Obama's Public Support of Michael Vick

[Diva]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Sachita:

I have no doubt about what you say. None what-so-ever. I'm glad it's not up to you. I'm glad that the chances of my ever being in a position where you would be deciding MY fate is not up to you or a number of others here. I know that it is uncomfortable, and I’m not comfortable saying it, but I think that more than a lot of folks want to admit this is because Mr. Vick is a scary black man. I think that what members of the American majority see when they look at Mr. Vick is the nightmare monster they have been taught, from pretty much the first time someone sat them down in front of a TV until last night, is the most dangerous creature in their midst--the black man.

I'm glad it's not up to you because of your statement that if it were you would have taken illegal measures. I'm glad that it isn't 60 years ago, hell, I’m glad it isn't 50 years ago because probably as late as 1970 you could have reasonably walked up to Mr. Vick, shot him on the courthouse steps in a small Alabama town, in full-view of the local TV cameras and paid no penalty.

I know you would like to see Mr. Vick punished in perpetuity but this is why we have a legal system--flawed as it is--it is to make the system tilt toward justice and not vengeance. What you want is vengeance, what I want is punishment. Mr. Vick committed a crime. Mr. Vick served a prison sentence for his crime. Mr. Vick is now going back to doing a job he is, I presume, nominally competent at. I am not concerned about Mr. Obama's making a phone call, that concern drifted away on the tide of 'teach the black man a lesson' that I've been reading the last few days.

I'm curious, how destroyed do you think his life should be?
Cheers
Aj

I wish we could ask the dogs.

I was going back and forth on this matter until I read this (highlighted). He could have been purple, for all I care. What he did was wrong. And then I think, 'he paid for his crime, he did his time'. And then I think, I wonder how those dogs are fairing? But never once did I think, "I wonder how those dogs are fairing because of that big, scary black man."

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Diva

I wish we could ask the dogs.

I was going back and forth on this matter until I read this (highlighted). He could have been purple, for all I care. What he did was wrong. And then I think, 'he paid for his crime, he did his time'. And then I think, I wonder how those dogs are fairing? But never once did I think, "I wonder how those dogs are fairing because of that big, scary black man."

Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

Cheers
Aj

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, I've missed the last several pages, but the first thing I saw when I logged on was the above comment. I know you can't necessarily separate the man's reality from his story. Obviously he's black, and that carries with it a whole complicated set of dynamics that wouldn't be the same if he'd been a white man. However, what YOU'VE been talking about is what society should do with or about Mr. Vick in the context of dealing with a black man. As a white woman in another country, while I may have some understanding of those dynamics, I see the situation through the eyes of a different reality. That doesn't in any way negate what you're saying. But since the man was convicted of a number of absolutely heinous crimes towards animals, my animal activist self sees THAT as the central point of the story. My belief system perhaps sees animals in a somewhat different light than others, but that doesn't mean that one set of beliefs/perception, what-have-you is any less important than any other. My belief system sees humans as PART of the world, not the centre of the world, and certainly not the only life form that counts. While it may be perfectly natural for us to give preference to matters involving our own species, if we don't come to an appreciation of the world of which we ar part of WE will (and I believe, already ARE) face the consequences of our arrogance.

I don't think that we need to have ONE conversation here. There are different aspects to this story that are important. It depends upon one's personal values/filter which part of the story we prioritize. But I AM sure that we can learn from each other in the process.

[dreadgeek]

Okay, I'll ask you the SAME question that I've asked others: what level of punishment would be enough? Please let us know.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by suebee

Aj, I've missed the last several pages, but the first thing I saw when I logged on was the above comment. I know you can't necessarily separate the man's reality from his story. Obviously he's black, and that carries with it a whole complicated set of dynamics that wouldn't be the same if he'd been a white man. However, what YOU'VE been talking about is what society should do with or about Mr. Vick. As a white woman in another country, while I may have some understanding of those dynamics, I see the situation through the eyes of a different reality. That doesn't in any way negate what you're saying. But since the man was convicted of a number of absolutely heinous crimes towards animals, my animal activist self sees THAT as the central point of the story. My belief system perhaps sees animals in a somewhat different light than others, but that doesn't mean that one set of beliefs/perception, what-have-you is any less important than any other. My belief system sees humans as PART of the world, not the centre of the world, and certainly not the only life form that counts. While it may be perfectly natural for us to give preference to matters involving our own species, if we don't come to an appreciation of the world of which we ar part of WE will (and I believe, already ARE) face the consequences of our arrogance.

I don't think that we need to have ONE conversation here. There are different aspects to this story that are important. It depends upon one's personal values/filter which part of the story we prioritize. But I AM sure that we can learn from each other in the process.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, I'll ask you the SAME question that I've asked others: what level of punishment would be enough? Please let us know.

Cheers
Aj

I don't think I've ever broached the subject of his state-sanctioned punishment. I worked in systems parallel to the justice systems long enough to know that the manner in which "punishments" (in "correctional" institutions ) are doled out is pretty much a crock. And I don't doubt that him being a black man entered into his sentence. But I also don't doubt that him being a sports celebrity entered into it either!

