Just watched a great doco on Johnson. Lots of great footage. I have two questions though, and I guess if I wasn't so lazy I would research it myself.
1. Where did all the money go. He earned enormous sums for the time and eventually charged people a dollar to meet him.
2. Why didn't ne make the loss to Jess Willard more believable.
Otherwise one of the greats in everyone's opinion. A great specimen if thats the right word. He obviously trained just as hard as anyone in our era.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 00:29
by HomicideHenry
First off I'm assuming you watched the Ken Burns documentary UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS, which was your first mistake. It's unreliable. It pushes myths. It's a sad waste of an incredible life story that didn't need embellishments.
Second, the lie that Johnson took a dive to Jess Willard has been debunked several times over the last few decades once the film was rediscovered after many years of being missing. Johnson was whipping the crap out of Willard for over 15 rounds--- then old age, inactivity and easy living (he was noticeably heavier) came into play. He was completely burned out and hit the wall. Willard, younger & stronger & determined, began turning the tide and by round 25 Johnson was ready to go. The 26th round kayo was inevitable. Johnson took a tremendous right hand flush and was incapable of getting up.
Third, as for the money... Johnson was arguably the greatest spender in heavyweight history... To make $100,000 in 1910 from one fight--- and by the next year it was gone--- shows that Johnson didn't care. He thought he was indestructible and could be rich as long as he wanted. He wanted the best of everything--- cars, suits, homes, champagne, cigars, women, etc. and literally pissed away everything. That's mainly why he did exhibitions until the day he died. It's also the motivation for the myth he took a dive to Willard--- as Nat Fleischer, editor of RING magazine, bought the story because he felt bad for Johnson, who Fleischer ranked the greatest heavyweight of all time. But did Fleischer himself believe the story? Not for a minute.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 02:26
by Grant
Thanks, I bow to your knowledge on the subject. I also thought that he was finished when he hit the canvas against Willard, not KO'd but just exhausted, although he did state he took a dive, but why would anyone go so long into the fight (26 rnds) risking actually winning, if you had agreed to lose. I thought the fight against Fireman Jim Flynn. was remarkable. The amount of time Flynn tried to hit Johnson with his head was unbelievable.
Cheers
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 04:00
by Onetimeonly
You shouldn't do that. Hank makes up quotes all the time. He's not without knowledge, he's just a loon that is extremely biased and would rather lie than admit he's wrong.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 04:23
by jamamb
tbh i find him to be one of the more overrated atgs among knowledable fans, at leaast in terms of his all time standing at heavy, so many flaws to his resume and most notable wins
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 05:37
by DrDuke
jamamb wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 04:23
tbh i find him to be one of the more overrated atgs among knowledable fans, at leaast in terms of his all time standing at heavy, so many flaws to his resume and most notable wins
I agree. His reign was the first example in boxing history of dominating in a relatively weak era.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 06:53
by Quantrax
Johnson was caught speeding once. The police officer fined him an extortionate $50. Johnson's reply? "I'll give you $100, I'm coming back the same way"
Absolutely superb. And summed up so much of his character in just one short story.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 09:07
by APerno
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 04:00
You shouldn't do that. Hank makes up quotes all the time. He's not without knowledge, he's just a loon that is extremely biased and would rather lie than admit he's wrong.
You couldn't me more correct about Hank.
Everyone knows the truth about the fight . . .
1. That it was 105 degrees in the ring.
2. That the famous photo shows Johnson was holding his knees up off the hot canvas and shading his eyes from the sun.
3. That in the 24th round he singled his wife to leave the arena and go make a deal with the United States Government so he could return to the United States.
4. That the wife returned to the arena and gave him the thumbs up to throw the fight because the deal was set.
See Hank don't know nothing, Hank thinks . . .
1. It was actually in the mid 70s with an overcast sky, that's why the local newspaper reported the temperature at 72 degrees and Willard was wearing a wool sweater during the gloving and introductions.
