I don't mind looking "obtuse" in your eyes...what's right is right...what's wrong is wrong...Jack Johnson was persecuted because he was black...it really doesn't matter what fucked up law they used to go after him...it was because he was black...period...and I do not "minimize the context in which all of these occurences took place"...I am simply trying to point out that that there were many things in this countries past that would be ridiculously unacceptable today...the Mann Act is one of them...only if you look at the Mann Act through 'turn-of-the-century-eyes' can it make any sense...just like the Jim Crow laws, the Blue Laws, the crooks who were expelled from England that came over here to be forever revered after starting a new government, despite the fact that many of them were immoral to the core...preaching freedom while owning other human beings...obtuse...maybe....immoral and disgusting...definitely! Your defense for them is the time they lived in?...then why not also defend Pontius Pilot, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Kahn, the 17th Century Catholic Church...what they did was 'accepted' in their times by their people...klompton wrote:Actually what I said, since your not reading my posts, is that if you have a problem with the man act then why not a pardon across the board for those prosecuted by an intrusive law? Why stop with Johnson who was actually on the wrong side of the law in every way you can imagine? Whether the govt wanted to "get" Johnson is irrelevant if he placed himself in a position to be "got". Its like saying that Al Capone was only prosecuted by tax law because he was a high profile citizen and thus we should pardon him as well, lets just ignore the fact that he was guilty.
"The Constitution, which is what the US Supreme court bases it's rulings on, was written by a bunch of drunken slave owners...the whole thing was written by men who didn't exactly practice what they preached...Thomas Jefferson fornicated with a 15 year old black girl (that he owned) and impregnated her...surely this kind of behavior indicates some of our 'laws' throughout this country's history are suspect, to say the least"
Have you any understanding of how obtuse that statement makes you look? Its a microcosm of what is wrong with your entire argument. You minimize the context in which all of these occurences took place, view them from your 21st century moral and ethical stance, and then comment upon them as if they happened yesterday in your living room.
Did Jack Johnson plot against Joe Louis?
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Re: actually
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
the film
I watched the documentary also and found it very interesting with regard to the way they contrasted the way the public came to view Johnson and Louis.
Johnson was seen as a threat to the white population and , as Hank Kaplan said “Johnson had a contempt for white people”. The fight he had with Burns did little to endear him to the pre dominantly white crowd when he openly toyed with Burns , grinning , laughing and taunting him with things like
“Come on Tommy you mother can hit harder than that”.
Johnson is said to have been “Oblivious “ and “didn’t give a shit” about what people thought .
He was cast in the role as “White America’s Nightmare” and the dreadful search for the “Great White Hope” …”America needs you” fiasco with Jeffries defending American white pride on the 4th July – for a large dollop of cash – provoked riots and killings after it’s predicable conclusion.
The fact that Johnson was seen prior to the fight acting like he didn’t have a care in the world , despite it was said having received death threats, must have done wonders for his standing amongst the fair minded and racially tolerant white America of the era.
This whole issue of him being a target of the FBI – then Bureau of investigation – and if it was a technical violation etc of the Law , was the law perverted to get him etc etc etc. ….. is a lawyers dream come true.
Johnsons best contribution , in an uncharacteristic display of common sense, was to do a runner. When he did go back it can hardly be said that he suffered for the short period they locked him up. The authorities didn’t add to the sentence imposed on him years earlier. Why ?
My own feeling about why he was charged in the first place was that his behaviour, which was flamboyant, made the Bureau look stupid and someone ( Hoover - he loved Black people ) felt they had to do something to save face. The chance this was race/malice motivated is not remote, and was really a bonus for them in the eyes of getting support .
You don’t need to have much knowledge of history to be aware that “Black Men” screwing around with “White Women” at that time was not by any stretch a good idea and Johnson was pure and simple “ An Idiot” and if anyone was the author of their own downfall he was it.
