Whether you forgive Michael Vick or not, Bethlehem Shoals writes, his recent Nike endorsement is a sign that he’ll be allowed to leave his past behind.
Kick and scream all you want about Michael Vick’s Nike endorsement. With it, Vick has re-entered the mainstream. It’s chicken and egg whether we, the public, placed him there or were told to do so. Such are the vagaries. But Nike deciding, discreetly, to go with the Eagles quarterback (and one-time dog fighter) isn’t the problem. It’s a sign, a symptom. For those morally opposed to Michael Vick until the end of time, it’s about get real lonely.
I say none of this with the slightest bit of cynicism. The drive to forgive is almost as strong as our desire to tear the mighty down. If we think you’re guilty, you better pay for it (see: Casey Anthony and Nancy Grace). Perhaps we’re after just another spectacle, which explains public apologies and the insistence on admissions of guilt. But these are seen as insincere, and even court verdicts or jail time are insufficient proof of redemption. It’s a waiting game: We want to see people get better, but are too wary of public relations and spin. We want to forgive, we just don’t really know how.
Actually, that’s not entirely true. The saying “forgive and forget” refers to a two-step process. In theory, we decide everything’s cool, and then move on. But increasingly, skepticism keeps us from following the blueprint. A country divided along all sorts of cultural fault lines doesn’t help, either. We may have successfully reversed the process: Today, as in Vick’s case, we look to forget, then forgive. We laugh at press conferences and second-guess the canned quotations. Really, we just want to move on if we can.
♦◊♦
Some people will never be able to forgive Michael Vick for what he did—because of what he did. It takes an almost inconceivably noble person to stare evil in the face and pay it no mind. That could be an overstatement. Then again, Vick’s tireless critics are usually dog owners, dog lovers, people whose bond with the canine race is stronger than usual. For them, every day is Vick killing pit bulls, over and over again. It’s simply impractical to expect them to be able to accept Michael Vick again. They can’t let go, which is fine, but they’re denying themselves the perfectly natural role that time plays in alleviating trauma, or grievances. Without it, we would all run around wanting to kill our neighbors over spilled milk.
Forgetting, on the other hand, is perfectly natural. The penal system’s “paid his debt to society”, however flawed in practice, proceeds from two assumptions: 1) time is worth something, and taking it from a man sends a message, and 2) the passage of time, with the offender taken out of sight and given time to think about what he’s done, ultimately rinses away all rancor. Of course, it doesn’t work out like that in practice, in large part because of how prisons are run, and the circumstances that land many inmates there to begin with. In Vick’s case, though, the glove fits.
Couples arguing are encouraged to take time-outs, simmer down, and come back together when they can discuss things rationally. I’m not suggesting that most arguments between couples involve murdered puppies (can an animal be murdered?), but our relationship with athletes and celebrities has a similar dynamic to it. Couples fight over things real and imagined, sometimes a bit of each. Stepping back allows the matters to pass. I guess that’s also the logic behind trial separations, except there it’s waiting for the entire relationship to pass, which of course makes no sense.
♦◊♦
It doesn’t matter what Vick has said since returning to the NFL, even though everything of note has been pitch-perfect. The same goes for his actions; he’s an invaluable resource when it comes to educating fans on animal rights. The most important thing is that he’s allowed most of us to forget what he did, or at least allow it to fade sufficiently. The Nike endorsement may have outraged some, but Nike simply doesn’t make mistakes like that. They’re gradually easing Vick back into the spotlight, where he will inevitably end up soon. It’s the same strategy they took with Kobe Bryant. It’s not sneaky or dishonest. Rather, it’s following the progression we’ve come to expect of ourselves. We can only stay angry for so long. Then we’re conflicted. At some point, though, something newer, or more unpleasant comes along, and Vick—like any criminal allowed to get on with his life—is allowed to leave his past behind.
Nike isn’t some melodramatic redemption, or injustice in action. Nike just proves that the public’s way of moving on is forgetting. Not denial, suppression, or minimization. We forget so that we can forgive, and if we don’t, things get really ugly, really fast.
—Photo nineball2727/Flickr
About Bethlehem Shoals
Mike Vick is only back in the mainstream because he had a fantastic year on the field. That’s it. Whether he was accepted/forgiven again depended solely on his ability to play the QB position, which he did well last year. If he had failed, or hell, if an injury to the starter hadn’t given him the opportunity, everyone would still hate him or wouldn’t care about him at all.
As for whether he’s rehabilitated or not, I don’t buy it. This man turned a blind eye to dog fighting and allowed truly horrendous atrocities to be committed. Rape stands, beatings, killings…all pretty awful stuff. And I’m sorry, if you’re a person who finds no fault with that then you’re fucked. It shouldn’t take getting caught and jail time to realize torturing animals is bad. Mike Vick knew it was bad before and he didn’t give a shit. He only gives a shit now because it cost him years of his life and millions of dollars. The rest of the “rehabilitation” is the stuff of smart PR people whispering the right things in his ear.
But make no mistake, people aren’t forgiving him because they think he’s a rehabilitated Mr. Nice Guy now. They’re forgiving him because he’s a star football player enjoying success. And that’s pretty disgusting.
There is a difference between not finding fault with what Vick did and never allowing him to move on with his life. I am in the camp of, he did his time, claims to have repented, and is no longer doing those bad things. What more do you want from him?
I lost a child as a result of a preventable accident caused by an otherwise responsible adult. In my opinion, someone causing the death of your child is far worse than anything that Vick did. I have forgiven the responsible person, as has my wife. It was hard but what good would be done from holding onto rage and resentment?
The ability to forgive people is a good and necessary trait in my opinion. Just my opinion.
