Was Jack Johnson bad for the black fighters?

The most important example Johnson set was to, within reason, live for yourself and represent yourself to a man. I'm sure there were many who drew inspiration from Johnson at the time and still many who draw inspiration from him today.

Remember, Johnson didn't flourish in a context that allowed Black Men the right to fight for the title - only for Johnson's own behaviors to have allegedly caused that "right" taken away after Johnson's reign.

No, Jack didn't take anything away from anyone. Johnson in fact broke the barrier and made it his right to fight for the HW Title.

Saying that Johnson was "bad" for Black Boxers has that juvenile air to it - similar to the "justification" of the WHOLE "class" being kept in due to the "misbehaviors" of one pupil. Sure, your mates at school would be angry with you also due to your being framed as the "illusory" cause of the expanded and unjust punishment imposed upon the WHOLE of the class.

Johnson could've tried harder to defend against his fellow Black Dynamite Crew but, it's not completely black and white (no pun intended). Johnson did try to make the effort at different times but Johnson's was not such a free and easy reign - and again, that was due to the very fact that he was black. Johnson did however at least defend against Battling Jim Johnson. So Johnson became only the second man to give a black man a shot at the Title - the first instance of course being Tommy Burns, who granted Jack his own chance at the Title.

Another way to look at all of his is that boxing needed a Jack Johnson just as much as it needed a Joe Louis, as and when both men appeared on the scene, in their own eras. I mean, if we want to critique across the board, some might say that Joe Louis could've said and done more for the general "rights" of Black People. One expected answer might be: "But Joe did, he set a great example and showed the way as to still be able to exist and succeed within a constrained social structure.

But was it really Joe's primary intent to set that example? Certainly, the manner in which Joe "flawlessly" conducted himself fit in with the white's perception of a "well-behaved" black individual - but that conduct, by no coincidence, also served to facilitate Joe's OWN chosen path and method(s) to a Title shot and maintenance of PR's with whites thereafter.

Johnson could also be viewed as the "recessive gene" or unduly "suppressed gene" that rose up again to give Ali his extraordinary "voice" and the "right" to speak out so many years later.

 

Great answer.

 

Very nice of you to say. Nothing wrong with being excessively wordy and self gratifying, it's one of my strong suits!

 

It was the choices of whites that directly affected black fighters. It’s as simple as that.

Not that the above fact isn’t obvious in its own right - but I also highlighted that the choices made by the whites existed before Johnson.

That further proves that it is illogical to even implicate Johnson let alone lay blame on Johnson for the inequitable reactions of the white folk to Johnson’s behaviours.

The mistreatment of all blacks was already there, with or without Johnson.

Johnson’s primary sin was actually winning the HW Title.

The call for White Hopes was immediately activated - to win the title back in order to restore the previously held perception of white supremacy.

Johnson was simply born into a time and long standing level of racial prejudice that he alone couldn’t ever be held accountable or blamed for.

Whites further escalated the situation when Johnson simply beat the chosen rep for the white race - Jim Jeffries.

The same Jim Jeffries who abjectly refused to face Johnson based merely on the colour of his skin, no more, no less. Was Jeffries directly bad for black fighters? Hell yeah.

During Jeffries reign, Sam Langford and/or his manager Joe Woodman offered to fight any man BUT Jim Jeffries. The sentiment was superfluous given Jeffries drawing of the colour line. Jeffries had already precluded himself.

Sam’s open challenge BAR one also read as disingenuous, since all that we know of him suggests that Langford would’ve taken on anyone - including Jeffries.

If anything, it was probably meant to score brownie points - in so far as showing “due”deference to a white Champ who made it clear he would never risk his title against a black man.

So, effectively, even without Johnson in the equation, Langford was cutting himself off from any possibility of a title shot - at least while a revered white man held the title.

Johnson was cut from a different cloth. He pushed and broke through a near impenetrable barrier - on his OWN.

I believe Langford even inexplicably picked the come backing Jeffries to beat Johnson.

