Get the Feed
Dog-Fighting Is Bigger Than Michael Vick: Exploring the History and Culture of the Latest American Blood Sport
It’s difficult to know what to say about the Michael Vick story, and it might be wise to say nothing just yet. It does, however, bring to the forefront some interesting bits of history concerning what constitutes sport; the relationship of sport to gambling; the confluence of sport and masculinity; the evolution of what is seen as civilized and barbaric behavior; and the ways in which people react to that behavior.
 |
| “Tom and Jerry sporting their blunt on the phenomenon Monkey Jacco Macacco at the Westminster-Pit,” by George Cruikshank, copperplate engraving, circa 1820 |
Dog fighting has a long history, reaching back at least into the Roman Empire. It has been tracked back to medieval England, colonial America, 16th-century Japan and many other places. It is, or has been, popular in a variety of societies and cultures across the world.
Dog fighting was often associated with bear- and bull- baiting and monkey-baiting as well as ratting in Britain and the United States. In the “sport” of ratting, a dog was put in a pit with rats, and the object was to see how many rats the dog could kill, usually within a set time frame.
Dog fighting, in its many forms, has been closely associated with gambling, which has been the single most important force driving sport over the centuries.
Beginning in the late 18th and early 19th century, dog fighting, the baiting sports and blood sports in general began to fall into disfavor. Some would trace this to the rise of the Victorian culture and its obsession with respectability, as forms of cruelty of all kinds were increasingly seen as beyond the pale, and laws began to appear to control these forms of human behavior.
More concern seemed to focus on cruelty to animals than to humans, a tendency still familiar to us today. Cruelty to animals was increasingly described as uncivilized or barbaric, especially as a form of entertainment. Social reformers — both evangelical Christians and humanitarians, who saw this as part of a larger crusade to clean up society and infuse it with Christian values — drove the attack on blood sports.
Laws did not succeed in stopping dog fights, they simply drove dog fighting to the margins of society where it attracted those looking for a thrilling and slightly illegal sort of activity, a characteristic that seems the want of humans.
Dog fights, ratting, bear baiting, cockfights, bare-knuckle boxing and eye-gouging fights, as well as many other less respectable and illegal forms of sport and entertainment, became the province of males in a 19th-century Victorian culture. This development accompanied a growing fear of “feminization” of the culture and a corresponding concern over “masculinity” among the middle and upper classes.
For the 19th-century urban bachelor culture, and for the Victorian gentlemen of the age, illicit forms of sport and gambling, along with prostitution and drugs, filled their needs. Victorian gentlemen moved in these circles as a right of passage into adulthood, and the bachelor culture moved in these circles to express their manliness.
In many ways, much of the same dynamic continues to fuel the illegal blood sports in urban industrial and post-industrial cultures, as do other sports that feature forms of ritualized violence. This is not to say that the violence of football leads to other violence or to an attraction to dog fighting.
This segment of society is, in fact, only one part of the clientele attracted to dog fighting. Most studies of contemporary dog fighting, as well as most court and police records, indicate that dog fighting cuts across race and class in the United States.
In much that has been written about the Michael Vick affair, the implication has been that dog fighting is an activity beyond the pale, and those involved in it are barbaric or savage in their behavior. From one perspective, that may well be the case. But when looking at the growing popularity of dog fighting and who is involved in it, it’s clear that there is no typical dog fighting aficionado.
From the boardroom to the sports and entertainment world, and from the city to the country, upper, middle and lower classes are all represented. As of late, the gangster edge of hip hop — evidenced at least by rappers like DMX — has intersected with the dog fighting culture.
In my own experience in Florida, I know there has been a very strong dog fighting culture in the past, although it may have faded as the state has changed. Dog fighting had its center in the Central Florida area. There were at least two regular newsletters published that promoted dog fighting, and in the mid-1970s it was decidedly white in its public racial persona. However, the segregation of society was still lingering, and the general absence of information on activity in the African-American community was still the norm in the public media, except when reporting crime, so this may be a skewed picture.
