If you haven’t read the ESPN article “What if Michael Vick were white?” you probably should, if only for the hilariously Photoshopped picture of white Vick. It’s not just what if Michael Vick were white?, rather what if Michael Vick were albino-caliber white? Also, why is his head so big? Is this NFL Blitz big-head and bigot mode? Anyway, if you read the article you will find some cutting-edge social commentary on whether or not the stigma surrounding Michael Vick is exacerbated by the color of his skin. Okay, that is some divisive and difficult stuff to take in, but I’m not going to stick my nose in that business because it reeks of controversy my fledgling blog can’t handle. Instead, fancy me this: What if Michael Vick’s Dogs were Cats?
How would you feel if Michael Vick had financed a cat-fighting ring instead of a dog-fighting one. I’ll hazard a guess: Not as strongly. In the same way that Michael Vick, after doing his time, is still fairly/unfairly (I’ll let your race decide the preferred adjective) lambasted for his connection to animal cruelty, I think that the fact that it was cruelty to dogs has fairly/unfairly affected society’s perception of Vick. I think Vick was doubly screwed not only by the color of his skin but by his animal of choice. If it were snakes, who would care? Creepy snake people. If it were dolphins, would you care? Hell yes you would. Peeps love dolphins; dogs of the sea I call ’em. But crocodiles? Not so sure (tidbit: this would be drastically different if the late, great Steve Irwin were still around).
So, people who will not forgive Michael Vick: Is it because you hate that he tortured animals or because you hate that he tortured dogs? Or is it because you hate black people? Both? Thought so.