He's Rubber, You're Glue

David Weigel | August 8, 2007

Behold, the Michael Vick chew toy.

Vick’s Dog Chew Toy is made of state of the art “dog” material. The Vick’s Toy Doll is so strong and flexible, it will challenge every breed. Especially The Pit Bull. Unlike other toys, our manufacturer is so sure of its durability they guarantee it against the most playful dog destruction. It Bends. It Bounces. It Flies. It Floats. And best of all, it lasts through the whole season and more!

There's a certain "minstrelsy" look that I'm not quite comfortable with. But no one can really clown Vick the way he clowned himself.

When news broke of l'affaire Vick, Jeff Taylor was on the scene.

Comments

|8.8.07 @ 8:35AM|#

I like it. Too bad the NFL will put a stop to it.

|8.8.07 @ 8:47AM|#

I dunno' Warren.... at least on the front, it doesn't say "Falcons" or even have a bird logo. Nothing ties it to the NFL. And assuming it doesn't say "Vick" on the back, it's gonna' be tough to ban an image of a black man holding a football.

(Damn... I wish I had thought of it!)

CB

Sandy|8.8.07 @ 8:51AM|#

I'd have preferred him looking mean, anyway. Give the dog something to dig into.

|8.8.07 @ 8:54AM|#

There's a certain "minstrelsy" look that I'm not quite comfortable with.

That's nothing compared to the way those racist Japanese draw "western" eyes. Bastards.

|8.8.07 @ 8:55AM|#

BTW, the original chew toy looked more like it was wearing a genericized version of the Falcons uniform. The toy shown in the picture is repainted from the original.

|8.8.07 @ 8:56AM|#

Isn't the verb: Beclowned?

|8.8.07 @ 9:08AM|#

At last we have a Vick playtoy to chew on. At last we will have revenge.

|8.8.07 @ 9:38AM|#

The Clowning

Minion of URKOBOLD|8.8.07 @ 10:25AM|#

URKOBOLD desires a whither toy, complete with anatomically-correct taint (and taint bleach).

|8.8.07 @ 10:30AM|#

what is a whither toy? What is a taint?

|8.8.07 @ 10:37AM|#

wayne,

If you have to ask, you'll never know...

Goldwater Conservative|8.8.07 @ 10:45AM|#

I'll deal the race card so a liberal doesn't have to.

RACIST!!!!@

|8.8.07 @ 10:47AM|#

taktix,

asking is the first step in knowing. Actually, I looked up "taint" on the liberal's encyclopedia so now I know what this is, but "whither" was not defined.

|8.8.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Goldwater,

Thanks for getting that out of the way. Poor Weigel was squirming with shame and liberal guilt because he can't help seeing blacks as minstrels.

|8.8.07 @ 10:52AM|#

It is a shame that 40 years after the civil rights movement, white boys like Weigal still can't look at a successful black man without seeing a minstrel.

|8.8.07 @ 11:14AM|#

Uh, he was talking about the doll, geniuses, not Vick

You know, the one with the big white eyes and huge white teeth?

You know, in the picture right up there in the post?

You know, the item that's the subject of the post?

|8.8.07 @ 11:15AM|#

asking is the first step in knowing. Actually, I looked up "taint" on the liberal's encyclopedia so now I know what this is, but "whither" was not defined.

Well, your first problem lies in that you looked in the liberal encyclopedia. Check the conservative one, it should be in there.

What? You guys didn't know that Team Red and Team Blue have their own encyclopedia?

Among the highlights: Differing definitions for words such as "criminal," "rights" and "freedom."

Sadly, both have the same definition for the word "promise."

|8.8.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Apparently, they have diffent definitions of "racist," too. The liberal definition encompasses people who depict African-Americans as having stereotypically exaggerated features, while the conservative version excludes them, while encompassing those who notice that somebody depicts African Americans as having stereotypically exaggerated features.

|8.8.07 @ 11:26AM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show

Nice pics in there. John, wayne, just an FYI - black people don't actually look like that.

|8.8.07 @ 11:37AM|#

I think somebody's Sarcasmometer is broken. Somebody call the Facetiousline for technical support!

|8.8.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Bronwyn,

You'd be surprised at how much damage steroids do to the Sarcasmitary Gland.

joe, is there something you want to tell us?

|8.8.07 @ 11:54AM|#

Never mind that democrat controlled inner cities grind young blacks up in the thousands every year...joe is worried about exaggerated racial features of dog chew toys.