As for the “Pardon” ….is this a case of the makers of the new documentary looking at publicity angle ? . I am sure that some people may wish to cast this in a fight to “ right the wrongs of the past” and I do have great sympathy for that view. I don’t however think there will be all that many people who have the slightest interest in the outcome. He may well have been, as some people have suggested, “a martyr to the liberal minded” but whether Johnson shared – or cared – that view is another matter.
BACK TO THE FILM
Louis’s image was said to have been purposefully manipulated To show him as a quite, bible reading, “servile, up from the farm Negro” home loving and unpretentious individual . He kept away
From “White people” and stayed with his “own kind” . It was said that his publicity people very carefully crafted this imagery as they felt/knew this was the only way he could make any real progress as a fighter. No photos with white women.
Whether the actual facts differ in some respects to what was on the film is another matter. However the indisputable fact is that it worked. The documentary did make the rather odd suggestion that Schmeling was the first to study film of his opponent – The very idea of this is so ridiculous I can only conclude was incorporated into the film as it sounded good and dramatic. They also said he “Was one of the few guys to look at films”. A small contradiction !!!
The idea that Max and his people sat round thinking they had revolutionised boxing strategy is I think a touch of the “Hollywood History”, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Then to go on and compound the matter they portray Johnson as the traitor to his Country and a “Black Brother” because he was bitter and twisted up over the way he was treated yrs before, and the Louis camp wanted nothing to do with him – hardly a revelation.
The most telling and ironic statement made was the President – who didn’t do the unthinkable of letting Louis inside the White House – holding his arm saying “We need these for Democracy”
Then after the war they hounded him for back Tax - A PARDON for that is warranted
Hope the next program to be shown this coming Sunday provokes such debate !!!!!
Johnson was seen as a threat to the white population and , as Hank Kaplan said “Johnson had a contempt for white people”. The fight he had with Burns did little to endear him to the pre dominantly white crowd when he openly toyed with Burns , grinning , laughing and taunting him with things like
“Come on Tommy you mother can hit harder than that”.
Johnson is said to have been “Oblivious “ and “didn’t give a shit” about what people thought .
He was cast in the role as “White America’s Nightmare” and the dreadful search for the “Great White Hope” …”America needs you” fiasco with Jeffries defending American white pride on the 4th July – for a large dollop of cash – provoked riots and killings after it’s predicable conclusion.
The fact that Johnson was seen prior to the fight acting like he didn’t have a care in the world , despite it was said having received death threats, must have done wonders for his standing amongst the fair minded and racially tolerant white America of the era.
This whole issue of him being a target of the FBI – then Bureau of investigation – and if it was a technical violation etc of the Law , was the law perverted to get him etc etc etc. ….. is a lawyers dream come true.
Johnsons best contribution , in an uncharacteristic display of common sense, was to do a runner. When he did go back it can hardly be said that he suffered for the short period they locked him up. The authorities didn’t add to the sentence imposed on him years earlier. Why ?
My own feeling about why he was charged in the first place was that his behaviour, which was flamboyant, made the Bureau look stupid and someone ( Hoover - he loved Black people ) felt they had to do something to save face. The chance this was race/malice motivated is not remote, and was really a bonus for them in the eyes of getting support .
You don’t need to have much knowledge of history to be aware that “Black Men” screwing around with “White Women” at that time was not by any stretch a good idea and Johnson was pure and simple “ An Idiot” and if anyone was the author of their own downfall he was it.
As for the “Pardon” ….is this a case of the makers of the new documentary looking at publicity angle ? . I am sure that some people may wish to cast this in a fight to “ right the wrongs of the past” and I do have great sympathy for that view. I don’t however think there will be all that many people who have the slightest interest in the outcome. He may well have been, as some people have suggested, “a martyr to the liberal minded” but whether Johnson shared – or cared – that view is another matter.
BACK TO THE FILM
Louis’s image was said to have been purposefully manipulated To show him as a quite, bible reading, “servile, up from the farm Negro” home loving and unpretentious individual . He kept away
From “White people” and stayed with his “own kind” . It was said that his publicity people very carefully crafted this imagery as they felt/knew this was the only way he could make any real progress as a fighter. No photos with white women.
