Does History do John L Sullivan a disservice?

Perhaps you only think him an extremist because of your modern sensibilities. So, who are you to judge whether or not it is a good thing?

(see where I'm going with this?)

Ethics is not easy to negotiate. Make no mistake, I am not someone who stands like a midget on a throne casting moral certainties hither and thither. I happen to find moral relativism is as dangerous to society as moral tyranny. In fact, relativism is the new tyranny in the West. And it's wreaking havoc on our ability to act with certainty and our ability to reason without tying ourselves up in knots of our own making.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Killing isn't always murder.

Tell me, is it always wrong to kill?

And my point is that not all such things "change all the time." According to you there is no moral certainty that racism and slavery are wrong because tomorrow they may be right. That invites nothing but confusion.

"Evil"? According to the philosophy that you profess, there is no "evil."

You don't excuse those people? Isn't that comparable to judging them?

There was a German Christian minister whose name eludes me. He got up a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler because he saw the blood on the wall and knew that there was much more coming. He was caught and executed. If he succeeded, would he have been morally wrong...?

As per the Southern slave owners. They had more in common with the Nazi authorities in Germany than you know at this time. An above post discusses it a bit.

Then you should refrain from using words like evil, and you should not judge behavior, because if you reject moral certainty, you therefore cannot intelligently define right and wrong or distinguish right from wrong.

okay!

Anyone who can argue as well as you have and who can do it in two languages has nothing to apologize for.

 

Also remember this was the result of the win a lot later when jack johnson beat jim jeffries, one can imagine it would have been a lot worse in john L's day had he lost to a black man


"Riots and aftermath
The outcome of the fight triggered race riots that evening — the Fourth of July — all across the United States, from Texas and Colorado to New York and Washington, D.C. Johnson's victory over Jeffries had dashed white dreams of finding a "great white hope" to defeat him. Many whites felt humiliated by the defeat of Jeffries.

Blacks, on the other hand, were jubilant, and celebrated Johnson's great victory as a victory for racial advancement. Black poet William Waring Cuney later highlighted the black reaction to the fight in his poem "My Lord, What a Morning". Around the country, blacks held spontaneous parades and gathered in prayer meetings.
Some "riots" were simply blacks celebrating in the streets. In certain cities, like Chicago, the police did not disturb the celebrations. But in other cities, the police and angry white citizens tried to subdue the revelers. Police interrupted several attempted lynchings. In all, "riots" occurred in more than 25 states and 50 cities. About 23 blacks and two whites died in the riots, and hundreds more were injured"

 

You could say that, but that's not what history says. The aspect of Louis being our guy to beat the Nazi Schemling certainly helped that cause. Boxing has always been second to baseball, even if the sports popularity were very comparable.

Of course percentage wise these people were more the exception to the rule. You're completely wrong about your last statement, but I don't want to get into an economic debate on-top of a race-relations discussion.

Second of all, even though most people did not speak out or stand up against racism during earlier eras, that does not mean that they were all true-believers in the nonsense proposed from the pro-slavery power that was running the government. Many knew in their hearts that black people were not some kind of sub-human species better off in chains. [/quote]I think things were better after the Civil War in terms of slavery and racism. This statement may be true to an extent, but it's rather presumptuous. Either way, these convictions weren't strong enough to go against the grain. A largely racist indoctrinated grain, we both know.

There are many contradictions within racism. That doesn't meant Southerners didn't want to consider these people as savages, or at the very least inferior to themselves. Even if they recognized them as not being sub-human, and capable of reading. Of course, though, racism stems from large contradictions. I don't want to enter some philosophical debate on that topic either. That's why racism comes from ignorance, it's not surprised to be consistent or make proper sense. I think it's better suited to focus on the treatment and perception, and not neccessarily the technicalities (Of non-human, etc).

