In an ESPN story written Touré the picture of Michael Vick is portrayed as a white quarterback. It was surely done for marketing reasons and the reality is I have no problems with it. I do have problems with the article however.
Touré says
The problem with the "switch the subject’s race to determine if it’s racism" test runs much deeper than that. It fails to take into account that switching someone’s race changes his entire existence. In making Vick white, you have him born to different parents. That alone sets his life trajectory in an entirely different direction. Thus when this hypothetical white Michael Vick … wait, I can’t even continue that sentence in good faith. I mean, who would this white Vick be? That person is unknowable.
While that is a true statement it makes the premise of his article completely convoluted. We are not talking about if Vick would have been a quarterback. We are talking about him being a quarterback so we are not getting in to the socio-economic rational for why a black or white kid take the athletic path.
Touré says
Here’s another question: If Vick grew up with the paternal support that white kids are more likely to have (72 percent percent of black children are born to unwed mothers compared with 29 percent of white children), would he have been involved in dogfighting
Really? Most fatherless poor black kids or white kids for that matter will not resort to dog fighting.
The fact is Vick is a distinct case that should not be touted in a racial or socio economic realm. To do so attaches dangerous stereotypes. I see nothing gained from the article but it will get a lot of coverage so in reading one must consider this article nothing but marketing ploy. Taken otherwise just reinforces false stereotypes.
