Jeffries got what he deserved ...

Im not taking "whites" off the hook. Ive never denied that Johnson met with racial prejudice. But to sit there and pretend that all or most of JOhnson's troubles were the result of racist whites is like pretending every white person was racist in the 1860s and somehow the civil war was fought and won by and slavery was ended solely by african americans. I think all of those "whites" who bled and died to free all of those "blacks" would question the idea that every white person who critcized Johnson was racist and every black person who criticized him was an uncle tom, and every other culture that criticized is just an inconvenient side note to be ignored.

 

So now we are going to try to tear down Booker T Washington in order to make Johnson look better. I dont know any historian worth his salt who would pretend Johnson did more to advance the rights and reputations of people of color than Booker T Washington and if you or anyone else doesnt think Johnson set back civil rights just go read the comments of some of his peers and those of the generation immediately after him.

 

***

 

What are you even talking about. Im not the one here claiming that JJ advanced civil rights. Others are. Im pointing out that his actions had a very negative impact on those rights. To deny that is pure ignorance. Just as the comment that he came around in an era when blacks didnt have the right to vote. Bull****. The 15th Amendment was ratified before Johnson was even born. Get your US history straight before making baseless comments like that.

Furthermore, quit acting like segregation was a universal phenomena. It wasnt. It was awful but pretending like every white person was evil and every black person was a poor servile peasant that had to beg for every s**** it got from the white table is absolutely ridiculous.

You keep applying broad generalizations to very specific laws and localities and people which is not only incorrect factually but so ridiculously misleading that I have to either question your credibility and/or knowledge of things like anti-miscegenation laws in the US, Segregation, voting rights, etc. Are you even from the USA? Did you ever study any of this? You do realize that non of what you have said voting, marriages, and or segregation are universal right? If so why pretend it was? And again, even if this was a fact of life why does that excuse Johnson's actions and if its cause then why werent all black people in the 1900s running around like they just didnt give a damn and had no idea how a society functions?


So Johnson wasnt the guy that authored those laws which were oppressive to blacks huh? So are speeding laws racially motivated? Are those oppressive? What about domestic abuse laws? Are those oppressive and racially motivated? How about prostitution laws? Illegal transportation laws? Flight from prosecution? Obstruction? How about the laws protecting the rights of debtors? What about assault? See thats the problem, Johnson just didnt give a **** about the law in general or people or anything else. He was all about himself and he felt like should be allowed to whatever he wanted. He was no different than the ignorant assholes who ***** and moan when they get stopped for speeding or asked for their ID or assault police and the cry racism when they get the book thrown at them. There is a sense of entitlement there and it was magnified in Johnson.

You and others here keep mention "these white people" and "those white people" I would love to hear who this collective was that made it their job to keep Johnson oppressed here, and in Canada, and England, and France, and Switzerland, and Belgium, and Spain, and Cuba, and Argentina, and Mexico. Was it the illuminati? The Knights Templar? Aliens? This super powerful secret society made up of old white men (all named "whitey" Im sure), had nothing better to do with their unlimited time and money than to follow Jack Johnson from country to country for 10 years and harass him? I mean its just silly. And once again, the entire component of Johnson's life where he alienated every single country that welcomed him with open arms after he fled America is a completely ignored and inconvenient truth. God forbid we address the fact that he made an ass of himself every where he went outside of the country and became such a pariah that was essentially forced back into the waiting arms of deputies in the USA. I mean thats how ****ing bad it was for him. People hated that ******* so much everywhere else that this awful place you want to paint as a racist wasteland where black people are hanging limply from every telephone pole actually looked like a good deal to Johnson...

So yeah, Im sorry but not only is your take on history a bit twisted. But your idea that Johnson was a representative of his people was clearly rejected during his lifetime by the leading black intellectuals of the day and most of them considered him a bad representative at that.

 

Wait I'm confused what you're saying here and now questioning your knowledge of history. Is it your contention that segregation wasn't an issue that Johnson dealt with nor was it an issue in U.S.? Further, you say AA had the right to vote before Johnson was born. Talk about being purposely disingenuous with the facts. Did you forget literacy tests that prevented blacks from voting. Did you forget Grandfather Clauses passed by some states (Louisiana for example) which kept blacks from voting in 1896? You do realize that even by 1930 Jim Crow laws had kept registered AA in the south down to only 3% right? You act like stuff such as lynching or sentencing blacks to crimes they didn't commit didn't happen. It most certainly did. I'm baffled at some of the things you type and how unrealistic of a picture it paints. I'm not claiming ALL of Johnson's acts were caused by others and his upbringing. What I am claiming, is that much fo Johnson's behavior can be directly related to others and his treatment growing up, and to directly rebel against said system. To say otherwise, and just act like he was just a bad seed that had nothing to do with the society around him is ludicrous.