2. That the photo was just a frame of Johnson in the motion of falling to the canvas where his legs eventually laid flat on the canvas and his arm fell back on top of his forehead; that he was out cold for 30 seconds.
3. That he singled his wife to leave the area because he told her before the fight he didn't want her to see him get beat.
4. That the wife never returned to the arena; that the fight took place in 1915 but Johnson didn't return to the United States, (broke and desperate) until 1920, and still had to serve a year in federal prison (that was one hell of a deal the old lady got him for throwing that fight.)
See, Hank don't know nothing!
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 15:45
by SenorPipino
Grant wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 00:16
Just watched a great doco on Johnson. Lots of great footage. I have two questions though, and I guess if I wasn't so lazy I would research it myself.
1. Where did all the money go. He earned enormous sums for the time and eventually charged people a dollar to meet him.
2. Why didn't ne make the loss to Jess Willard more believable.
Otherwise one of the greats in everyone's opinion. A great specimen if thats the right word. He obviously trained just as hard as anyone in our era.
Make it more believable?
Did you ever see the KO punch? A missile of a right hand that landed squarely on Johnson's chin.
My guess is that if Johnson never claimed fix a century ago, you would never ever question the legitimacy of the knockout.
Grant wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 00:16
Just watched a great doco on Johnson. Lots of great footage. I have two questions though, and I guess if I wasn't so lazy I would research it myself.
1. Where did all the money go. He earned enormous sums for the time and eventually charged people a dollar to meet him.
2. Why didn't ne make the loss to Jess Willard more believable.
Otherwise one of the greats in everyone's opinion. A great specimen if thats the right word. He obviously trained just as hard as anyone in our era.
Make it more believable?
Did you ever see the KO punch? A missile of a right hand that landed squarely on Johnson's chin.
My guess is that if Johnson never claimed fix a century ago, you would never ever question the legitimacy of the knockout.
Johnson's self-serving lie brainwashed you.
Not to play semantics with you, but there wasn't really anything 'self-serving' about Johnson's lie, (IMHO its kind of a harsh word to use) sometimes its just the way a beaten champion gets through the crisis of losing his title.
Right after the first Tunney fight, in the dressing room, Dempsey knew he was a beaten fighter, two months later those around him convinced him he was poisoned. A year later, after a better performance in the 'long-count' bout he put aside the poison story and went on with the rest of his life. Foreman made one excuse after another to get pass Zaire, and on and on it goes.
I think we should give Johnson a pass like Nat Fleischer did, accept his story with tongue in check and thank him for all the great fights. Johnson loved to tell stories, and a 105 heat, and a fixed fight was a great story. Nobody really wanted to hear Johnson tell the truth: 'I was 37 years old, three years in exile, poorly trained, and emotionally exhausted' - Nobody who met Jack Johnson years later wanted to hear that story. They wanted Jack Johnson to be Jack Johnson, and Jack Johnson loved to be loved.
The fight game was better served when Jack Johnson lied.
But I must admit I can't help thinking that wherever Jack Johnson is right now he is laughing his ass off that people even today are still hauling water for his lie, it must bring that wonderful smile to his face.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 17:42
by cfang
Johnson was obviously legitimately koed by willard. However, Jack was one of the greatest boxers ever in my view.
The stats don't show the full story. He beat every one of the best black fighters in the world before he became champ and those guys were a murderers row and no mistake, Then he managed to hold onto the title for 7 years despite pretty much what must have seemed like every white person in the world wanting him beaten. He had to put up with people throwing things at him in between rounds, endless racist abuse, People head butting him constantly in fights (see joe flynn), not to mention the establishment coming up with some ridiculous charge to get him put away.
Imagine the pressure he was under in fights. Coming into some outdoor arena in the blazing sun with thousands of white guys baying for his blood. He was proud and tough and made of steel.