I really loathe self righteousness. Seems like the most self righteous people are highly selective come time to be appalled and outraged. If you’re going to hate somebody for the rest of time for something they did that had no bearing on your life you are just as pathetic as whoever it is that you hate. Feigned outrage is just as contrived as an insincere apology.
Is dog fighting bad? Of course. But, systematic rape in the Congo is infinitely more deplorable and I’ve yet to see an article featured on this site about that.
Get over yourselves.
Clark Kent: Huh?? You’re saying it’s BAD to be outraged over an illegal act that hurt animals for profit? I want to get this straight, you’re going on the record saying we shouldn’t be upset about something because there are other things to be more upset about? Sorry, but that kind of thinking is really screwed up.
I’m upset about rape. I’ve talked about it on this very site. I’m outraged about murder (see Casey Anthony as the latest example). But the article was specifically about Mike Vick. So that’s why we’re talking about Mike Vick. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Besides, it’s not self-righteousness to condemn Vick for what he did. It’s common sense. Who WOULDN’T be outraged?? Maybe you have a certain level of illegality and criminal activity someone has to rise to before you get outraged. That’s fine for you. But don’t condemn people for getting understandably upset about something that deserves attention.
You feel better?
After poking holes in your argument to the point you had no comeback whatsoever? Yeah, I guess I do. Thanks for asking.
I really loathe self-righteousness as well. Thank you for providing a perfect example of it.
(see also: sanctimonious, smug superiority) (related: supercilious, straw man, Godwin’s Law)
Clark Kent- after reading your rebuttal I can logically only come to two conclusions:
a) You are essentially saying that Michael Vick is pathetic, (see reference- “…you are just as pathetic as whoever it is that you hate.”) and
b) We should not hate someone for the rest of time for doing something awful if it had no bearing on our life, and are pathetic if we do so. (see reference- “If you’re going to hate somebody for the rest of time for something they did that had no bearing on your life you are just as pathetic…”)
Well then sir, I must be pathetic; because not only do I hate Vick, but also Bin Laden, Susan Smith, … the list goes on and on. What they did had no bearing on my life. Or did it? Whether in a small way, or a big way, all the people we hate did have some sort of bearing on our lives, does it matter if it was directly? Watching live as that second plane crashed into the trade tower, or seeing the aftermath that ensued when Vick brought dog fighting to the nation’s attention, ya, that all had bearing on my life, and each also served as a valuable lesson, and a valuable reminder. The point is, no one is perfect; we all have our evils, but ironically, condemning one for being self-righteous is an act of self-righteousness in itself don’t you think? But I digress….
I think the article makes a moot point. To forgive and forget is one thing, normally conducted when involving trivial issues. But I feel a lot of people are having a hard time forgiving, let alone forgetting, when they feel that the person in question is only sorry they were caught. Of course he wanted to come back to the NFL after his release, but do you think he would’ve ever had a chance in (you-know-what) if he had said “It was wrong, and stupid of me, but I served my time and won’t be doing it again, so let’s move on.” No. He’s playing the good political public figure and doing things to gain the public’s trust again. It’s a liar and a fake that I can’t stand. And if Vick hadn’t been court ordered, or had to win back the public’s approval, do you honestly think he would’ve advocated against dog fighting very much, if at all? No. And he has gone above and beyond to prove that by doing just the bare minimum, and avoiding direct confrontation from individuals about his repentance. People may say he’s sending a positive message and influence to others about how dog fighting is wrong, but didn’t he just send a message not too long ago about how it was okay and a good way to make money? I’m getting mixed messages here.
I can’t make out what the author’s point of view is on Vick, his acts of cruelty, and his rumored rehab. I have whiplash from the flip-flopping point of view. But there are a couple of things about this article that really bother me, and I’ve never commented either on this site, or on any other article about Michael Vick. As a long time Atlanta resident and Falcons and Vick fan, I was very crushed when I found out about it. I hate that he did it, but I’d never been able to bring myself to hate the man. Even though I’ve found out since then more specifics than the commonly distributed pablum at the time that he was just a financier, or a dabbler, not involved in the day-to-day beatings and killings, I don’t hate the man.
I am not one of the “tireless critics”, but the idea that because he served some time, he’s now mainstream, is beyond ridiculous. It does indeed take a saintly person to confront evil and react with the ability to reach out and forgive. I freely admit to not having any saintly qualities. There is some middle ground there between those who will never forgive, and those saintly beings. I’m sure there will be thousands of comments along the two extremes. But it bothered me that you portray someone who is appalled and horrified by the evil acts Vick perpetrated upon innocent creatures under his care as having a bizarre fixation.
There seems to be a misconception on the part of the author that Vick was merely a background player in the dog fighting operation. He was very much an active participant, as is easily determined by a few minutes of research.
(From the book by Jim Gorant, who wrote about Vick in Sports Illustrated)
http://www.thelostdogsbook.com/reviews/
http :// www (dot) thelostdogsbook (dot) com/reviews/
“Dogs that would not fight (or proved to be inept in doing so) for Vick and his friends at Bad Newz Kennels were often put to death without mercy. The author reports one incident in which a dog was doused with water, then electrocuted. In another, Vick and an accomplice swung a dog by its front and back limbs “like a jump rope,’’ slamming it against the ground until it expired.”
The kind of mind who can conceive of such an act, and carry it out on a regular basis, is not and never will be mainstream. I guess you’re trying to make some kind of lips pursed statement about animals not having human consciousness, but I don’t think the sentience of the beast rules out the fact that these were tortuous acts.
Since when is Nike the arbiter of morality in any venue?
Jules in Atlanta