Pit dog fighting is today illegal across America and among decent people throughout the world; but the passion carries on in many hearts and many back allies and isolated rural gathering places. There is nostalgia for the era of the noble creators of the Pit Bull and the Pit Fighting heritage, the true pit men who took wonderful care of their dogs and only gamed them to refine the noble fighting character. These mythical canines were safe and loving, would not show aggression to a man and would never, ever harm a child. A pit fight was a noble encounter, a purification ceremony where the truly game dogs were identified to carry out the heritage. The fate of the losers is never quite clear, perhaps the pit angels came and carried them gently off to their reward, leaving the victors to breed and carry on the race, ever more game, ever more noble.
In is truly heart rending when the pit men bemoan the illegality of pit fighting, regard it as another desecration, the loss of another Great Southern Tradition. Just like in Gone With the Wind we can imagine the handsome young men in their military uniforms, swords at their sides, dancing to the ball room music of the south with the classic southern belles. Do I remember correctly? Did some of these noble young men retire later in the evening to sip Bourbon and watch the pit fights, with perhaps a few small wagers? Surely these fine gentlemen were protected so that no blood could splatter on their elegant attire. It was perhaps sad that some dogs had to die, but Southern culture needed to be strong and virile to resist the crude hoard in the north, threatening a way of life.
Are these our noble southern traditions ? Perhaps in some minds and hearts. But in my view our southern traditions were slavery, segregation, lynching to keep the black man in his place, and pit dog fighting. Many apologists argued that the slaves were better off, that the noble white man was caring for them and providing a good life and that it was only northern interference and moral condescension that was a problem. Clergy was supportive, provided fine moral and religious justification for the enslavement of the black man as a manifestation of god’s holy will. And no doubt many slaves did eat and live well, often, no doubt, better than some struggling free white men. But if slavery was such a good deal, why did they have to chase down the ingrates with dogs and drag them back in shackles ?
Just as a few slaves no doubt lived lives of relative comfort, were the house slaves because we can not use the N word, did not change the fact that thousands lived lives of brutal abuse and unending, mind numbing deprivation. And it has perhaps always been similar in the pit fighting world, that is, there have perhaps been kennels where the dogs were well cared for and socialized with humans, and the losers went home to lives of comfort as well as the winners. But I simply can not buy this as the norm, the legendary old days when all pit men were gentlemen who cared well for their dogs are mostly a matter of carefully nurtured myth, and nothing more. Just like the myth of the happy, contented slaves.
Even in this era, there are enormous local variations. Several years ago I had a long telephone conversation with a man who had been active in the Los Angeles area in the nineteen nineties. Since I did not record the conversation, for the obvious reasons, this is from memory. His description was of very well conditioned dogs who were matched up carefully for weight so that it was always an even fight, and the losing dog was normally in relatively good condition. He stated that he had only seen one dog die in the ring in his years of activity.
In general these words rang true, and I believe this man was giving me an accurate picture of his experience. The fate of the losing dogs was avoided, but the impression is that nothing untoward occurred on the premises. I suppose people being what they are some of the losers were cared for and kept, but this could not go on very long as no one could care for that many dogs. Perhaps some were found homes and no doubt some were simply put down in a humane way. And perhaps a few of these nice gentlemen with their front of good manners punished the losers in ways similar to what we read in the Michael Vick incitement. In general putting down the losers was probably the best of a poor set of choices, certainly preferable to selling them for whatever they would bring on the street for fighting in less gentile environments.
All of this was portrayed as an up scale environment, with lawyers and other professionals and successful businessman participating. The obvious come back is that priests and boy scout leaders prey on young men too, that a nice suit, good diction and an impressive automobile did not always equate to moral rectitude; but there was no point in pursuing this line of thought. The man said that he had gotten out a number of years previously because the pressure from the law was increasing and men with a place in the community and a good job simply could not take the risk of a felony conviction and their picture in the local paper. When asked if there were ever children present he said no, and it seemed to be an uncomfortable subject.