He often loafed about in fights and did what he needed to win. He surely carried boxers to make a fight of it (probably to avoid riots if he koed guys early). Film shows him to be a tremendous athlete and boxer. He was basically like a heavyweight floyd mayweather of his day and not overrated in any respect in my view. I have him number 3 all time heavy behind ali and louis.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 18 Nov 2018, 17:43
by cfang
cfang wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 17:42
Johnson was obviously legitimately koed by willard. However, Jack was one of the greatest boxers ever in my view.
The stats don't show the full story. He beat every one of the best black fighters in the world before he became champ and those guys were a murderers row and no mistake, Then he managed to hold onto the title for 7 years despite pretty much what must have seemed like every white person in the world wanting him beaten. He had to put up with people throwing things at him in between rounds, endless racist abuse, People head butting him constantly in fights (see jim flynn), not to mention the establishment coming up with some ridiculous charge to get him put away.
Imagine the pressure he was under in fights. Coming into some outdoor arena in the blazing sun with thousands of white guys baying for his blood. He was proud and tough and made of steel.
He often loafed about in fights and did what he needed to win. He surely carried boxers to make a fight of it (probably to avoid riots if he koed guys early). Film shows him to be a tremendous athlete and boxer. He was basically like a heavyweight floyd mayweather of his day and not overrated in any respect in my view. I have him number 3 all time heavy behind ali and louis.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 15:52
by Caractacus
Jack Johnson was 36 yrs old and "over-The-Hill and "on-the-Run"when he was loosing by exhaustion down the stretch and
then a really big KO punch.
If the fight had been scheduled for 20 rounds he would have been given the decision.
( the ref even said he thought Willard was on the brink of being KO'd in the 10th but Willard weathered it out.
(Willard and his team were actually the original inventors of the "Rope-A-Dope strategy back in 1915.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 17:28
by BitPlayer
The loss to Willard was almost certainly real. The only reason people believed it was fake was because they banned the shipping of films.
Watch this. The last 5 minutes are post fight stuff.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 17:34
by BitPlayer
Grant wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 02:26
Thanks, I bow to your knowledge on the subject. I also thought that he was finished when he hit the canvas against Willard, not KO'd but just exhausted, although he did state he took a dive, but why would anyone go so long into the fight (26 rnds) risking actually winning, if you had agreed to lose. I thought the fight against Fireman Jim Flynn. was remarkable. The amount of time Flynn tried to hit Johnson with his head was unbelievable.
Cheers
I think the Flynn fight has to be put in the context of the time.
Stocky Tommy West was strong, full of spunk, and quite capable. He did whatever he had to do to win a fight. Walsh (1993 p 26) reported that Jack Curley, famed boxing and wrestling promoter, once gave the following description of the Ryan-West battle for the Middleweight Championship in 1901.
"In the fourth round West butted Ryan in the mouth, splitting his tooth, and Ryan, turning to Tim Hurst, referee, mumbled, 'What do you call that, Tim?'
Tim looked at him blandly, 'You've got a head too, haven't you, Tommy?' he asked.
Ryan took the tip and in the fifth round butted West in the mouth, splitting his lips and dotting the canvas with his broken teeth. After that he ripped West's lacerated mouth with his left wrist and forearm whenever they went to close quarters and at times the floor of the ring was so wet with blood that between rounds employees of the club mopped it with towels to provide a dry footing for the fighters."
I'm not sure if this is 100% true, but there's tons of stories of headbuts, forearm blows etc. in early gloved boxing. The rules slowly getting enforced more and more.
Boxing came to America from England, but it came into a culture of Rough and Tumble fights, complete with biting and eye gouging, and a lot of early American boxers fought Rough and Tumble.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 22:54
by APerno
I believe that Fireman Jim Flynn tried to head butt his way to the championship because he knew that if he could knock Jack Johnson down in any manner the referee would have started counting and when reaching ten White society would have called him (Flynn) champion.
Flynn's behavior in the ring was one of the most disgraceful acts ever by a contender for the HW title.
