Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, pleaded not guilty in federal court in Richmond, Va. to charges that he was involved in a dog fighting conspiracy on property he owns in rural Surry County.

The 18-page indictment charges that Mr. Vick and three other men arranged dog fights, bet on the fights and mistreated animals that were not sufficiently ferocious. The fights continued until one dog was killed or gave up.

Investigators found graves of dogs on the grounds of the Bad Newz Kennels, which Mr. Vick has owned since 2002.

The indictment said dogs that lost fights were put to death by drowning, hanging, gunshot, electrocution or being slammed to the ground.

Dog Fighting Cuts Across Race & Class in the US

It's difficult to know what to say about the Michael Vick story, and it might be wise to say nothing just yet.

It does, however, bring to the forefront some interesting bits of history concerning what constitutes sport; the relationship of sport to gambling; the confluence of sport and masculinity.

Ahe evolution of what is seen as civilized and barbaric behavior; and the ways in which people react to that behavior.

More concern seemed to focus on cruelty to animals than to humans, a tendency still familiar to us today.

Cruelty to animals was increasingly described as uncivilized or barbaric, especially as a form of entertainment.

Social reformers -- both evangelical Christians and humanitarians, who saw this as part of a larger crusade to clean up society and infuse it with Christian values -- drove the attack on blood sports.

Laws did not succeed in stopping dog fights, they simply drove dog fighting to the margins of society where it attracted those looking for a thrilling and slightly illegal sort of activity, a characteristic that seems the want of humans.

Dog fights, ratting, bear baiting, cockfights, bare-knuckle boxing and eye-gouging fights, as well as many other less respectable and illegal forms of sport and entertainment, became the province of males in a 19th-century Victorian culture.

This development accompanied a growing fear of "feminization" of the culture and a corresponding concern over "masculinity" among the middle and upper classes.

For the 19th-century urban bachelor culture, and for the Victorian gentlemen of the age, illicit forms of sport and gambling, along with prostitution and drugs, filled their needs.

Victorian gentlemen moved in these circles as a right of passage into adulthood, and the bachelor culture moved in these circles to express their manliness.

In many ways, much of the same dynamic continues to fuel the illegal blood sports in urban industrial and post-industrial cultures, as do other sports that feature forms of ritualized violence.

This is not to say that the violence of football leads to other violence or to an attraction to dog fighting.

This segment of society is, in fact, only one part of the clientele attracted to dog fighting.

Most studies of contemporary dog fighting, as well as most court and police records, indicate that dog fighting cuts across race and class in the United States.

Dog-Fighting Is Bigger Than Michael Vick:

Exploring the Culture of the Latest American Blood Sport

In much that has been written about the Michael Vick affair, the implication has been that dog fighting is an activity beyond the pale, and those involved in it are barbaric or savage in their behavior.

From one perspective, that may well be the case. But when looking at the growing popularity of dog fighting and who is involved in it, it's clear that there is no typical dog fighting aficionado.

From the boardroom to the sports and entertainment world, and from the city to the country, upper, middle and lower classes are all represented. As of late, the gangster edge of hip hop -- evidenced at least by rappers like DMX -- has intersected with the dog fighting culture.

In my own experience in Florida, I know there has been a very strong dog fighting culture in the past, although it may have faded as the state has changed.

Dog fighting had its center in the Central Florida area. There were at least two regular newsletters published that promoted dog fighting, and in the mid-1970s it was decidedly white in its public racial persona.

However, the segregation of society was still lingering, and the general absence of information on activity in the African-American community was still the norm in the public media, except when reporting crime, so this may be a skewed picture.

There was a major bust of a dog fighting ring in the late 1970s or early 80s in Christmas, Fla., where the fights were run in association with an alligator attraction.

I don't remember the specifics of the case, but I do remember that the dogfights attracted very large crowds, and they were well armed with an amazing variety of weaponry.

Gambling was a major component. Anywhere from $10,000 on up could be at stake on a normal weekend at a dogfight in central Florida.

Police reports now indicate stakes of more than $100,000 are quite common across the country. Indeed, gambling and drugs have become closely associated with the dog fighting scene.

Dog fighting is illegal, but it attracts many ordinary people. Many of those involved talk about their special relationship with their dogs and how they love their dogs. This may seem insane to many of us, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere in their feelings.

On the other hand, there is evidence that those who abuse animals are also more likely to abuse women and children.

None of this is written to justify what is a despicable and illegal activity and clearly out of place in the modern world.

It is only written to point out that in some times and places, and in some cultures and subcultures, people do things that seem quite hideous to others.

The point is that dog fighting is not an aberration in our society, and those involved in it are not monsters or uncivilized people.

Michael Vick is not the first athlete to be arrested on dog fighting charges in recent years. Nor will he be the last.

The problem is widespread and goes well beyond the world of athletes. It needs to be addressed as such and in an atmosphere of serious discussion rather than in the public arena of inflamed rhetoric and blanket condemnation.

The final point I want to make relates to the reactions to this case.

Why is it that when dogs are abused by athletes there are protests everywhere, calls for the immediate suspension of the player, and a loud condemnation of the actions, but when an athlete abuses a spouse or a female friend the public outcry is considerably less?

Clearly this is more serious social problem than dog fighting, but the volume of the response might lead you to think otherwise. Is that a statement about social values, or is it something else?

Richard Crepeau @ Pop Politics