I kind of gathered that if pit fighting were simply made legal the feeling was that these higher class participants would tend to gain control and impose a more disciplined and humane culture. When asked if he would participate again if it became legal, or if he would do it over again, the answer, after a moments thought, was in the negative.
Throughout history slavery, rape and pillage in war, animal fighting, forced human combat and many other things have been ordinary, accepted facts of life.
The banishment of animal fighting, and slavery, was forced on many who regarded these as foundations of their culture, their heritage, and the resistance has been tenacious as in the lynching practiced by the Ku Klux Klan and others. Indeed, their Great Southern Traditions were seen as slipping away and no act was so despicable or beyond morality as to be off limits.
All societies have moral and legal restrictions, and by their very nature some of these are arbitrary, or seem arbitrary. As an example, alcohol is legal in America while marijuana is not, which certainly has a strong element of arbitrariness. In the early part of the twentieth century in America we were subjected the prohibition, and an immense growth in illegal beer and whisky and the establishment of large criminal organizations that in some ways plague us to this day. People were simply not willing to stop drinking, and the social cost of enforcement and disrespect for the law finally became overwhelming.
In America today we have by far more people in jail, on a per capita basis, than any modern nation. Much of this is for possession of relatively small amounts of marijuana, many of the people in jail, sometimes for incredibly long sentences, are peaceful men or women who if left to their own devices would simply get high on occasion in the privacy of their own homes. How is this different from the occasional drinker? Frankly, I tend to the opinion that we should legalize small amounts of marijuana, make it available in a legal and very heavily taxed environment. In other words, treat it just like alcohol.
Some would say that the same argument should apply to dog fighting, that if men want to do this we should just leave them alone to pursue happiness in their own way, even if we consider it perverse.
I disagree. Marijuana and alcohol have great attraction for many people and extremely negative consequences for some people. We as a society need to let adults make their own decisions and enforce strict consequences when personal use causes harm to others and society as a whole, as in driving when high or intoxicated. This can be expensive and there will be death and suffering because of abuse, which is part of the price of an open society. Several young men die on high school football fields every year, but on the whole the benefits of the sport outweigh this cost, tragic as it is for the family involved.
Dog fighting is different. Pitting animals in deadly combat for entertainment is morally wrong, brutally inhumane and immensely damaging to the character of the people involved and the moral fabric of society.
Even if it were not for the side abuses, the torturing to death of the losers in ghastly blood rituals, the maiming of dogs, cats and other animals thrown to the pit bulls to build their fighting instinct, the horrendous conditions under which so many of these poor animals live out their lives, dog fighting would still be an abomination in the minds of every decent man and woman.
The Michael Vick case is a good example. Here we have a young man overcome with hubris, certain that there are no practical limitations on the desires and appetites of a star quarterback, that he is beyond the laws of men. When sport and money combine to create the corruption of Bad Newz kennels it is time for a serious reality and morality check.
If the leaders of the National Football League are men of any character, or any sensitivity to the mores of society at large, Vick will never play football again. That would be good news for society, if not for the Bad Newz boys. Of course, emotional justice would perhaps be to let him play and then wet him down and electrocute him the first time he is sacked; but some spoil sport judge would no doubt find an obscure legal impediment on appeal.
Dog fighting, pitting animals against each other for entertainment and gambling, is morally and ethically wrong on every level and in every way. The founders of pit fighting in America, who were the creators of the Pit Bull breed, were men of unmitigated evil, every bit as despicable and culpable as historical figures such as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Do not misunderstand. On an absolute scale, the taking of a life of a Jew or a Gypsy at Auschwitz was of greater magnitude than beating a dog to death for losing a fight because ultimately a greater value must be placed on a man than a dog. But the underlying nature of the evil is the same and our determination to stamp out the practice, the existance of these evil men, must be absolute.
This means that those who tolerate dog fighting, who knowingly supply equipment and support to those engaged in dog fighting, who conceal the activities of the dog fighters, are every bit as evil and culpable as those who participated in, supported or supplied the Nazi extermination camps.
Jim Engel, Aug, 2007