I'll say it again: what I'm talking about is how *I* perceive Michael Vick's so-called "change". Does he really "get it"? What I've seen of his statements tells me that he doesn't. Toughy came on last night and said that she has seen things about Vicks' efforts that says otherwise. I sent her a rep saying I'd love to see those statements/efforts; that maybe I'd change my mind if I was more informed.

As I said in my last post: how we see this is a matter of values. I'm certainly not saying that the issue of inequality in the justice system is NOT an important aspect, only that my focus is on the magnitude of his crimes against animals. Sachita already said that she sees his crimes as equal to crimes involving child abuse. I agree. Furthermore, considering the absolutely astounding degree of the abuse AND the number of victims, I would think this issue would concern more than just those who are animal-lovers. His involvement in dog-fighting may stem from cultural elements, but systemic abuse of animals is a BIG red flag for many other pathologies.

Again, I'm not talking about societal sentencing. I have no doubt that many on this site would boycott a convicted child abuser, or sexual offender. I feel the same way about Vick.

[dreadgeek]

Toughy posted a link, did you go and read that page? So you're talking about YOUR personal feelings about Michael Vick, okay. I’m not sure I have anything to say about your personal feelings about anything--in fact, I can't imagine why I should say anything about your personal feelings so I won't.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by suebee

I don't think I've ever broached the subject of his state-sanctioned punishment. I worked in systems parallel to the justice systems long enough to know that the manner in which "punishments" (in "correctional" institutions ) are doled out is pretty much a crock. And I don't doubt that him being a black man entered into his sentence. But I also don't doubt that him being a sports celebrity entered into it either!

I'll say it again: what I'm talking about is how *I* perceive Michael Vick's so-called "change". Does he really "get it"? What I've seen of his statements tells me that he doesn't. Toughy came on last night and said that she has seen things about Vicks' efforts that says otherwise. I sent her a rep saying I'd love to see those statements/efforts; that maybe I'd change my mind if I was more informed.

As I said in my last post: how we see this is a matter of values. I'm certainly not saying that the issue of inequality in the justice system is NOT an important aspect, only that my focus is on the magnitude of his crimes against animals. Sachita already said that she sees his crimes as equal to crimes involving child abuse. I agree. Furthermore, considering the absolutely astounding degree of the abuse AND the number of victims, I would think this issue would concern more than just those who are animal-lovers. His involvement in dog-fighting may stem from cultural elements, but systemic abuse of animals is a BIG red flag for many other pathologies.

Again, I'm not talking about societal sentencing. I have no doubt that many on this site would boycott a convicted child abuser, or sexual offender. I feel the same way about Vick.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by June

And before I get back to rewiring my lamps, I want to say that how you, Sachita are feeling about taking the law into your own hands? That's how a lot of people feel about Queers, too. I am pretty sure you would be horrified if someone you knew (or didn't know) publicly stated "I think that Queer should be shot for fucking his partner up the ass" or "All those goddamn rug munchers need to die".

Broaden the spectrum of your internal justice system.

You make a good point. Because people were talking about taking justice into their own hands or expressing fantasies about what that would be like, I thought it might be useful to post some links about what happened the LAST time that was allowed in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynchin..._United_States

http://withoutsanctuary.org/ (this is a slideshow of lynching images, they are VERY disturbing)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...chingyear.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...nchcauses.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ingsstate.html

http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet...t/USLynch.html

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum...9.02.04.x.html

Now, I want to say this. I get it about revenge and vengeance fantasies. I understand why people have them. But when you *indulge* in them and give voice to them, I think one should be fully and completely cognizant of what one is talking about. When one is fantasizing about the cathartic glories of vigilante justice, one should know that the reality of vigilante justice is not what you see in an old movie with Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson. Vigilante justice is brutal, it is violent and while it might seem that someone like Michael Vick would only be 'getting what he did to those dogs back' keep in mind that this is the SAME mentality that inspired the Billy Holiday song 'Strange Fruit'. To the minds of the mob, those that were hung from trees were just getting what they deserved.

Reading this thread I had a most ironic moment. Perhaps the most ironic I've had on this site so far. A justice system that I do not trust and which I KNOW is stacked against me, is also the only real protection I have against the sentiments expressed here. My only hope, irony of ironies, is that if *I* were accused of a crime the courts would get to me first and then I could get a lawyer and hopefully something resembling a fair trial (class would be my ace in the hole here).

