So I am taking a U.S. history class here at the college and my professor said that I could write on anything involving U.S. history post-1865. I decided to write my paper on Jack Johnson and how he should have been seen as a great hero to African Americans, but instead was largely viewed negatively by most people, including some African Americans (more than people realize in fact). Is there anything that you gentleman (and ladies) feel that I should include in this paper, or perhaps you may have some suggestions? Any and all feedback will help. Thank you.
For an article with a slant such as that, I'd suggest Joe Louis instead. Johnson didn;t really do much to further equality. If anything, I'd say he set it back a ways.
good topic a thing you could mention is his positive attitude in public everywhere he went, despite the harsh things said about him and the intense pressures he had to deal with being who he was. And how he was the first "free" african american in the US, post-slavery.
this is crazy talk Are you from outside the US by any chance? The mere fact that Johnson was the supreme heavyweight champion of the world is enough to deem him a hero, no matter how bad his personality could have been. Dont forget that it was a common belief that the black human body was inferior to the white human body at that time. Scientists were cosigning it like it were fact.
That line is brilliant. I have heard it said many times how flamboyant and outgoing he was, but what you just said sums it all up nicely.
Btw, the essay is to argue that instead of being a hero to the African American community, he was in fact viewed negatively by many African Americans.
It's not crazy at all. Look at the race riots that occurred when Johnson won. Look at how fearful everyone involved in boxing was that Louis (or any other black boxer of the time) might turn out to be "another Jack Johnson." His legacy was one of antagonism. This is not to suggest that Louis was or should have been an "Uncle Tom." Just that it took an understanding of his time and place and how he might make the most of it for both him and his people. Johnson, conversely, was out for himself and only himself. His was a narrow view, as evidenced by the fact he wouldn't give another black man a shot at the title. If he was such a booster of a cause, why didn't he take that opportunity to further things along? You might argue Louis didn't fight many black men as champion either, but he did fight two at least, and was admired by Americans of all colors in time. THAT is a hero. And yes, I'm American.
This part is simply untrue. People were actually lauding the physicality of black men as superior. It was their "intellect" and "forthrightness" that was questioned. As physical beings, they were thought superior.
So are you suggesting that because of the race riots, that Johnson should have shut up, known his place, and not won the belt? I thought you were arguing against Johnsons personality, but now your arguing against his skin color. His personality didnt incite riots, his race did. Your reasons for Louis not getting another title shot is incorrect, because by your logic, it could have been any black man in Johnsons shoes, and Louis would not have gotten a title shot. So you just criticized Johnson for being black. Good Job
Dude, if you're gonna take that slanderous approach with me, this discussion is over. You know that isn't what I said. When you can discuss this with more civility, get back to me. I don't take real kindly to being called a racist.
Johnson didnt fight another black person, because it wouldnt sell. You think anyone would have wanted to see that? By Johnson declining to fight another black fighter for the belt, he kept the belt in a higher value. Thus making him owning it even more powerful. Him refusing to fight another black fighter did way more for the black population and society in America than if the fight had happened.
I never said your racist. I said your blaming Johnson for being black. Stop me when I say something incorrect: You said that Johnson set black people back Your reasoning was another black man not getting a title shot until Louis Your reasoning for another black man not getting a title shot was because of riots that occurred after his fights. (which is correct) Those riots were due to the fact that one of the participants in the bout was a black man, hence RACE riots. (also correct) However, Johnsons personality has nothing to do with this phenomena. His skin color was the cause of the riots, not his character. Therefor, your assessment is that Johnson should have sat down quiet, let the white oppressive society cut off his balls, and not ask about any sort of title shot. If you meant something different in your first reply to me, I understand. But if your sticking to your guns here, your making yourself look a bit silly. I'll be surprised if Louis even got a title shot had Johnson never been champion
Well yes thats an easy argument. But I thought you were arguing that he WAS a hero despite being criticized then and now.