I understand how slavery came to be, especially black slaves throughout the New World. Your argument about economic interests is wrong, but it may have been believed (Which matters). The truth is, though, the actual cost of keeping and feeding these slaves would end up being more than just paying for the workers labor. Of course, this isn't absolute as factors of how well the slaves or taking care of and properly treated (And not starving) might suggest otherwise. Ultimately, though, this was a reality toward the mid to late 1800's in America.

Yes, but I'll believe the same doesn't happen regarding the government, or even authority today. How about religion? Whoops, but it does. And without media, I imagine the fact was even more powerful. Why else did it take 100 years AFTER slavery for blacks to get fully recognized treatment and rights? Took a hell of a long time I'd say.

And even Obama himself admits his white grandmother comes from a different time and probably was a little racist herself. He's said this, and made comments (No exact quotes) on this. I believe he said she may have stemmed opinions that were ignorant. His grandmother came way after Sullivan too.

And just as much press did, I bet more said he should never fight a "******." Joe Louis was racially demonized when he was champion, but people don't speak on this. He was called an "animal" a "savage" and many gave him demeaning nicknames, as they did with Walcott and Charles and many other black fighters.

It's not even the press, but if John L believed he shouldn't that makes him a man of his time. Where was the precedence? This can't be dismissed as a mere cop-out.

[quote"Why knock what we cannot truly knock?" The fact is, they were knocked by their own contempories.[/quote]I seriously doubt that they were criticized for it more so than the press speaking loudly against it. And had a fight happened, I'm sure the critics would be in full pursuit slamming the entire spectacle.

 

I´m pretty sure he was seen as an extremist in his day too.

I agree with you. I´m not into moral relativism, you´ll see a bit later.

My question still stands: do you excuse Brown for his murders?

When Christianity raised to power in Europe they had a big problem. They weren´t allowed to use violence. This is a problem if you run a state. So, the Christians theologists and philosphs discussed this. Augustinus then found some kind of solution. Cicero wrote a book on what he called "a justified war", roughly 6-7 hundred years before. Augustinus picked it up and adepted it to Christianity. This book defined the rules of engagement throughout the middle age and probably stepped quite some bloodshred before it even began. In this book it was forbidden to wage war against other christians. Only under some very special circumstances - most importantly defending your country.
Similar here. Killing is wrong. However, there is one exception to this rule. When you have to kill to defend your own or the life of others - life not property or freedom. This means that, for example, killing Hitler after the holocaust was evident, would have been okay if the life of even one of the many victims would have been saved. Of course there are certain borderline cases, like soldiers for example.
That´s the only time when I think killing is not wrong - I still wouldn´t call it right though.
But even that´s not an absolute. It´s just my opinion and I´m very much shaped by the moral certainty of today.
See, a bit further down on my points towards "absolute" and "relative" evil.

Yes that´s what I think. And no I don´t think that it causes confusion. Just because it was okay in the past and maybe again in some point in the future, it doesn´t mean it´s okay now.
Perhaps, I expressed it a bit vague. Moral certainty does exist. But only for a, more or less, short while in a certain area. For example it´s a moral certainty now in the Western world that racism is wrong. 150 years ago in the Southern states of the US it was a moral certainty that racism was right.
Know what I mean? Would you call that moral relativism?

There is no absolute evil. Of course there is a relative evil - relative like Einstein´s theory.
An absolute evil would be one that´s always evil. Anywhere, anytime.
A relative evil is one that is only evil at a certain time in a certain area.

Hm, I can´t remember of a minister involved in a conspiracy to kill Hitler. Some high ranking nobles and military people tried it a few times. And I know there was the economic minister who warned Hitler that the war wasn´t winnable before WW2 even started, forgot the name, due to economic issues and who was removed, but not killed, from his position.
See, further above for my point of view on this matter.

Oh, I believe you there. But one thing, and that is the important one, thing that they did not have in common was that they thought they were right. The Nazis knew they weren´t.

Like I said above, I can. I can reject an absolute - may be universal would be a better word :think - moral certainty but still accept a relative moral certainty.

 

I doubt that would hold around the big ones -Johnson-Jeffries, Dempsey-Tunney, and especially Louis-Schmeling II.

