Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Atlanta and Race

ESPN is either being contrarian (good!) or apologetic (bad!) in running a lengthy piece attempting to explain why so many African-Americans in Atlanta support Mike Vick. The piece is well-written and acknowledges the importance of history, which is a good start. It does a good job of explaining why race tends to permeate so many issues, including sports issues, in Atlanta. We all sometimes forget that legally-mandated discrimination was a fact of life not that long ago and that that experience will naturally affect the worldview of the people who were on the receiving end of that discrimination. My worldview is affected by being Jewish, even though a lot of the events that I use to base my perceptions took place in the more distant past than the end of Jim Crow.

All that said, I'm not buying the goods that Wright Thompson is selling at all:

1. The piece does a little to acknowledge that Atlanta is far more progressive on racial issues than the rest of the South, but this point really needs to come through harder. In the 1950s, Atlanta was roughly the same size as Little Rock and Birmingham. How did this city grow to 4.5 million residents? How did this city become a home to numerous huge multinational corporations like Home Depot, UPS, Coke, and Delta? How did this city get teams in the three major professional sports in the second half of the 60s, not to mention the Olympics in 1996? There are a variety of explanations, but as compared to Birmingham and Little Rock, one factor is that we didn't have Orval Faubus or Bull Connor. Atlanta always had a more moderate city government that ameliorated the worst aspects of Jim Crow. As a result, the city avoided the pariah status that much of the rest of the South gained when images of fire hoses and police dogs were beamed into living rooms in the rest of the country in the 50s and 60s. Atlanta's mayors have been African-American since 1974. The district attorney in Atlanta is African-American, as is the chief of police. These seem like fairly relevant facts to me in describing the question of race in Atlanta.

The article, to paint a more lurid picture of racism in Atlanta, does a little bait and switch by devoting a lot of attention to the Monroe lynchings. Monroe is 45 miles outside of the city. I doubt that many Atlantans would dispute the notion that there is a lot of prejudice in rural Georgia, just as there is plenty of prejudice in rural Michigan (Michigan Militia, anyone?) or rural Idaho (death threats to Ian Johnson, anyone?). I don't think there's a real connection between what happened in Monroe and what goes on in Atlanta, but the article subtly implies that they are connected, as if Monroe is nestled on the edge of the perimeter.

2. One historical aspect that the article totally misses is the fact that the federal government, which is the entity prosecuting Vick, was a major ally for the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. African-Americans may have some legitimate historical grievances with the FBI (especially the Hoover FBI and its treatment of major civil rights leaders), but the FBI and the federal courts were one of the progressive elements in the South in the 50s and 60s. Often, federal judges were the only judges in the region who were willing to enforce laws to protect African-Americans. Similarly, the FBI often stepped in to investigate crimes when local law enforcement sat on their hands. The defensiveness on the part of many African-Americans regarding the federal charges against Vick is irrational for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is that the charges are being brought by a U.S. Attorney instead of a local D.A., as the latter position brings with it a lot of connotations from the 50s and 60s that the former does not.

[Update: I brought this point up to an African-American friend at lunch and he countered by saying that I'm not taking Katrina into account when considering how African-Americans view (or should view) the federal government. I thought that was a good point.]

3. Fundamentally, the biggest problem with the article is that it seeks to excuse an irrational response. I will freely concede that African-Americans are justified in being distrustful of law enforcement based on their historical experience, but can that be used to justify anything? If Dwayne Wade was caught on camera shooting a girlfriend and there were 27 witnesses to the crime, all of whom told consistent stories, would it be defensible to take Wade's side? No. Regardless of the role of collective historical experience in framing opinion, there has to be a rational consideration of the facts as presented.

In this instance, you have four witnesses and a co-defendant all saying that Vick was an active participant in a dog-fighting ring. At least one of those witnesses was apparently able to tell the FBI where there were dogs buried on the property, which enhances that witness's credibility. You have a property owned by Vick that has numerous, obvious signs that it was used for dog-fighting. You have an 18-page indictment that is notable because of the specificity of the allegations. Just about any rational observer would look at that evidence and say that it is more likely than not that Vick is guilty. It's fine to say that we are free to change our minds depending on the defenses asserted by Vick at trial, but right now, the case against him is compelling. Historical experience is important, but it shouldn't be an excuse to crowd out rational thought. In fact, one could make the case that there is a subtle paternalistic prejudice in arguing that African-Americans shouldn't be expected to view the charges against Vick in an analytical manner.

To his credit, Tyrone Brooks gets it:

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta), however, said [SCLC President Charles] Steele called him last week to talk about honoring Vick. Brooks, a lifetime SCLC member, said he counseled against it.