|8.8.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Joe,

Are you OK buddy? You're not having night terrors, dreaming about uncomfortably familiar beasts with large teeth and big white eyes, are you? Do you awaken with a start, consumed with an unexplainable feeling of shame and guilt?

|8.8.07 @ 12:01PM|#

Joe,

Thanks for the link. Why am I not surprised to see bigoted depictions of negros on Wiki, AKA the liberal encyclopedia?

|8.8.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Bronwyn,

I would dearly love to believe that John and wayne are being sarcastic, but I've read too many of their statements about race. Sadly, the actually mean it. They get offended when someone makes an accusation of racism or racial stereotyping, and consistently accuse those who complain about those things of being racists.

joshua,

Hey, look over there! Over THERE! Is this a thread about "inner cities?" No? Then how about you come up with a better argument than telling me not to comment on the appearance of a doll, on a thread that is partly about the appearance of a doll, mmm-kay?

wayne,

No, but I do get upset by racists. And apologists for racism, such as yourself.

Taktix, you see? Look at that shit wayne just wrote. For daring to have a page that describes the racist institution of minstrel shows, wayne just accused Wikipedia of being racist.

|8.8.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Hey, wayne, Wikipedia has a big ol' entry on the Holocaust.

Which makes them anti-semits, I guess.

Don't you just love self-proclaimed opponents of racism who only manage to stir themselves to comment on the issue when someone dares to denounce racism?

|8.8.07 @ 12:39PM|#

OK, I will try to keep a straight face and be serious.

The thing that gets me is that Weigel, and Joe, looked at that rubber doll and saw lurking racism. The thought never crossed my mind. Minstrel shows did not cross my mind. After Weigel mentioned it, I looked a little closer. I still just saw a cheap rubber doll.

I think there are people who are obsessed with race. The stereotype for such people is the guilty, apologetic-for-being-white, liberal. Joe, you seem to always be on the lookout for the slightest subliminal hint of racism and you always seem to find it, whether it exists or not.

|8.8.07 @ 12:54PM|#

wayne,

The doll doesn't have exaggerated, ultra-white teeth and eyes? Especially the way you can see white all the way around his pupils, because he's bugging his eyes out. Now look at those pictures in the Wiki link. Are you seriously going to tell me that there isn't a resemblance?

But fine, let's say Weigel and I completely imagined this similarity - there is still not even a touch of racism in perceiving one. All you do by accusing people of racism for being overly-sensitive towards racism is to demean your own argument. You're just transparently flinging poo, and setting yourself up by making such an illogical statement.

You don't even believe that objecting to stereotypical depictions of black people makes someone a racist. You're just using the term because you know that it will annoy your targtet. That's a dishonest, and dickish, way to make a point.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 12:54PM|#

What is so damn horrible about minstrel shows and ethnic caricatures anyways?

Classic cartoon DVDs come with warnings that they aren't suitable for children( like the Popeye set I bought last week).

This is presentism run amok.The language of denunciation in contemporary references to such historical cultural material is hysterical.

GILMORE|8.8.07 @ 1:02PM|#

There's a certain "minstrelsy" look that I'm not quite comfortable with

Jesus joseph and mary

Ok, Dave... if we were making a humanoid chew toy for dogs of some other black public figure... what would your non-racist construction criteria be?

For gods sake you idiot its a dog chew toy. *Thats* apparently not offensive to you, but the
"style" he's represented in is? That shit might fly in some politically correct undergraduate liberal arts class, but makes absolutely no sense in the light of day.

I mean, it roughly equates to =

"Oh dear. Our effigy really needs to be more respectful of race and gender. Can we make sure to not offend any minority groups while BURNING THIS PERSONS IMAGE AND PELTING IT WITH SHIT??"

you might have a point if this were like an Obama chew toy... but as it is, you look silly for even raising the issue.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 1:12PM|#

Hey joe is eating a banana racist?

Or is recognizing (or not) the inherent racist act in banana eating?

|8.8.07 @ 1:12PM|#

The language of denunciation in contemporary references to such historical cultural material is hysterical.

That's more than you can say for the material itself...except maybe the Dutch jokes.

|8.8.07 @ 1:13PM|#

SIV,

I can buy the "folks back then didn't know any better, so we shouldn't judge them as harshly" argument. I don't think the people who made some of those Bugs Bunny cartoons are terrible people.

But that Vick doll was produced in 2007! People in 2007 should know better than to depict a black man with minstrel-like features.

