A Gene Tunney question...?

Why do I have the feeling Tunney had an Arrumesque lying **** of a promoter :yep

 

Possibly both, but there also simply wasn't a lot of rated black fighters out there at that particular time for him to fight in the first place. As it is, he pushed for a fight with Wills, the highest rated and most highly regarded black fighter at either LHW or HW, but was turned down.

 

Actually, there was a number of reports at that time that shared a similar sentiment as the one Tunney puts forth in that article. Wills was probably still ranked higher on contender lists, but Tunney had been looking more impressive in his recent wins and some felt he would be a potentially tougher challenge for Dempsey than Wills at that point.

 

Yes, I do. The world and people were different back then than they are now. For them it was a fact that blacks are inferior to whites just like a few hundred years before the existence of witches were facts and burning them was an act of mercy and a good thing and nothing wrong. When you look at a historic period you must judge it by the standards of its time not of todays.
Racism back then was not wrong. This changed. But how can we judge them by today's standards when these weren't even known?

 

Godoy wasn't black.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong but would you apply to same standards to Germans and attitudes towards Jews in the 1930s ?
I mean, to Hitler and his millions of supporters the inferiority and malevolence of Jews was a fact.
Just because a majority might believe and go along with something doesn't mean we cant say they should have known better.

Well, what you call the "standards of the time" was, firstly, the white man's standard of the time.
So, by taking the perspective of the 1920s white American as primary, perhaps that's racist in itself. It's no coincidence that many whites benefitted from the racist system that they conveniently thought was right and moral.

Secondly, there was much opposition to racism even in the 1920s. Globally as well as just in the USA. Intelligent progressive people, some highly educated, of all races, were proposing an end to racist systems and discrimination.
And many everyday people were mixing and living together.

If "racism was not wrong" back then, then "race-mixing" must have been. Would you say people who mixed back then were actually acting immorally ?

The American President Woodrow Wilson actually blocked a 1919 League of Nations proposal concerning the international elimination of racial discrimination in the world. Probably because he wanted to keep blacks down in the USA.

Anyway, none of this I really know the answer to. It's the problem of moral relativism. I think you put the case a bit too strongly, by saying "racism was not wrong back then", and I understand where Abdullah is coming from.

Having said that, where I differ from Abdullah is that I DONT GIVE A **** ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GENE TUNNEY WAS RACIST. He was just a great fighter, and one long dead too.
I dont ever delude myself about "sporting heroes". Really, they might all be nasty idiotic people outside of their sport as far as I know.
Gene Tunney could have been KKK through and through for all I care. He was a great fighter inside the ropes, that's all that I really care about.

 

To be fair though, the powers that be just kept putting one hurdle after another in front of Wills, untill age caught up with him and they got the result they wanted.

The Fulton and Firpo fights had been sold to him as eliminators for title shots. You can understand why he might have been reluctant to fight yet another eliminator against Gibbons or Tunney.

 

I think that the most sophisticated people always questioned the inferiority of other races, and indeed the existence of witches.

 

Tunney's voice can be heard. It should be noted that in the 1920's to early 1930's, there were very few top ranked black light heavies and heavies in comparison to most eras. Tunney wanted Wills in the ring. Wills declined.

Tunney to me was a fancy Dan erudite type who also happened to be a tough marine and boxer in the ring. He can come across as a snob for sure, and was a big fan of Irish boxers both before and after him.

 

I'm not convinced 'Wills turned down big money to face Tunney and Brannon', $100k in those days was huge money and I cant i. I doubt Wills would turn that kind of money down and I doubt either man was keen on facing Wills. This is simply a case of hyping up the Brannon win to get the Dempsey fight

Tunney also didnt take a real HW challenger of substance when he had a chance to fight another blk HW of substance in Godfrey, he avoided the fight

By '26 Wills was certainly well faded though and something like 35-37, he'd been at the top for 12years by then

 

No. That's something different. Jews were never seen as inferior throughout history. Just as differen and responsible for the deah of Jesus. That's why they were discriminated in the middle ages.
What Hiler did was something new and everybody, even himself knew it was wrong. There is not one document with the order of holocaust. Because they knew it was wrong.
Different with the inferiority of blacks. This was a fact for the people for a few hundred years. People knew they are right. Only over more than one hundred years this changed.
This has nothing to do with the opinion of the majority but with things perceived as facts for a long time. See, when something is right for hundreds of years it doesn't become wrong in one generation. The enlightment needed hundreds of years to be the majority oppinion and even nowadays, 400 hundred years later, there are still people denying it.

No. It's the standard of the majority of Western, or here US, society. Of course they benefitted of it. It wouldn't have been standard for a very long time if they wouldn't have benefitted.
They didn't think it was right and moral. They knew it was. Big difference. Thoughts can be doubted. Knowledge not.

Yes! Since the American civil war the views started o change. Bu there was even segregation and discrimination 30 years later. Of course there were people against it. And the numbers grew. But the inferiority of blacks was still the majoriy opinion back then.

For the majority of people in these times in the US? Yes, I do.

Yes, the US were slower than mos of he world in this regard. On one hand. On the other hand the US started this development by freeing them.

Nah, I just use the historic method which is used in the historic sciences. History is even a bigger hobby for me as boxing. It's not moral relativism. I don't say it's the right thing what they hought back then. I neither say they were right. I don't judge. I just state the facts.

:good


See, I'm not American. I'm German. I have a totally different view on this subject than Americans or even British people. I have no interest to side with either the White Americans not the Black ones. I'm neutral on this and honestly I don't give a **** about the problems you have or had with racism over there - just like you guys don't give a **** for the similar problems we have over here. I just see it for what it is without judging it.

 

Depends on the time. Slavery to it's high time was not in question and so was the inferiority of these slaves.
Same with witches. During the witch craze even the opponents of it didn't doubt the existence of witches, they just said it's wrong to kill them because they are witches. I'm really into this subject but the only sources I could show you are in German and this won't help you much I think.

 

Man,this stuff is more interesting than the boxing. Start a thread in the lounge peoples,but be nice,dont get all steamed up.....

 

Fair enough. You make some good points. :good

But I think it's debatable what the "norm" of racism was in those times, or any other times.
I mean, obviously individuals had different outlooks and beliefs to different degrees. There was a level of racism in 1920s America that would have been seen as wrong even then, but that too would be subjective due to who's perceiving it, so it's hard to gauge.