Whether the actual facts differ in some respects to what was on the film is another matter. However the indisputable fact is that it worked. The documentary did make the rather odd suggestion that Schmeling was the first to study film of his opponent – The very idea of this is so ridiculous I can only conclude was incorporated into the film as it sounded good and dramatic. They also said he “Was one of the few guys to look at films”. A small contradiction !!!
The idea that Max and his people sat round thinking they had revolutionised boxing strategy is I think a touch of the “Hollywood History”, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Then to go on and compound the matter they portray Johnson as the traitor to his Country and a “Black Brother” because he was bitter and twisted up over the way he was treated yrs before, and the Louis camp wanted nothing to do with him – hardly a revelation.
The most telling and ironic statement made was the President – who didn’t do the unthinkable of letting Louis inside the White House – holding his arm saying “We need these for Democracy”
Then after the war they hounded him for back Tax - A PARDON for that is warranted
Hope the next program to be shown this coming Sunday provokes such debate !!!!!
Re: the film
I agree 100%, what the IRS did to Louis was a truely vile and unjust act in my opinion.robert.snell1 wrote:Then after the war they hounded him for back Tax - A PARDON for that is warranted
Indeed, tomorrows edition is about mob involment in the game, my only concern is they don't just concentrate on the Lamotta scandle and the Ali/Liston fights, both of which have been talked to death in my opinion.robert.snell1 wrote:Hope the next program to be shown this coming Sunday provokes such debate !!!!!
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
next program
Just been looking at the papers about the next one. I think the two you mentioned will be featured but hope it contains some material which hasn't already been debated to death.
i missed the first one , any idea if its to be repeated
i missed the first one , any idea if its to be repeated
Re: next program
Sorry I have no idea.robert.snell1 wrote:i missed the first one , any idea if its to be repeated
-
gensu3k1
- Heavyweight
Re: please
There were a lot of slaves who were "guilty" of trying to flee their "masters." There have been a lot of Chinese who were "guilty" of criticizing the government.klompton wrote:Please read your history. The US did not create the Mann act to "get Johnson" thats utter bullshit. The first two men prosecuted under the Mann act where white men from California. It was enacted in 1910 as a means of regulating interstate prostitution and "immorality". The "immorality" part gave it a wide berth and the two white men first prosecuted by the act had taken their girlfriends across state lines for a romantic weekend. Neither had any ties to prostitution. On the other hand Jack Johnson DID have ties to prostitution both as the owner of purported bordello in Chicago and as a frequent patron of women of the night. Both of the women he was pursued for were known prostitutes. On top of this fact he fled the country illegally while out on bail. Sorry but thats guilty. If you want to go back and judge people from 100 years ago using modern standards then pardon everyone prosecuted by the Mann act, not just an asshole who had the image of a hero projected on him by a sadly misinformed public.
"All immoral laws must be disobeyed."
klompton
Its assinine to compare a peoples struggle against oppression to Jack Johnsons violation of anti-prostitution charges, violating bail, fleeing the country in disguise, traveling europe, and central america (while being kicked out of country after country), and eventually returning to serve a relatively light sentence for a crime he did commit. This argument is similar to those that try to paint Battling Siki as an unfortunate, innocent, and naive young man who was simply thrust into a world he didnt understand when in actuality he was a asshole whose demise was fortold by his actions and his lifestyle years before it ever happened. Make heros of these men if you want but its still revisionist regardless of your motives.
Finally, as Ive said before, if this is simply a case of an oppressive law then why all the hype about Johnson? Why not pardon ALL of those persecuted under the intrusive Mann Act. Not one of you people arguing against me has answered that question. A silence which speaks volumes about the agenda behind this ridiculous pardon proposed by Ken Burns and cohorts.
Finally, as Ive said before, if this is simply a case of an oppressive law then why all the hype about Johnson? Why not pardon ALL of those persecuted under the intrusive Mann Act. Not one of you people arguing against me has answered that question. A silence which speaks volumes about the agenda behind this ridiculous pardon proposed by Ken Burns and cohorts.