GILMORE,

I have no problem with making Vick a chew-toy, because he as an individual deserves mockery.

But not for his race.

|8.8.07 @ 1:14PM|#

SIV,

Linky no worky.

|8.8.07 @ 1:21PM|#

And I've never eaten a banana-racist in my life. I don't even know what that is!

SIV|8.8.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Try this link

http://boortz.com/nuze/200502/02142005.html

Refers to an incident in GA where a woman filed a complaint of racial harassment against a police officer whowas eating a banana.

Bee|8.8.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Dudes, the toy was made in China. Possibly very hastily. Possibly by Chinese designers, who think both Vick and the people who hate him are self-indulgent loons. I would really not read a whole lot of sociological content into a dog toy.

I have been amused by the white animal-welfare types in conflict with black people advocating due process. I get the impression that some black people think their lynching of Vick is racist, but I'd bet the animal freaks just really, really like animals. They'd hate Vick no matter what color he is. In other words, their frenzy about Vick isn't racism, it's a whole different brand of crazy. Both sides are talking past each other.

|8.8.07 @ 1:47PM|#

Honestly guys, I couldn't tell if it was my sarcamometer or someone else's that was broken.

I think the doll looks creepy, but I didn't think "minstrel"... I just thought "cheaply made".

SIV, have you seen the Looney Tunes collection? I'm collecting all the unedited 'toons because I want my kids to know our history - unedited - but they'll have to sit through a finger-wagging lecture from Whoopee Goldberg before getting to the good stuff.

I'm sure Mr. Magoo collections will come with similar lectures.

mammy\'slittlebaby|8.8.07 @ 1:59PM|#

I LOVE MINSTRELS! BRING BACK THE MINSTRELS!

|8.8.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Joe,

No, I see nothing mintrel-like about that doll. It is just a cheap doll.

When I encounter people who are spring-loaded in preparation at labeling others racist, I will admit to a certain amount of naughty pleasure at turning the tables on them.

Frankly, I think it is a form of neurosis on the race-baiter's part. But don't have a heavy heart, Joe. There is help available if you will only admit that you need help... :-)

Please note the smiley face, which is internet sign language that means I am poking fun at you, but not in a mean way.

|8.8.07 @ 2:19PM|#

It make for interesting sociological research to test people's sensitivity to "racist icons". Obviously, some people look at an object and "see" racially-loaded content and others don't.

Urkobold™|8.8.07 @ 2:19PM|#

THE URKOBOLD HAS UNCOVERED RACISM AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB CONSORTIUM, ALSO KNOWN BY ITS KKK-LIKE MONIKER, W3C! BEHOLD!

☻

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESSOR! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

SIV|8.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#

I'm still wondering why racial caricatures are supposed to be so evil.Do they trigger some neural circuitry in Mister Charlie's brain, wiping out years of PC programming against racism? Do they damage youth's self-esteem?
I always hear they are bad, but why?

Bronwyn,

I bet your Bugs Bunny cartoons are missing "All This and Rabbit Stew" featuring a pickanniny character, The Little Hunter, in the role of Elmer Fudd or Porky Pig. It is in the public domain though so a 16mm transfer is readily available on the net and in WalMart bargain bin .99 cent dvds.

|8.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#

How about the mucky-muck on the Baltimore mayor's staff that used the word "niggardly" in a public setting a few years ago. He was fired over the incident, despite the fact that the word has no racial connection or connotation; and he was a sensitive, loving, liberal democrat.

Was he racist? Admittedly, he was a little dumb for using an arcane word that sounds bad, but he is a democrat after all. Bless his heart :-).

Were those who persecuted him racist? They were dumb because they did not recognize the word, but after they looked it up they still persecuted the guy!

|8.8.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Urk,

If there was supposed to be a link in your post, it did not come through.

I hope it was more lobster girl.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Looks like a little Golliwog head.

Urkobold™|8.8.07 @ 2:43PM|#

WAYNE! ADJUST YOUR BROWSER! THIS ICON MUST BE SEEN TO BE BELIEVED. RACIST PLOTS EVERYWHERE!

THE WEIBSKOBOLD (FKA "LOBSTER GIRL") IS NOW "ONE" WITH THE URKOBOLD.

|8.8.07 @ 2:53PM|#

DER WEIBSKOBOLD... Man, that interspecies stuff is hot!

|8.8.07 @ 2:55PM|#

good night you loons. I shall dream of lobsters and girls with big white smiles and eyes.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#

"Racist" objects are morally neutral.

|8.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#

SIV, by golly you're right. I have the Golden Collection vol. 1-4 and All This and Rabbit Stew is not included.