There was a major bust of a dog fighting ring in the late 1970s or early 80s in Christmas, Fla., where the fights were run in association with an alligator attraction. I don’t remember the specifics of the case, but I do remember that the dogfights attracted very large crowds, and they were well armed with an amazing variety of weaponry.
Gambling was a major component. Anywhere from $10,000 on up could be at stake on a normal weekend at a dogfight in central Florida. Police reports now indicate stakes of more than $100,000 are quite common across the country. Indeed, gambling and drugs have become closely associated with the dog fighting scene.
Dog fighting is illegal, but it attracts many ordinary people. Many of those involved talk about their special relationship with their dogs and how they love their dogs. This may seem insane to many of us, but that doesn’t mean they are not sincere in their feelings. On the other hand, there is evidence that those who abuse animals are also more likely to abuse women and children.
None of this is written to justify what is a despicable and illegal activity and clearly out of place in the modern world. It is only written to point out that in some times and places, and in some cultures and subcultures, people do things that seem quite hideous to others. The point is that dog fighting is not an aberration in our society, and those involved in it are not monsters or uncivilized people.
Michael Vick is not the first athlete to be arrested on dog fighting charges in recent years. Nor will he be the last. The problem is widespread and goes well beyond the world of athletes. It needs to be addressed as such and in an atmosphere of serious discussion rather than in the public arena of inflamed rhetoric and blanket condemnation.
The final point I want to make relates to the reactions to this case. Why is it that when dogs are abused by athletes there are protests everywhere, calls for the immediate suspension of the player, and a loud condemnation of the actions, but when an athlete abuses a spouse or a female friend the public outcry is considerably less? Clearly this is a more serious social problem than dog fighting, but the volume of the response might lead you to think otherwise. Is that a statement about social values, or is it something else?
Richard Crepeau is a history professor at the University of Central Florida, where he teaches American sport history, 20th century U.S. history and American cultural history. He is the author of "Baseball: America's Diamond Mind, 1914-1941" (Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press).
The hypocrisy surrounding this story is astoninishing. Where’s PETA and all of the other animal right activists when it comes to game hunting? They say nothing to the NRA members who hunt and kill innocent animals for sport.
What, it’s legal to MURDER annimals in cold blood but we get up in arms over dog fighting?
From 8 to 80, whether vieo games or UFC fights, America is addicted to violence. Don’t just to pin it on one man.
Posted by Loren Jones on July 25th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
You conclude a rather long dissertation with, “The point is that dog fighting is not an aberration in our society, and those involved in it are not monsters or uncivilized people.”
This is a slightly more sophisticated argument than “Because A did something more horrible than B, why condemn B.”
For example, I addressed a man who was beating his dog with a metal rod and his reply was “Why do you bother with beating a dog when Hitler did some many horrible things to humans.”
The counterpoint is that it’s perfectly reasonable to object not only to the most horrible thing ever done, but also to all other horrible things.
You will see that your logic is flawed as you can use your logic construct to show that all your values except one are unjustified - if you apply your
logic construct consistently.
Brutal treatment, in the case of dog fighting long term torturous treatment, of animals for entertainment or other trivial purposes does qualify as
monsterous and uncivilized. To be involved in such activities particularly over such a long period of time, does show an unusual lack of empathy that may well indicate that one’s psychopathic and/or sadistic and that those individuals in question exhibit criminal cruelty at a much greater rate and in greater severity than the rest of the population.
Is there anything that one could do that would qualify one as “monsters or uncivilized”? Are there any activities that have been done in the past in
multiple societies that you would say are “monsterous or uncivilized”? Whether you answer “none” or “many”, it shows the weakness of your logic.
Despite the rest of your column, you had a throwaway, “None of this is
written to justify what is a despicable and illegal activity and clearly out of place in the modern world” and yet you go on to conclude that “those
involved in it are not monsters or uncivilized people.” Usually when one employs a (veiled) “All morality is relative” argument, it’s because they’re unwilling to state why they really are being an apologist. Those who use the “All morality is relative” argument don’t do it consistently, but get insensed when their own values are not observed.