-
Max Molyneux
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7084
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53
I saw that documentry. As soon as there was another Black champion he decided to come into thge spotlight or something but Louis didn't want to fight him. And Johnson mentioned that he keeps his guard low as he punched so Max used that then they had the rematch and Louis won and Hitler punished Max by making him go into service. Can't believe Max is still alive today though at 99 
. Is Jack Johnsons fight record on Boxrec couldn't find it?
. Is Jack Johnsons fight record on Boxrec couldn't find it?re
I've read very little of the above arguement and I honestly do not know a lot about the history of the Mann Act, but I do know that the biggest percentage of those in power in "white America" used the Mann Act to go after Johnson. "White America" hated Jack Johnson, and he flaunted himself to a large degree because of it. To say that Johnson was a criminal because of the ridiculous law is silly and it is a shame that he had to leave the country because if he hadn't, he would have been prosecuted to the fullest and although it makes little difference to most that he is being pardoned now, there are still several people that are considered minorities who will find it gratifiying and a victory!
Perfect example
The previous post is a perfect example of what Im talking about. "Its a shame Johnson HAD to leave his country", "The biggest percentage of those in power in white america used the Mann act against Johnson", "to say he was a criminal because of this ridiculous law is silly".
Johnson didnt HAVE to leave, he fled the country in disguise while on bail and was tried in absentia. If he was such a shining example of good behavior and law abiding citizenship then why was he chased out of France, England, Belgium, Switzerland, Cuba, Mexico, and Spain... Thats a fact, Im not making that up, many of those countries were far more tolerant of race than the united states so to act like Johnson was just this poor individual set upon by society is a joke. Johnson was a criminal, he owned a whore house, often beat women, admits to statutory rape in his biography, etc etc. You could go on and on but this argument that he was some great individualist who flaunted himself in the face of WHITE society is pure horseshit. Johnson flew in the face of society period. He hated the fact that anybody, white, black, or brown would try to make him follow rules, regulations, laws or any other statutes that a civilized society lives by. Johnson was a selfish prick who only cared about Johnson and only wanted to do what Johnson wanted to do. There are rules in life and if you dont follow those rules you generally have a hard road to travel. If Johnsons road was hard it was by his own doing and not by some greater white conspiracy.
Johnson didnt HAVE to leave, he fled the country in disguise while on bail and was tried in absentia. If he was such a shining example of good behavior and law abiding citizenship then why was he chased out of France, England, Belgium, Switzerland, Cuba, Mexico, and Spain... Thats a fact, Im not making that up, many of those countries were far more tolerant of race than the united states so to act like Johnson was just this poor individual set upon by society is a joke. Johnson was a criminal, he owned a whore house, often beat women, admits to statutory rape in his biography, etc etc. You could go on and on but this argument that he was some great individualist who flaunted himself in the face of WHITE society is pure horseshit. Johnson flew in the face of society period. He hated the fact that anybody, white, black, or brown would try to make him follow rules, regulations, laws or any other statutes that a civilized society lives by. Johnson was a selfish prick who only cared about Johnson and only wanted to do what Johnson wanted to do. There are rules in life and if you dont follow those rules you generally have a hard road to travel. If Johnsons road was hard it was by his own doing and not by some greater white conspiracy.
re
>Johnson was a criminal, he owned a whore house, often beat women, admits to statutory rape in his biography, etc etc<
I'm not denying that, but that is not the issue of his conviction for the Mann Act, nor is it the issue of my argument, or anyone else's. Show me where I said that Johnson was a model citizen, or where I even defended his character, you can't. There have been a hell of a lot worse "criminals" as you say, than Johnson, one of them was just re-elcted to office, but that's another argument that I'm sure a republican will come after me about! You assume more than you actual know, not on history, but on other peoples thoughts and opinions, which is horseshit. Just because I state a couple of facts based with a couple of my opinions about a horseshit law that was used to go after Johnson by white america, you assume that I am very pro-Johnson. I probably do know more about Johnson's life and career than you do, and I know that he was no saint, far from it, but it wasn't the fact in the way he was that bothered those of the "justly moral" sect, it's the fact that he was a black man and the way he was that bothered those of the "justly moral" which at the time were those who made the decisions in America, the "white America" and I'm not talking about all white Americans, just those of the "holier than thou" sect!