 

Johnson was being seriously talked of as a title challenger in 1903 he didn't get his chance until 1908 when he was 30 years old. That is 5 years.

 

Which post claims Johnson advanced civil rights?

 

I don't pretend Johnson did any ****ing thing for civil rights.

Why do you keep repeating this ? I haven't made one post saying so!

I'm not tearing down Washington to promote Johnson, I'm merely showing he was no saint himself and there IS PLENTY OF DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE TO SHOW he was a vain ,self serving ,devious man who wanted to be not only the head black honcho ,he wanted the be the ONLY HEAD BLACK HONCHO.

Do you dispute the information I posted on Washington?


Here is some more.

Harvard educated NAACP founder W.E.B Du Bois became Washington’s main opponent through. Despite initially being a follower of Washington’s Du Bois criticised him for not promoting protest, referring to him as ‘The Great Accommodator’. Du Bois argued that Washington and his ‘Tuskegee Machine’ would damn African Americans to permanent inferiority. Du Bois instead proposed constantly challenging whites for immediate social and political equality, through a ‘talented tenth’, a group of elite blacks that would represent and prove African American’s worth as a whole.

Did you know Washington advocated segregation?
This is from Yale
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_was_Du_bois_critique_of_Booker_T_Washington

You have continually put words in posters mouths on this thread So many in fact, you are in grave danger of arguing against yourself!

 

Which post has said this? You are inventing posts that haven't been written!:huh

 

Who is saying every ? There is no need to try and reframe the debate .. Was there a heavyweight champion or American athlete more despised than Jack Johnson in American history at the time he became champion ? The answer is not even remotely close. The reason was that he was a black man who played by his own rules and openly played w white woman. There is no disputing this. No one is saying everyone. Just far more than ever before. That's more than enough. There is not even a reasonable way to dispute this. Because of this you cannot judge Johnson by anyone else's scale .. Joe Louis was accepted precisely because he played nice ... the cardinal rules burned into his mantra .. never gloat over a white defeated opponent and NEVER be seen or have a photo taken w a white woman. Why ? Because whites will not allow another Jack Johnson. Any other spin is simply a spin.

 

Louis ****ed more white women than Johnson ever saw, it was just that his managers made sure he was never seen in public with one.

 

I posted that to Kurupt's post, you're getting a bit punch- drunk here.:huh

 

***

 

***

 

Your post does a disservice to and completely ignores the innumerable whites who worked on the behalf of equal rights and the innumerable african americans who worked for equal rights in peaceful and lawful ways. I would hardly call that grovelling or begging. Its ****ing sad that you view such honorable people in such a light. Nevermind that again, you making a blanket generalization about things that werent universal. Period. Not mixed race marriages, not voting rights, not segregation. None of what you mentioned previously was a univeral fact, period. That same, ignorant, broad generalization reversed is what you seem to be denigrating (incorrectly) an entire race of people (whites) for doing to blacks but you sure dont seem to mind doing it yourself.

Where? Again you are talking generalizations. Why not speak in specifics? Maybe because your argument would collapse. I never said that PARTS of this country werent bad. PARTS of this country still are but you arent going to draw me into a debate thats predicated on the idea that all of america prevented blacks from voting, marrying whites, going to schools with whites, or having equal rights. Period. I know I know, its easier for you to believe that everyone was secretly plotting to hang the negro down the street but thats simply not true.

Again, where couldnt blacks vote? Specifics please. Because the the 15th amendment giving blacks the right to vote was ratified before Johnson was born. So what state specifically are we talking about. Alabama? Ok, Mississippi? Ok? I didnt realize that the Jim Crow states had so much power in policy in general and boxing specifically to hound Johnson from continent to continent and ruin his life, oh and so damage his psyche as Kurupt would have us believe as to make him a complete *******.

First and foremost you are quoting speed limits that existed before Johnson ever became champion. Second speed limits were slower at that point because you still had a majority of the population on horseback and on roads that werent paved or graded for the use of automobiles. So there was a good safety reason behind the speed limits and like all speed limits regardless of whether you believe in them or not they arent there to protect you, the dumbass speeding in the first place, they are there to protect everyone else from that dumbass. But more importantly, who gives a **** what the speed limit was. It was a law. That was the rule. It wasnt just whitey's rule, it was for everyone. Society operates on rules. Jack Johnson was a well known, notorious flaunter of such rules. So once again, I couldnt care less if the guy was considered a pariah in his own era for his actions because he was judged under the standards of the day and I personally believe he would have been an outcast with his behavior regardless of the color of his skin or the women he chose to associate with.

No my point is that when Johnson did travel to or stay in those countries that were far more accepting and tolerant of blacks and mixed marriages he still managed to make an ass and a pariah of himself. Nobody and I mean NOBODY here will even touch that. They keep wanting to bring it back to the USA but the fact is that everyone tired of Johnson's antics and kindly or not kindly showed him the door.

First you have several issues here. One, whether its bigoted or racist or not people have the right to choose who they **** based on whatever criteria they choose. If they find it as unsavory to screw a black man as Johnson found it enticing to screw white women then thats their prerogative. If this woman was so insulted by the insinuation then its her right (I assume, Im no expert in early Australian law) to sue the paper for libel. You may not like that but thats a simple fact of life and will probably never change no matter how tolerant race relations become. Second, those articles are demeaning no doubt. But did they persecute him? Did they attack him? Call for him to be lynched? Did they call him a dirty stinky ****** and tell him he wasnt welcome in Australia? Is an article like that which also complimented him reason enough for Johnson to break laws and act like a ****? No, in fact he was welcomed with open arms and banquets were thrown in his honor. He was paid a handsome sum to give a series of exhibitions and faced two of Australias top fighters, one white and one black. This was printed around the same time as the article you excerpted lampooning Johnson:

BOXING.
THE AMERICAN CHAMPION.
At the invitation of Mr. James Brennan a gather-
ing of sporting representatives met yesterday after-
noon at the National Amphitheatre, Castlereagh-
street, to welcome "Jack" Johnson, the famous col-
oured American boxer. The chair was occupied by
Mr. F. Gardner, who, in introducing the boxer, said
that he was sure that all were pleased to welcome a
boxer of their guest's capabilities. Mr. Lawrence
Foley also referred in eulogistic terms to Johnson.
There would be, he thought, every probability of a
match being arranged with Squires, for "no English
man ever ran away from an opponent." Johnson in
responding said that he could box better than he
could talk, but he wished to express his surprise and
gratitude for the sportsmanlike manner in which he
was received by his hosts and the Sydney public. He
trusted that when he left for home his actions inFix this text
the ring would justify their good opinion of him.
Mr. A. M'lean, who is Johnson's manager, also ex-
pressed the same sentiments. Messrs. W. Corbett, D.
Healy, and others addressed the gathering.

On his second coming he was greeted warmly by fans at the boat and mobbed. And after he won the championship he courted controversy by taking advantage of hospital, getting treatment, two days in a row and not paying while the poor were expected to sign contracts for payment at the same hospital. The board of the hospital met to discuss the matter and agreed that he had taken advantage of its services and would not be welcome back. Shortly thereafter he and a companion were charged with speeding and nearly causing an accident. When he returned to the states and more stories of his behavior began to filter into Australia public opinion of him soured. One of those stories was when he beat the dog **** out of a short, emaciated black man suffering from tuberculosis after the black man offered to by Johnson a drink. Johnson told the man he only drank wine and the man said he had seen Johnson drink beer in the past and Johnson beat the hell out of him then told the police who arrested that the man had "cast aspersions on his character" yeah, Johnson was a real peach of a man.

See, right there. Thats a totally inaccurate statement. Jack Johnson did not break the law. At all. Was he ever charged using an anti-miscegenation law? No. Was he ever prosecuted for anti-miscegenation? No. Johnson was criticized far and wide for a wide range of issues and behaviors so quit trying to pretend it was totally and only a racial issue because it wasnt. I dont doubt that there was a component to that but was just a piece of the puzzle and you and anyone else on here pretending that had he not ****ed white women he wouldnt have issues or that his issues were 99.99% because of white women are either ignorant, or revisionist to suite an agenda, because Im sorry but that simply has no basis in fact.

None that I know of. Not a single one. Do you know of any? If so by all means please give us some details. Id love to hear that story.

You mean the ex gangbanging rapper who shot somebody?? Or the women who are only famous because they leaked a tape of themselves ****ing to the world? Should I look up to them? Just because there are people out there as bad or worse than Johnson, or maybe not quite as bad, doesnt mean he wasnt an anti-social *****.