You can get it from a couple of folks through Amazon for $24 and change.

I remember seeing it when I was growing up though... The Saudi censors had no problem with such things and we received our non-Porky Pig cartoons uncensored :) They ran such old cartoons I saw all the old black-and-white minstrel shorts.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 4:00PM|#

No Porky Pig in Saudi Arabia?

I guess pants wouldn't have helped.

All This and Rabbit Stew is on some of those .99 c public domain cartoon compilations.Transferred from the old 16mm reels they used to license to local TV stations. You should be able to find a free legal download of it pretty easy too.

|8.8.07 @ 9:08PM|#

wayne,

I'm not saying the people who designed the toy deliberately set out to make it look like a blackfaced character from an old minstrel show, but that's not the end of the matter.

Maybe the Chinese designers have stereotyped ideas about what black people look like. There are certainly no shortage of consumer items with brand names like Darky or which features Steppin Fetchit-looking characters on the label.

Or maybe it was a complete accident that the doll happens to look like that.

Regardless, the thing looks like a minstrel doll. I don't have to like that, and I don't have to pretend not to notice what the doll looks like, just to conform to some conservative version of political correctness.

|8.8.07 @ 9:15PM|#

SIV,

If the chew toy was supposed to be Russ Feingold, and it had an oversized hook nose and a bag of money in its hand, like the drawings of Jews that were so popular in the German press in the 30s, would you still be baffled?

SIV|8.8.07 @ 9:26PM|#

joe,

I think you have to pretend to notice the doll is a racist stereotype.

I still want to know what would be "wrong" about
that even if it was minstrel imagery.

SIV|8.8.07 @ 9:41PM|#

joe,

Godwin

That sort of imagery existed here in the US well before the 1930s.Ethnic caracitures in American entertainment culture are different.
People attending a minstrel show were laughing and enjoying the comedy,music and dancing- not getting fired up for a pogrom or a lynching.

Would a hook nosed Russ Feingold doll be offensive if he was holding a publicly financed campaign check?

|8.8.07 @ 10:49PM|#

Joe, you seem to always be on the lookout for the slightest subliminal hint of racism and you always seem to find it, whether it exists or not.

And at the same time completely ignores real human destruction...thus my point on democrat controlled inner cities.

|8.9.07 @ 9:57AM|#

I don't have to like that, and I don't have to pretend not to notice what the doll looks like, just to conform to some conservative version of political correctness.

Joe, this seems to have turned into a Joe-bashing session. I apologize for that.

You are conforming to the stereotypical role of an hysterical liberal who sees racism everywhere though.

Frankly, I see racism very seldom.

|8.9.07 @ 2:08PM|#

This is presentism run amok.The language of denunciation in contemporary references to such historical cultural material is hysterical.
That's just part of the cult of Political Correctness. Sometimes here I'll mention some easily verified facts 'n' figures, and certain people react as though that were heresy ("opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system") of the most evil sort; it's a lot easier to self-righteouly declare your allegiance to the current PC orthodoxy by emotional outburst than to (try to) counter statements of fact. But, of course, only people like myself, whose intent is clearly nothing but evil since it's contrary to the doctrine of the cult, would even bother to mention such facts; the proper response of all Right Thinking people is to ignore such information (and, I suppose, hope it just goes away) and vapidly deride anyone who dares to mention it.

I wouldn't call it "presentism," since heresy, and emotionally violent reactions to it, are nothing new. I'd call it "primitive" (polite version).

"Racist" objects are morally neutral.
FWIW, my best friend is Jewish and has a rather large collection of Nazi memorabilia (collected by his dad). He has no interest in it one way or the other.

Frankly, I see racism very seldom.
I suppose that would depend on how you define it. If you define it as "treating individuals differently based on their race," it's ubiquitous in the U.S., but disguised with cutesy names.

|8.10.07 @ 1:08AM|#

"I suppose that would depend on how you define it. If you define it as "treating individuals differently based on their race," it's ubiquitous in the U.S., but disguised with cutesy names."

I would define it as treating people poorly, or royally, based on their race. For example, if you hire or fire largely because on race, admit or deny education, grant or deny contracts, etc. Those things certainly happen in the US; in fact such racism is codified in the law.