I'm not denying that, but that is not the issue of his conviction for the Mann Act, nor is it the issue of my argument, or anyone else's. Show me where I said that Johnson was a model citizen, or where I even defended his character, you can't. There have been a hell of a lot worse "criminals" as you say, than Johnson, one of them was just re-elcted to office, but that's another argument that I'm sure a republican will come after me about! You assume more than you actual know, not on history, but on other peoples thoughts and opinions, which is horseshit. Just because I state a couple of facts based with a couple of my opinions about a horseshit law that was used to go after Johnson by white america, you assume that I am very pro-Johnson. I probably do know more about Johnson's life and career than you do, and I know that he was no saint, far from it, but it wasn't the fact in the way he was that bothered those of the "justly moral" sect, it's the fact that he was a black man and the way he was that bothered those of the "justly moral" which at the time were those who made the decisions in America, the "white America" and I'm not talking about all white Americans, just those of the "holier than thou" sect!
Assume??
Im not assuming anything. Im stating that a man who owned a whore house, coverted with white women who were often prostitutes, was found guilty smuggling, and was a known misogynist, WAS indeed convicted of the Mann Act which prohibited white slavery and the interstate transportation of women for immoral purposes. Now, answer me, was Johnson guilty of this or was he not? If so then why put him up as a hero as opposed to anyone else convicted of the same crime, especially those who had a higher moral ground to stand on? Face it, you take the name JACK JOHNSON out of this discussion you likely wouldnt even be arguing his defense.
re
>If so then why put him up as a hero<
This is exactly what I am talking about! When did I make Johnson out to be a hero? If you're not assuming then what is it...intuition? I just stated that he was forced to leave the country because of a stupid and racist law. Sure, his braggadocious, "FTW" attitude and behavior led to it, but I'm not talking, nor have I ever mentioned it because it is irrelevant to what I spoke on! It's got nothing to do with whether I liked him, or not, or if I thought he was a hero, or not!
This is exactly what I am talking about! When did I make Johnson out to be a hero? If you're not assuming then what is it...intuition? I just stated that he was forced to leave the country because of a stupid and racist law. Sure, his braggadocious, "FTW" attitude and behavior led to it, but I'm not talking, nor have I ever mentioned it because it is irrelevant to what I spoke on! It's got nothing to do with whether I liked him, or not, or if I thought he was a hero, or not!
-
robert.snell1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1141
- Joined: 16 Oct 2003, 07:56
record
the record is on mate, its the one with the alias of Galveston GiantMax Molyneux wrote:I saw that documentry. As soon as there was another Black champion he decided to come into thge spotlight or something but Louis didn't want to fight him. And Johnson mentioned that he keeps his guard low as he punched so Max used that then they had the rematch and Louis won and Hitler punished Max by making him go into service. Can't believe Max is still alive today though at 99
Yes mate.Max Molyneux wrote:Is Jack Johnsons fight record on Boxrec couldn't find it?
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=001187
-
humanrobot
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 03 Mar 2002, 20:00
Re: warped
klompton wrote:what a surprise, more warped inerpretations of both history and what ive posted previously.
You must be a real charmer at Holiday parties.
..the legal terms "selective arrest and prosecution" and "unequal arrest..etc" aren't exactly the same but the nuance is so fine it doesn't matter here. Jack Johnson was a victim of both...and thus should be pardoned.
example. if there are ten cars parked on a no parking street every day, and only one care gets a ticket..and gets one every day or often and the others never get any....this is selective enforcement of the law and does not hold up in court, as obviously the "illegal" parker is being singled out unfairly. While Johnson did violate the Mann Act...it was seldom enforced and was dusted off for the sole reason to put johnson in jail...therefore...well, you see my point.
there are other nutty ramifications of the mann act...but they get obtuse and don't need to be gone into here.
