertwined. We need to find ways to condemn dogfighting without denigrating black culture with it.

WHAT? Her whole article is geared toward trouncing white Americans for penalizing a "black sport". Where does this disclaimer come from? Does any American institution of higher learning require a writing sample before they hire these nuts? It is bad enough that she is wrong, but in her elevated position at the esteemed Duke University, she ought to be able to write.