Very recently, here in North America, there was a public and professional hue and cry raised when Michael Vick, National Football League star quarterback, was charged on several counts of dog-fighting and running a circuit of such activity. It has been alleged that Vick and others would even go so far as to kill off the older dogs in brutal ways such as hanging. Truly, this kind of behaviour is both tragic and outrageous at the same time. What Michael Vick did was wrong, we all agree on that. No one will deny that hurting a dog for profit is a warped thing to do in a Western culture where dogs are domesticated and cared for as pets. He definitely deserves some kind of punishment, and as we speak, the governments involved, the lawyers, and the judges, are trying to figure out what that punishment will be. Yet the question which occurred to me as I followed this story and the Jena Six story, both of which occurred at the same time, was whether the media and public had taken too little to mean too much in the case of Michael Vick, and too much to mean too little with the Jena Six.

What surprised me the most about the media coverage of the Vick incident was the overly heavy-handed condemnation Michael Vick has received at the hands of the, mostly, white North-American sports writers and media in general. But let's think about the context this all took place in, alongside the Jena Six story to see if the condemnation Vick has received is proportionate with what he deserves. First, Michael Vick's last name is not an African name; it is the name which Vick's ancestors, taken as slaves, were forced to take on by their slave-owners. Second, the activity he is charged with, dog-fighting, is a sport invented and perpetuated by Europeans, not Africans. Even the name Pit Bull refers to the fact that Europeans bred this dog specifically for this purpose. They did the same thing with roosters; ever heard of a cockpit? Third, killing animals for sport is something many North Americans do with pride every year as a part of their routine: it is called hunting. Some people do it merely for the head of the animal so they can display it on the mantle over their fireplace.

Now let's think about what happened in Jena. We all know by now the back-story to what happened to the young Caucasian man who was hurt by a group of African American teenagers, now known as the Jena Six. It all stems back to an incident involving a tree in the schoolyard where only white kids were allowed to play. As a threat to the African American kids at the school who might dare sit under the tree, nooses were found hanging from the tree one morning for all the kids of the school to see. Were the African American kids being threatened with hanging? And if so, were the perpetrators of this crime going to be put in jail for such an assault? So far, nothing of the kind has been suggested to my knowledge. On the other hand, there are many people calling for Michael Vick to serve jail time.

Two observations can be made here, I suggest. First, these sports writers, themselves descendants of a white slave-owning culture, who are calling for harsh measures against Michael Vick need to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror before writing someone off for killing an animal. Second, what happened in Jena bothers me much more than what happened in the case of Michael Vick. Threatening young African American people with hanging, regardless of the intention of the perpetrators, seems a much more offensive act than killing an animal. Perhaps a very steep fine and the public and professional shame Vick would endure would be enough to do justice. Think of how many animals could be helped if Vick was fined in the millions and the money went to the SPCA? While we all agree that what he did was wrong, does he really deserve jail time? What about the perpetrators who threatened kids with death: do they deserve jail time?