example. if there are ten cars parked on a no parking street every day, and only one care gets a ticket..and gets one every day or often and the others never get any....this is selective enforcement of the law and does not hold up in court, as obviously the "illegal" parker is being singled out unfairly. While Johnson did violate the Mann Act...it was seldom enforced and was dusted off for the sole reason to put johnson in jail...therefore...well, you see my point.
there are other nutty ramifications of the mann act...but they get obtuse and don't need to be gone into here.
re
Randy Roberts bio on Johnson talks pretty good about how Johnson was singled out and mentions that there was something like 3600 cases prosecuted over several years for breaking revisions of the Mann Act, but something like 98% were prosecuted correctly by the law. He says that the Mann Act was passed to hamper the actual act of prostitution with intent to profit financially by crossing over state lines, which Johnson was not guilty of. Sure he took prostitutes over state lines, but it was for his personal pleasure and not for financial gain! But he's still my hero!
Still no answer
Its amazing, still no answer to my question. If the Mann act is so obscure then why does Johnson SELECTIVELY deserve a pardon over anyone else prosecuted by it? Why not issue pardons for EVERYONE prosecuted under this law? Jaclems answer was nice and tidy but still doesnt address either my question or the motivation for such a pardon. Under his explanation Al Capone should be pardoned as well since he was selectively prosecuted using a law which is broken everyday yet rarely (relatively speaking) acted upon. Jaclems argument, when turned around on him actually supports my own thesis which is that Johnson is being SELECTIVELY chosen for such a pardon due more to his name and the motives of those currently trading off of it.
How ironic is it that many people here are claiming that Johnsons fame as a black man created the circumstances in which he was prosecuted and yet it is exactly his fame as a black man which are leading those interested parties to call for a pardon of him when there are others less guilty and yet less well known who go unnoticed by those who feel they are righting some moral injustice...
How ironic is it that many people here are claiming that Johnsons fame as a black man created the circumstances in which he was prosecuted and yet it is exactly his fame as a black man which are leading those interested parties to call for a pardon of him when there are others less guilty and yet less well known who go unnoticed by those who feel they are righting some moral injustice...
..i don't know if the others convicted of violating the mann act were selectively prosecuted or not. i DO know that jack johnson WAS and his case is the subject here. if mr. klompton cares to dig into the history of the other cases i wish him well as it is surely a mammoth undertaking.
RE: Al Capone. His arrest was an example of a failure of law enforcement. with all of his alleged crimes against society, the government got him on tax evasion...and then sent him to the most severe maximum prison in the united states. anyone here who fudges on his or her tax return should give thanks that alcatraz is no longer open for this kind of business....the next one could be you.
of course al capone was a victiim (and i am using that word deliberately) of selective prosecution. regardless of what one thinks of his danger to society, his punishment for his income tax violation was draconian, extremely unfair and unjust. the guilty verdict may have been just; the sentence was not.
as this is a boxing forum it would be too far afield for me to bring up the case of caryll chessman, who was EXECUTED for commiting a sex crime
(or crimes) in which no victims were fatally injured, although one woman was real nervous for a while afterward.
but..alas..i digress even beyond my too often prediliction for doing so.
RE: Al Capone. His arrest was an example of a failure of law enforcement. with all of his alleged crimes against society, the government got him on tax evasion...and then sent him to the most severe maximum prison in the united states. anyone here who fudges on his or her tax return should give thanks that alcatraz is no longer open for this kind of business....the next one could be you.
of course al capone was a victiim (and i am using that word deliberately) of selective prosecution. regardless of what one thinks of his danger to society, his punishment for his income tax violation was draconian, extremely unfair and unjust. the guilty verdict may have been just; the sentence was not.
as this is a boxing forum it would be too far afield for me to bring up the case of caryll chessman, who was EXECUTED for commiting a sex crime
(or crimes) in which no victims were fatally injured, although one woman was real nervous for a while afterward.
but..alas..i digress even beyond my too often prediliction for doing so.
-
Max Molyneux
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 7084
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 16:53