"I said, 'Stay on point, the convention is bigger than a particular man,' " Brooks said. "There are a lot of young people who need our help. Michael Vick is not one of them."

Vick had the money to pay for a top-notch legal defense, Brooks said, and he noted the quarterback hadn't been an SCLC supporter.

The veteran legislator said the SCLC should recruit Vick to assist in its programs after the convention but not become his public defender.

"What has he ever done except throw a football, run a football?" Brooks said. "I don't think he has done anything to deserve any special recognition."


As with any political organization, the credibility of civil rights organizations like the SCLC and the NAACP is critical. Some members of the civil rights movement already damaged their credibility in the Duke lacrosse case (which is what makes some of the criticism of a "rush to judgment" a little weak); the movement does not need to further hurt its credibility by jumping to the defense of Michael Vick, especially since (as Brooks points out) Vick does exactly lack for a competent legal defense. The time will come when the SCLC and NAACP will need to defend someone or something important and they don't want to be the boy who cried wolf because of Michael Vick.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good read. Going to High School in Atlanta at a majority black public school (as a white male), I would say that 98% of my classmates would not have even the first clue as to who Ralph Abernathy (or Lowery, Evers, etc) was and what he did. They would know there is a freeway named after him. That is it.

And I'm not saying that young white kids in High School know their history any better - but I really disagree with the author in that young African Americans in Atlanta feel a sense of local history and it compels them to stand up. I can almost guarantee that the majority could not name one Civil Rights figure other than MLK. Jesse Jackson would probably be the next person.

It makes me sad because these were truly great men and such recent figures that these kids should really gain inspiration from them. I personally loved learning about them in class, but I seemed to be the only one.

I guess that was my Billy Cosby thought for the day.

Fox said...

I haven't had time to read the article so don't know if it addresses this subject but one element of the Vick case people seem to be ignoring is that many African-Americans feel that the dog-fighting laws and their enforcement is itself racist. I.e., they argue that you're singling out conduct that African-Americans engage in, then going after a high profile target to set an example. Although I think there's a flaw here--dog-fighting is a class thing more than a race one--it's important to remember that some of the defense of Vick and anger at the feds is that people think that even if he did everything they claim, he didn't do anything wrong. So in that way, there's a fundamental difference with teh Kobe and OJ cases.

Anonymous said...

So, if you live inside of 285 you are most definately not a racist and if you live outside of 285, you most definately are. Especially if you live in a "rural" area. Then you're a racist for sure....

Nothing like a big city free thinker to set all of us rednecks straight....

Not trying to get on you, but I lived in Atlanta for a few years and that was the attitude of 99% of everybody I knew when I was there and everybody I know from there. If you're from Georgia and not from Atlanta, then you're just an ignorant redneck. The city too busy to hate indeed.

Michael said...

Anon1, I think there is a general sense on the part of African-Americans that their predecessors went through unimaginable shit, just like Americans in general can have a sense that our nation did something really impressive in winning WWII without knowing who Nimitz or Patton are.

Fox, given the correlation between cruelty towards animals and psychopathy, I'm not buying the notion that dog-fighting shouldn't be illegal (not that you are trying to sell that notion or anything). Plus, regardless of his feelings on the law, Vick knew or should have known that it was illegal. I doubt that he was engaged in dog-fighting as an exercise in civil disobedience.

Anon2, there is a difference between ITP/OTP on the one hand and metro Atlanta vs. Monroe, GA on the other. Gwinnett, Cobb, Henry, etc. are not "rural" in any sense of the word. Monroe is truly rural and in my judgment, more likely to be unreconstructed racially speaking.

peacedog said...

Also, ITP 4 Evar!

Fox said...

My point is that the lack of clear-cut consensu that dog-fighting is "that bad" make it easier for those looking to see a racial motivation in the Vick prosecution. Just look at what Portis, Emmit Smith, Jonathan Vilma et al. have said. I don't remember anything saying "oh that's his business, it's his baby's momma" when Rae Carruth was charged with murder.

I certainly don't condone dog-fighting or what Vick allegdly did but the reality is that in many people's eyes, it isn't "Real" criminal behavior and that mucks the issues. If he'd robbed a bank or killed someone, it'd be harder to claim racism.

Michael said...

Fox, I now think you have a point, specifically in the sense that the outcry about Vick hasn't exactly matched the crime. If Leonard Little can play in the NFL after vehicular manslaughter and Ray Lewis can escape without suspension after pleading to obstruction of justice in a murder investigation, then the claims that Vick should be banned for life (or at least a year) do seem out of proportion.

The trick in making your argument is that I don't really think that African-Americans want to make the claim that dog-fighting is a predominantly black activity.

Fox said...