Baseball is constantly played in the U.S. but boxing had a far greater capability to make the world stop and watch/listen. Baseball could never do what Louis-Schmeling II did.

As to ranking them, I wouldn't be as certain as you. Boxing, horseracing, and baseball were very big from the 20s thru the 40s. What order they're placed in is debatable. It was relative to the event, the season, etc. (Now that's a relativism I can believe in!)

You're completely wrong to use phrases like "completely wrong" in the context of a debate like this. If you disagree that economics was 'the', if not 'one of the' primary motivating factors behind American slavery, then you don't know the history of the peculiar institution.

In terms of violence like lynchings and even poverty, things were actually worse below the Mason-Dixon line after some of the Reconstruction policies were rolled back. In 1892, 161 blacks were lynched. That's about as bad as it ever got.

I agree that the convictions were not strong enough to stand up.

Accountability is part of treatment. White champions were wrong to duck deserving black contenders simply because they were black. Read the press clippings right through the twenties. A spotlight was placed on these fighters for their reluctance -particularly in the north -where boxing was biggest.

The institution of slavery was built upon the economic interests of a powerful land-owing class in the south. Why do you think they imported Africans? To share democracy? They needed a cheap labor force.

That is not to say that it wasn't justified on misguided theories of racial superiority, but these were not universally accepted even among the slaveholding classes. America's brand of racism and slavery were arguably worse than in any civilization in history. We need to see why. It wasn't religion! Don't be so quick to dismiss the power of greed.

Sure, up-ending the status quo is rarely done in a minute.

Perhaps his grandmother had ignorance in her. I do too, but I'm not about to go excusing it because I'm a product of my time and environment.

And that's the point. Not everyone was a flaming racist. Some saw clearly enough to distinguish between right and wrong -even back then. So the racist was not a mere product of his times because his times were not homogenous in its way of thinking. People have opportunities to inform themselves. People have a responsiblity to do the same.

...Join me in placing a big, fat asterisk next to John L.'s claim to being able to whip any man in the house.

 

Emerson and Thoreau thought him an unmitigated hero. Many members of the Secret Six, his financial backers, were Boston blue noses. Was he an extremist or has history identified him as the representative of the only remedy that was going to end slavery? War. Bloodshed.

...but that wasn't the point...

I would question whether they were, in fact, murders.

Well done. You know your history. We agree then, that killing is not always wrong.

Racism was never right. Jefferson Davis and every southern statesman who propagated the evil are eternally wrong.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer. That's his name.

I think that it would have been exceedingly difficult for him or any number of movers and shakers to act had they been moral relativists. They were certain and whether they were right or wrong is dependent on their fruits isn't it.

I'm not so sure, but okay.

We have different paradigms, you and I, and that is what this boils down to. I do believe in an absolute good (read: Absolute Good). We are finding much common ground, but at a certain point you go one way and I go another.

 

That merely highlights the differences between the sport. Boxing could certainly garner such a peak interest, but most of the time it was the second biggest sport behind baseball.

That's not what I was saying. I should have made it more clear that your right on how the motivation of the institution was started. Eventually, though, it proved not as sound economically as it would be to just pay for your labor.

Well, when you don't have a black person under your tooth, I'd imagine violence and conflict would resurface more. Maybe a real bitterness?

I'd think the accountability grew more in the 20's than it did during John L's time. And the accountability of ducking was more extreme. Didn't Dempsey get banned from NY for not fighting Willis (You're more knowledgeable on the real truth, I know). Also, Willis was the #1 contender for quite some time. I know Dempsey isn't the only situation, and I know ducking was probably more condemned in the 1920's than it was in the late 19th century. Still, ducking of black fighters still happened even in the 40's and 50's. But history isn't entirely as consistent in knocking boxers when it's a group of them doing the ducking, instead of an individual to pick out (Think murderers crew), and even if these fighters are black themselves (And ducking black fighters).

Yeah, I know.