As I said at the head of this post, I get the fantasies of righteous vengeance visited upon the deserving. But I also get it that I cannot--and most certainly should not--indulge in such fantasies. In 1998, a man named James Byrd was murdered by three white men in Texas. Not just murdered. They slit his throat, beat him with a bat, and then tied him to a truck and dragged him just to be certain. When I first heard about that, or about Matthew Sheppard or Brandon Teena, I certainly had feelings that were of vengeance visited upon those criminals. But then I thought "if I indulge this, if I let myself think that I am righteous for this stance, what POSSIBLE moral distinction can I draw between myself and the people of a small Alabama town who lynched one of my uncles in the late 20s?" I realized that there was none. I would be no better than them--lacking in a mob, I would not have the means to carry out my vengeance--but as Organicbutch's tagline says "thoughts become things, choose the good ones". I am the niece of a man who was lynched 40 years before I ever drew my first breath of air and yet his death stabs through the heart of my family to this day and it has been the best part of a century.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind or make anyone feel anything differently about this issue. Indulge your vengeance fantasies in expression here. Sleep well at night knowing that you are on the side of righteousness. But know what it is you are fantasizing about. Know what side you have chosen.

Cheers
Aj

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by June

And before I get back to rewiring my lamps, I want to say that how you, Sachita are feeling about taking the law into your own hands? That's how a lot of people feel about Queers, too. I am pretty sure you would be horrified if someone you knew (or didn't know) publicly stated "I think that Queer should be shot for fucking his partner up the ass" or "All those goddamn rug munchers need to die".

Broaden the spectrum of your internal justice system.

I might have sadistic fantasies about torturing him and taking the law into my own hands but I would not. thats the big difference. Instead of stalking him, sending hate letters and contemplating ways to make his life miserable I'll use my time constructively helping animals.

[betenoire]

For the people who haven't heard the song that Aj mentioned:

[Diva]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Diva:

Please see my post above regarding your last sentence. You can have the reaction that this man should be sent to, say, Egypt where there ARE no laws against torture and that he should be given a full and complete tour through the meaning of 'medieval torture methods' before being allowed to die and never ONCE have a single conscious thought about a 'big, scary black man'. I don't think you, Sachita, or anyone else involved in this discussion is consciously thinking "big scary black man" or "teach blacks a lesson about cruelty" but I DO think that it is reflexive for members of the American ethnic majority to view blacks and Latinos as more dangerous.

And I defend Your right to say this. But I just don't think that way.

Now, since you mention the dogs, I'll say something else. Had it turned out that one of the dogs had turned on Mr. Vick and taken a bite out of his neck severing his jugular and causing his death, I would shrug my shoulders and say that he got what he deserved. If he were only maimed or disfigured, I'd still shrug and say that he got what he deserved.

But that's not what we are talking about. What we're talking about is what *society* should do with or about Mr. Vick and that is what my concern is--that and what our motivations are for wanting to do or not do something to, with or about him.

I realize the thread sort of 'evolved'....and forgive me....I was talking about the dogs as that's what was really concerning me. I derailed. My apologies.

And thanks for posting. I enjoy reading You, whether I always agree with You or not.....Your words stretch my brain.


Cheers
Aj

........................................

[Nat]

A few years back, I might have said very similar things to what Sachita has posted here. Honestly I had a lot more sympathy for animals than I did for a single human being. I had this idea that animals were defenseless and that humans were brutal toward them and unless there were people willing to stand up for animal rights, then there was no hope against senseless human-caused misery, death and extinction among animals. I still feel a bit of that in my innermost core, though my feelings have changed to accept that nature is brutal and people are part of nature.

At some point, I stopped crossing humans off the list when it came to "beings that matter" in my own heart and mind. I think it happened around the time I decided that I mattered - maybe about 8 years ago. I think it was the week when I realized that my vegetarian diet had left me so weak that I could no longer pick up cinder blocks and both my knees were always in pain. Or maybe it was the week after, when I ate meat again for the first time in a year and a half (?).

During my vegetarian years, I went to a lecture by Carol J Adams called "The Sexual Politics of Meat" which really emphasized how women and animals are equated in our culture. She gave lots of examples which can still be found on her website. I do believe she touched once or twice on the intersection of race, women and animals within advertising, but she didn't go into great depth.

Anyway, not sure where I'm going with this, so I am going to make a jump into my present. I understand now that "not seeing race" in an issue where many others do is most likely an act of willful ignorance on my part. I am allowed to participate in this type of ignorance because it is supported by the majority (white) culture. To acknowledge the race issues here would be to "commit a crime against the collective." To acknowledge that most of our hands are bloody when it comes to animal cruelty is another one of those crimes. When I say, "Crime against the collective," I mean in this sense:

"Any step in individuation is experienced as a crime against the collective because it challenges the individual's identification with some representative of the collective - whether it be a family, party, church or nation. At the same time, each step - since it is truly an inflated act - is not only accompanied by guilt but also runs the very real risk that one will get caught in an inflation that carries the consequences of a fall."

- Edward F Edinger

I heard this quote in the Jungian podcast yesterday during a discussion of what happened in Nazi Germany among the relatively well-educated German citizens that ended up supporting the Nazi movement. It's very dangerous to take advantage of the ignorance afforded us by our individual sets of privilege, because it allows us to be mindless and therefore oppressive toward others. It's hard to break the spoken or unspoken rules of the collective, but I think it's worth it.