Sam was a great fighter, had previously engaged Johnson and surely would’ve known that Johnson would more than likely defeat Jeff.

I calculate that Sam was AGAIN displaying “due” and “expected” deference. Quite simply, Johnson did it his way, the only proven way to make it through at that point in time - and he did it without any support.

Take Johnson out of the picture. How long would it have taken for the colour line to run out of legs otherwise?

In time enough for the likes of Langford, McVey and Jeanette to be granted a shot from whoever the white Champ might’ve been at that time?

That’s not a hypothetical question either. We often hear how Johnson set back fellow black fighters - but we don’t often hear/read how it would’ve panned out otherwise - without Jack in the picture.

Dempsey could’ve halted the second wave of the colour line by fighting Wills. Dempsey had choices he could’ve made or not made also.

Is Johnson to be held (irrationally) responsible for Dempsey’s own choices and omissions also - impossibly extending the “ramifications” of the perceived “sins” of Johnson? Of course not.

The views on what Johnson should have or shouldn’t have done inherently include and impose the concept of subordination.

For many years after his reign, some saw need to frame Jack as a fall guy for the pre-existing and continued choices being made by white folk - the choices that actually and directly affected black fighters.

Oh gee, I just wrote War and Peace. Lol.

 

Too true Freddy.

As Ricky Nelson sang - “You can’t please everyone so you’ve got to please yourself”

A simple yet sound philosophy that I follow religiously.

And if you do happen to coincidentally please someone else also - then it’s a win/win. Lol.

 

Bravo.

 

Jack Johnson was the son of slaves. Start with that. I don't think any of us are in a position to pass judgement on him or critique ripple impact decisions he made without full comprehension of the context he personally lived through which is impossible. I applaud the multiple, terrific posts I've skimmed through so far on this thread ..

This content is protected

 

Thankyou for a very well written and insightful reply.

The key question is when you ask me whether I am effectively saying that Johnson should have known his place.

I would say that it is more the case that his behavior should have reflected the realities of his situation.

If I demand the contents of your wallet on this forum, then you are not going to give it to me.

However If I have a hostage, and I threaten to shoot them if you don't give it to me, then you are going to hand it over.

You would do this not because I had any moral claim on it, but because it is better than the alternative.

The reality of Johnson's situation, was that the white majority could hurt other black people, and take opportunities away from other black fighters because of his actions.

Joe Louis essentially had the right idea.

He did all the things that Johnson did, but he hat least kept the more controversial things under his hat.

Was it fait that he had to do this?

No, but it seems to have worked.

 

Hi Buddy.
I can see your well constructed synopsis, and agree with its inference, and it has given me pause for thought, equally pleasing to have a adult and constructive conversation.
stay safe hombre.

 

There is no "Right" answer to this. We are talking about a time where you can hang a black man just for looking at a white woman. I am not going to blame Johnson on the conditions of the era, as someone said, they were there before Johnson and even after Johnson. I don't think White America in general was not ready for a guy like Jack Johnson. Every black champion after Johnson and before Ali had to follow the Jack Johnson "Rules". Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano can go out, have a night on the town with women in each arm, and really party it up, but Louis or Patterson??? What Johnson did was great, but the reaction from White America made sure the likes of Wills would not get a title shot down the road.

 

I love a good Jungian analysis as much as the next boxing fan, but I’d point out that Ayn Rand would celebrate the virtue of Jack’s selfishness.

It’s a hard hair to split — if Jack doesn’t come along and shake up the status quo, maybe the color line gets drawn even longer. At least he showed a black man could be the best, which was something the white powers that be were keen to keep from ever happening.

I don’t think saying ‘certain black fighters/fight people didn’t like him’ amounts to much. Certain people didn’t like Jack Dempsey and Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes.

It wasn’t Jack Johnson that kept other blacks from getting their due opportunities … it was the white-controlling power structure. Blaming him is choosing the wrong scapegoat. Call out the true forces of evil who created and enforced the racist practices.