Your thesis is only slightly more refined than Loren who writes, “What, it’s legal to MURDER annimals in cold blood but we get up in arms over dog fighting?” My above points apply here as well. Also, Loren, Peta and most other animal rights or welfare groups most vigorously condemn hunting for sport, the NRA, etc. - there’s no inconsistency in their positions. While there’s been a great deal of media attention on this case because Vick is a major star, I’ve seen no media attempt to “pin it on one man” - he just happens to be in the spotlight because he’s a celebrity and got indicted - in fact, there’s been a lot of discussion about needing to stop dog fighting, etc. in general. However, you are correct that in
America there are a number of people/companies who try to profit by selling violence - e.g., video games, movies, rap music, dog fighting. You
should indeed protest against those people/companies as you and society in general do pay for their pandering.
Posted by Nick Percival on July 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“The final point I want to make relates to the reactions to this case. Why is it that when dogs are abused by athletes there are protests everywhere, calls for the immediate suspension of the player, and a loud condemnation of the actions, but when an athlete abuses a spouse or a female friend the public outcry is considerably less? Clearly this is more serious social problem than dog fighting,…”
Nothing could be LESS clear.
You are comparing these helpless, TOTALLY dependent animals to (female??!!!) spouses being abused? I hope this is not your best example of using logic. Compare these helpless dogs to a *child* who has been brutally beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted and is equally as helpless. That would make sense.
It also should explain to mental lightweights like yourself why this case is getting the attention that it richly deserves.
Posted by Greg in Urbana on July 28th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“You are comparing these helpless, TOTALLY dependent animals to (female??!!!) spouses being abused? I hope this is not your best example of using logic. Compare these helpless dogs to a *child* who has been brutally beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted and is equally as helpless.”
Actually, it makes no sense at all to compare any animal, regardless of the situation to any human.
Animals are animals and people are people. People come first. I fear for a society like this which has such a focus on animals and cares nothing for people. This is sick. And especially because some people have decided that certain animals (dogs) are important, but other animals that they eat for dinner are not important. In California, it is illegal to sell dog meat for eating. Who decides which animals are equal to people and which animals are equal to dinner? And then our society looks at eastern countries who eat “pet” meat and calls them barbaric. How hypocritical. If you decide that you love your dog more than a person or that a dog is better than other animals, you are misguided and sick.
Posted by Pete on August 1st, 2007 at 7:54 am
To reinforce the author’s point here, I would point to a recent story on the demographics of dog-fighting in the Baltimore Sun.
I don’t think the author here had any intention of excusing Vick’s behavior — or valuing it more or less than other behavior. What he’s trying to do is provided a neglected context to the discussion of dog-fighting — which is surrounded by so much stereotype and prejudice.
Don’t get me wrong, I think dog-fighting in any form is despicable. But that doesn’t mean I knew much about the history and culture surrounding it.
Posted by Bernie on August 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Why is it that when dogs are abused by athletes there are protests everywhere, calls for the immediate suspension of the player, and a loud condemnation of the actions, but when an athlete abuses a spouse or a female friend the public outcry is considerably less?
The woman is free to leave, the dog is not. The woman (as a human being) has the full protections of the law and the US Constitution. The dog-though a sentient being capable of the same emotions as a human being-is simply property and has very minimal legal protection.
Also abuse by athletes of female humans is fairly routine, but exposure of a dogfighting ring run by an athlete is quite uncommon. So a story like Vick’s is a (excuse me) man-bites-dog story. That makes it bigger news.
Finally, Dogfighter Pete should get a grip on himself. In Anglo-American culture we call the dog our “best friend”. That’s why dogfighters are a hunted and despised minority in the US. The American people have a sovereign right to ban the sale of dog meat or ban dogfighting in order to reflect our cultural values in our law . The people of the US have a right to self-determination like any other people, but I’m not in favor of going to war against China to stop them from skinning dogs alive and eating them.
Posted by expat on September 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Pete:
Human beings are animals. Just because we think dogs should not be treated with cruelty does not mean humans are less of a priority. No person’s life is put at risk because of a humane treatment toward dogs. Empathy and reason are great gifts. Try using BOTH.
Posted by jc on February 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm