Was Jack Dempsey racist?

Good points. I think we need to remember that Dempsey was an individual and not some projection of a greater cultural mindset. And as an individual he had little to no education in his youth and came to adulthood in an extremely animalistic, competitve environment, not the sort of background conducive to what at the time would be progressive sentiments. Also, we must realize that Dempsey- like any individual- was a work in progress throughout his life. It certainly seems that the years of traveling and life in the sophisticated cosmopolitan circles of NYC served as an education in his later life. His demeanor in his autobiography and in the the many interviews he gave in the 50's onward was enlightened in many regards. I would say he rose above the conditions and trappings of his upbringing.

 

Yes!

Dempsey may have been a hired ****** during his teenage years and there is no doubt that some of the things he did or was forced to do would be difficult to fathom by us today, even given the saturation of violence and sex in Western culture today. Dempsey's "rehabilitation" had nothing "re" about it. He was habilitated by the exposure he got by engaging in a state-sanctioned blood sport that was doubtlessly far more tame and civil than he was accustomed to on the rails and in those camps.

Those "old-fashioned, All-American values" that he seemed to have adopted early on for image control seemed to have really seeped in. That open letter to Capone after Capone's offer before the Tunney rematch was one thing, but how he lived his life with such dignity (that was not bred in him in his youth) is another.

 

What would we all be capable of if we didnt know where our next meal was going to come from?

 

Everyone was racist back then.

 

That depends not on deprivation so much as character.

 

This is simply not true.

 

Of course he was racist,. loads of people were back then to some degree, evne if they had good thoughts about other races they still passively accepted the racist norms of the time. Passively rejecting/ignoring a black candidate in job interviews is still racism, you know. it was the norm in america to be so. remember that back then they saw it as a good thing, it'd be the equivalent of holding a door open for a lady today.

He never went on record as protesting against a segregated bar, a seperate hospital for blacks etc... he accepted the racism of his time as the norm.

I work in a hospital the oldies who grew up in his era, and you should hear some of the evils the oldest patients put across to the black nurses. Today you can say its all wrong, but in their minds it all right... poor dears with demnetia are the worst.

 

The Scarlet R!

I could really give a **** how the self-satisfied post-moderns label generations past in order to flaunt their moral superiority.

Do the righteous Yanks here want to discuss their demolition of the Native Americans (or the Native Americans their demolition of each other)? Do the righteous Brits here want to discuss the fine operations and collateral costs of Colonialism? How bout the Ruskies and their treatment of Central Asians, or closer, Ukraines? This list could go on, everyone playing victim and pointing the finger...

Keep it in your pants.... and by it, I mean your snivelling self-righteous moral superiority.

 

You need to stand back and look at what you believe. Those who "passively accepted" racist norms were not necessarily "racist" -they may have had too much to lose. They have simply been cowards. A coward is not, by definition, a racist, anymore than an American who didn't vote for President Obama is a racist. That word is thrown around like confetti these days -don't be one of those fools who treat a serious charge like so much confetti.

'Dempsey didn't go on record protesting' against segregation...? You are judging a man's life with flimsy evidence. The fact is, you don't know what Dempsey did. It may be on the record, but not on the internet. Hell, he may have been one of those who shunned publicity for his good deeds.

Here, you are judging a generation based on a few senile residents in a single building in a single city. That isn't exactly a representative sample, is it. I'd bet that you are being fooled by the loud ones. Count those residents who do not abuse the nurses, check the totals, and see your folly.

As it is now, your opinions on this matter carry about as much weight as a correctional officer's opinions about human nature.

 

I think we had a similar discussion again but I want to add two things here. For one, ignorance can be a product of culture and two, moralily is not something consistant. It changed all the time during history. What was right at one point in history became wrong at another - just think about paedophyly which was normal in ancient greek and is now one of the worst things you can do, or incest, Egyptian pharaos married their sisters to be able to inherit their throne and had children with them. Well, we don´t fancy this kind of behaviour today, are we? - and things that were wrong at one point became right at another.
While I think we agree that some basic morals stayed the same throughout hsitory - although on different scales - like murder - today any murder is wrong, the commandment which forbid murder actually forbid only murder on Jews, killing members of other "nations" or tribes was okay. This makes sense when you look at it scientifically, through the eyes of anthroplogists. You just need to look at bonobos or chimps, they seem to have similar behaviour to what you could say are the basic morals that stayed constant throughout human history.
However, one important trait, perhaps the most important of all, og humans is that they form social groups. To differ from other social groups they need to define themselves. Throughout history language, religion, nationality, culture and ideology are the most common ways humans defined themselves. But skin-colour can also be a way to define themselves - I think the black power movement is somewhat of an indication of that, as is the neo-nazi/aryan movements. This isolation from other social groups seem to lead quite often to a feeling of superiority. This is where racism comes from IMO. The basics for it are a trait deep in humans. That doesn´t make it any better because we know that it´s wrong.
Similar behaviour can be seen with bonobos and chimps too, actually. Different groups have different cultures and they wage wars against each other.

 

Jack Dempsey himself was part of an oppressed racial minority. His mother Celia Smoot was of mixed Irish and Choctaw descent, while he had a Cherokee lineage through his father Hyrum. Beyond that, his parents were Mormon converts. ("I am proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am.") He was the first heavyweight champion to have ever resided in Harlem (during his early career). In the 1970s, he would have been promoted as Danny Lopez was, complete with feathered headdress and Native American regalia. (And in fact there are photographs of him posing with Indians during his reign in such costume. He doesn't seem to have been in any way shy about his heritage.)

He was the first heavyweight champion of Cherokee descent. The second heavyweight champion of Cherokee descent? Joe Louis, who was one quarter Cherokee, therefore not quite as imbued with Native American ancestry as Jack. (Don't forget that Jimmy Bivins and other fighters of African descent at the time called Louis "Big Red.) Look at Dempsey's features. In a census today, he might very well classify himself as "Native American."

The last undisputed heavyweight champion of Irish American descent? Muhammad Ali, who played his Irish roots to the hilt when he boxed Blue Lewis in Dublin.

Want me to name the first Latino heavyweight champion? That would be Carnera. (Yes folks, Italians are Latinos. Where do you suppose the Latin language itself originated?) The first Latino-American heavyweight champion would be Marciano. John Ruiz was merely the first Hispanic heavyweight champion, if you want to get into strict semantics.

 

Why does avoiding a black fighter make you racist? I'm not saying dempsey was behind avoiding the Wills fight...but even if he was...that doesn't make him racist...means someone thought it was to much risk for to little reward. And why Marciano beating up black guys mean he wasn't racist.


As for dempsey...I know he bought a house for bill tate in the 50's. He may have had some sterotypes...and when all things where equal...he may have even rooted for the white guy...but he definitly wasn't KKK racist.

 

Wait...he was a hired ******???

 

He was hired to break in whores I think.

 

Throughout his later career as a promoter and manager he was constantly looking for the next great white hope and as far as I can ascertain he never had anything to with black fighters.