I agree greed plays a large role, as does misguided beliefs on race. However, for the normal ordinary citizen; greed wasn't strong of a reason for bigotry, especially when these people had no benefit to discriminate against scapegoat blacks. This is why indoctrination in any form is powerful, no?

But this is exactly the point. You say people have a "choose" and there were plenty that did the right thing morally. But this is the exception and not the rule. And not everyone was bright enough to truly see past the smoke of what is right and what is wrong. Blacks people being second class citizens during most of America's history wasn't unethically. Morally condemned by a few morally conscious people, sure.

But shouldn't we try understanding this perspective, as it's a reality? You hold a truly high standard, which is admirable, but not everyone thinks like you (What a world it would be). But if John L didn't think he should ever fight a black person, then this needs to be understood. We have to almost imagine we could be as much as a product of their time as we ours when criticizing these fighters, regardless of how unjustifiable it seems to us now.

It's hard to hold this standard for everyone people today.

This, I can do. But I don't think John L gets dismissed for these reasons. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I feel bareknuckle fighters don't get the credit even a fair ranking based on achievement because they're viewed as primitive and an after thought to great boxing.

 

It also highlights the varying levels of interest in the big three sports of bygone days, though I would not stand against the last statement.

...Has the literature confirmed that last point? I remember it being a hypothesis. I think it is highly debatable either way. No antebellum statesman with aspirations would recommend freeing 4 million uneducated slaves into the community/economy. Shipping them back to Africa was a policy that was popular except for one problem. Most slaves by then were born here and didn't want to leave.

Racial attitudes had not advanced very far between the late 19th century and the 20s. Hell, take one look at "The Birth of a Nation" the first motion picture epic that came out in 1915. The KKK were put up as heroes. Jazz helped. Tiger Flowers helped too.

Well, I'd argue that indoctrination, strictly put, is the wrong word. The culture at large indeed promoted racist views in every facet of society, but many pulpits and organizations raised a hue and cry as well. There were always many voices here.

I don't doubt the power of media or culture (in fact, I have a majory problem with modern American media and culture), but my original point is that we should take care not to excuse an individual simply because he lived in a generally racist time. He has a conscience. There were competing viewpoints. He has a responsibility to inform himself, or at least to avoid treating his fellow human beings unjustly.

So, we should excuse individuals because they were theoretically "not bright enough"...? I don't believe that basic questions of right and wrong should be determined by ballot ...and would bet that you don't either.

I'm not proposing that everyone pick up a sword and fight injustice like Old John Brown. I would propose that those who failed to do the right thing be remembered for their accomplishments, yes, but without glossing over those shortcomings that a fighter should not have. Tommy Loughran, a fellow Roman Catholic, who was by all reports, a good and gentle man, refused to fight a black contender. That effects his ranking in my book. Still a good man and great fighter, Loughran, but he's no GREB. Greb fought anybody, God bless him. See? Loughran is less than that. Tunney and Dempsey are too. John L.? He ain't within continental distance. And guess what? Ray Robinson is also less than Greb.

The historian has a responsibility to uncover what John L.'s motivations truly were. This thread has many posters casting his color line as a product of sociology. I say that we need to look at him as a man who made his own choices. He was influenced by many things -sociology, culture, etc., but these provide context and influence for his choice; they didn't determine that choice. And therefore he cannot be so quickly excused from consequences. His consequence should be an asterisk of sorts. That's all! I'm not looking to burn his likeness in effigy.

Well, many would revere them as pioneers, but stop short of considering them as great as those who came in the Golden Era. I'm a confessor in that cult. I believe that boxing technique evolved like every other science in the 20th century, and adapted to new rules of the game after 1920. Thus, I refrain from including fighters in my rankings who reached their prime before 1920 because it looks to me like a different sport requiring different emphasis on different assets. Seriously, even one rule, like the neutral corner rule makes a considerable difference in a fight -never mind the many differences before the Walker Law in NY 90 years ago.

 

I somtimes think that Sullivan gets criticised for not fighting the top fighters of the next era.

To put the timeline in perspecive:

Sullivan smashed his left arm against Patsy Cardiff, but still won because Cardiff was so wary of his power. His arm later had to be re broken. From then on Sullivan was esentialy a one armed fighter.

After this Sullivan contracted a feaver, and was not expected to live by his doctors. He was actualy on crutches when he arranged to fight Jake Killrain!

After this he had anounced his retirment, and no more would be thought about his not fighting fighters A, B and C, had he not been tempted back to face Corbett. He wasnt even sitting on the title at this point, he was formaly retired.

 

john brown was a nutcase

 

I like these two paragraphs. Before I respond or address them I'd just like to say.

I think the main difference between our arguments is that I believe most people were indoctrinated (Not a word you like, can't find a better one) by a racially-motivated culture. One that thought blacks were inferior to whites. And thinking so was as second nature as it is to be a Muslim living in the Middle East believing in the Quran, Muhammad his prophet, and Allah (God). Many would profess how people should doubt or be skeptically more, but we have to comprehend or understand the culture and environment. I know not everyone in the Middle East is Muslim or considers themselves one personally (They may for security and social reasons). Just like not how everyone is racist back in Dempsey's or Sullivan's time. We're just talking about the majority here. And to be conscionable, is not only to be a minority but it's to complete second guess everything about society. And without television, computers, and internet I feel it was probably a lot more difficult for people to open themselves up to the truth. Even if it's a duty as you say. I believe that's holding these fighters to a high standard.

But you're right, we should try understanding their motives. And all the factors.

I agree with you on the golden-age, and while the sport evolved and was much different Golden Age and onwards, I still think it may be wrong or hypocritical to deny the achievements of these pioneers (I'm playing devil's advocate here). Why? Well it's just like how people think Wlad is superior to Dempsey, and therefore greater because of the evolution in boxing and the HW division. Dempsey is too small and wouldn't be able to deal. The same thought goes for guys like Marciano... most people rank him in the top 10 based on what he did in his era. The greatness he showed in his time. But to just knock the era is in a sense discrediting John L for what he achieved. And he was the baddest "white" man on the planet, and HW champion. Yes, boxing is different... but who really picks Dempsey, Marciano, Charles, Schemling, and Bear against Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson? Some would argue boxing has changed since 80 years from the golden age (Just as it has changed from the 30 years of Sullivan's time). While I agree, that boxing changed a lot within those 30 years, and then continued steadily till the 1950's. But my point is judging the greatness of men in their times, and not neccessarily dismissing/ranking the time period to slight these old fighters. This is just a counter-point, and mind you that I'm conflicted myself. But I can see this point.

/Ramble end

 

amhlilhaus is an ignoramus

 

We agree more than we don't. One thing I think should be considered about the availability of media to determine truth -Since the 16th century there was something far more valuable than the internet to form a conscience. It's the best selling book of all time.

Oh, I think that boxing has devolved since the 60s. Make no mistake about that! And janitor and I have gone round and round about the pioneers. I think that our disagreements aren't so significant when it gets down to it. If I have doubts about Corbett's technique compared to say -Harold Johnson's, that isn't slighting him. Johnson would have done well to -and probably did -learn some of his tricks from a grizzled old trainer who was there in the day.

 

Touche'

Oh and I agree. I guess if you're criteria was factoring H2H than that position would be perfectly truthful and fair. However, if you're not factoring H2H then I think even if Harold Johnson is better that doesn't neccessarily make him greater.

I remember you picked Dempsey recently against Wlad in a thread. Not far-fetched at all, but most modern fans would call you a nostalgic fool (They are far more ignorant about the sport though). The same idea and credence could be said for people who thought highly of John L and Jim Jeffries, regardless of whether it was in tune with reality. Same with Dempsey being ranked the best till the 1950's in boxing polls done by boxing experts. One can say it's not too far off from those who think Smoking Joe Frazier (My second favorite fighter tied with Ali) would out-will and overcome Mike Tyson. I think that would be a style nightmare.

When do you think boxing peaked? The 60's?