I think what they'd say is that Vick is being dispoportionately attacked/prosecuted because dog-fighting is SEEN as a predominately black "sport." I agree African Americans wouldn't want to claim it as one, nor should they--as I said, I think it's a class (read: rednick) thing, not a race one.

peacedog said...

When Carruth was charged with murder, instead we got endless Rae-enthal jokes. He got a lot of flak.

Also, I'm going to need to be convinced that all the players who are commenting on this situation are representative of anything other than highly paid atheletes who might not have real contact with society proper.

Who sees dogfighting as predominatly black? Has there been commentary to that effect? Further, has there been commentary from people who aren't in the same leage as Portis/Vilma/misguided civil rights figures/etc?

Fox said...

Does "The Wire" count as a source?

Seriously though, I haven't seen any articles out and out saying but a lot of them shading things that way. Maybe I'm putting a construct on it. But I don't think anyone can dispute that the whole love of attack dogs/dog-fighting culture is comprised mostly of two groups: gang-bangers/wanna be gang-bangers and white trash.

Anonymous said...

I see your point on the general sense and knowledge that their ancestors were treated horrifically.

My point was that very few of the young adults that I went to school with seemed to respect that fact at all. So how they can go from not respecting it - to it being the reason they defend Mike Vick is suspect to me at best.

Now if their grandparents were the ones out there defending then I could see how that sense of history would come into play. But I have a hard time believing that thought (or even just that sense) would cross the mind of a young, black, atlantan, Falcons fan.

Anonymous said...

I see your point on the general sense and knowledge that their ancestors were treated horrifically.

My point was that very few of the young adults that I went to school with seemed to respect that fact at all. So how they can go from not respecting it - to it being the reason they defend Mike Vick is suspect to me at best.

Now if their grandparents were the ones out there defending then I could see how that sense of history would come into play. But I have a hard time believing that thought (or even just that sense) would cross the mind of a young, black, atlantan, Falcons fan.

Anonymous said...

Fox, I don't entirely buy the "dogfighting is a class issue" argument. Dogfighting has become a major part of the drug-dealing culture. Dealers bought nasty dogs to guard their homes and eventually starting turning them on each other for entertainment. The people involved in dogfighting rings are generally NOT poor; they're making large sums through their illicit dealings and this is their way of splurging.

Anonymous said...

The fact that "dog fighting" is being labled as an activity that is skewed culturally Black, or Southern, or Poor, is just rediculous! People from all walks of life participate in blood sports. Even against people. Side note, why is the UFC acceptable? Blood sport for humans isn't even illegal in this country. Where is the protest against that vicious sport? Where is the outrage? YOu can order it on Pay per view and watch it from the comfort of your home!

I grew up in neither a poor, nor black, nor southern nor urban area, and even back in the early 80's, I knew people (white people) who had and trained pit-bull terriers for fighting. NOBODY had them for PETS! By the way, there were many, it was common and NONE of them were black or redneck! I do recall seeing a news story here in GA however 2 years ago, when the sheriff of a county in north GA was arrested, along with several of the county commissioners for a dogfighting operation! (not black, not poor, not redneck, and they were not convicted in Federal court and it didn't make the national news, or blogs, and no outrage from ASPCA, Humane Society no body yelled, or demanded a pound of their flesh either...hmmmm!)

It pains me to see how the media loves a titilating headline. And when it's a black man, they get so outraged! Where is the outrage with human lives are at stake? Right now, while Michael Vick and Dogs, claim the airwaves, and headlines, six young black superior high school students are sitting in jail in Jena, LA waiting to be either tried or sentenced for aggravated battery or attempted murder (weapons? Oh, there were no weapons, and a sneaker counts as a weapon) for fighting white boys who: 1)hung nooses from a tree on the school grounds as a threat, 2) attacked them off campus, and 3) pointed guns at the boys the night before the fist fight! No serious injuries occured during the fight, yet these boys face up to 20 years in prison! Where is the outrage, where is the media? Yet people from all across the country scream out for justice, spend their time and gas to go stand out front of the courthouse and picket and protest for DOGS!

And by the way, it is common practice for rabbit hunters to shoot their dogs if they won't hunt. That is not new, and rabbit hunting, is not a "Black" sport, and by the way, those beagles are bread, and trained to hunt and kill poor defenseless rabbits, and hunters make sport out of shooting them. There is NO law which says you have to then eat them if you kill them. You can just shoot them and throw them away if you want to. Nothing against hunting, but it is a "blood" sport, and there is NO outrage! Why? Is it because it's culturally acceptable behavior? Yes, it is.

Fair is fair, let's spend our time being outraged about crimes against humans first, get that right then move the discourse to animals, ALL ANIMALS! That includes, rabbits, squirrels, deer, phesant, quail, ducks, racoons and yes the dogs which are trained to kill them.