It was actually the Johnson-Flynn fight that brought about the interstate prohibition against transporting fight films across State lines, not the Jeffries fight. ***
There was no doubt in Congress's mind that if White society would turn violent over the Jeffries loss there was no way they could allow Black audiences to view Jim Flynn humiliating himself and in turn disgrace White society without it turning very ugly, so 27 days after the July 4th mess they passed the Sims Act, July 31st, 1912.
*** The violence surrounding the Johnson-Jeffries fight back in 1910 had resulted in many local governments banning the viewing of that fight, but the national (federal) effort to censor fight films as pornography (The Smith Act, 1910) failed to pass. Uncle Joe Cannon (Speaker of the House) didn't want fight films banned so he had several famous ex-fighters come before Congress and testify on the benefits of prize fighting, and then even spared, on the front lawn of the Capitol, with Battling Nelson (who was from his home state of Michigan). The press ate it up and the ban was put aside. But two years later Uncle Joe was gone and the Flynn fight was just too humiliating for it to be released. That's how bad Flynn looked that day! It was actually Flynn's behavior not Johnson's that resulted in the racist Southern Blue Dog Congressmen getting what they wanted, to cut off all of Johnson's revenue streams. They used the threat of more violence to get the northern reformers to vote along with them in 1912, but no doubt they were going after Johnson. The Progressive reformers wanted to punish boxing, the Southern Blue Dogs wanted to punish Johnson.
jamamb wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 04:23
tbh i find him to be one of the more overrated atgs among knowledable fans, at leaast in terms of his all time standing at heavy, so many flaws to his resume and most notable wins
I agree. His reign was the first example in boxing history of dominating in a relatively weak era.
The era was not weak at all.
There were some great contenders whom he should have defended the title against: Langford, McVey, and Jeannette.
He didn't really "dominate it". He was the best of his time and the champion for a long time. But he didn't dominate it.
jamamb wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 04:23
tbh i find him to be one of the more overrated atgs among knowledable fans, at leaast in terms of his all time standing at heavy, so many flaws to his resume and most notable wins
I agree. His reign was the first example in boxing history of dominating in a relatively weak era.
The era was not weak at all.
There were some great contenders whom he should have defended the title against: Langford, McVey, and Jeannette.
He didn't really "dominate it". He was the best of his time and the champion for a long time. But he didn't dominate it.
In some sense you're right. Some tough opponents didn't fight for the Championship, while Johnson was doing it against runts, middleweights and old Jeffries.
I agree. His reign was the first example in boxing history of dominating in a relatively weak era.
The era was not weak at all.
There were some great contenders whom he should have defended the title against: Langford, McVey, and Jeannette.
He didn't really "dominate it". He was the best of his time and the champion for a long time. But he didn't dominate it.
In some sense you're right. Some tough opponents didn't fight for the Championship, while Johnson was doing it against runts, middleweights and old Jeffries.
Johnson did sign to fight both Langford and Jeanette while he was champion, the fights kept falling through; obviously there was much resistance to his fights (in the States) and backers and venues were hard to come by. There is some evidence that once exiled he did have an opportunity to fight Jeanette in France, and there he did choose the lesser Moran instead (which the French press called him on, they had an affection for Jeanette), but the earlier fights against Langford and Jeanette (in the States) both fell apart, not that he had ducked them.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 17:43
by Caractacus
BitPlayer wrote: ↑19 Nov 2018, 17:28
The loss to Willard was almost certainly real. The only reason people believed it was fake was because they banned the shipping of films.
Watch this. The last 5 minutes are post fight stuff.
yeah,seems like Jack Johnson was just in Denial for some years afterwards and "De-Nile" aint just a river in Egypt !
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 20:41
by HomicideHenry
Johnson, in his own words, said that two black guys didn't draw money. Of course he "ducked" Langford and McVea and others. Not because he couldn't beat them but because there was no money in it.
Prior to the Burns fight, he agreed that IF he beat Burns he'd defend it against Sam Langford. The British Sporting Club, in good faith, funded the Johnson/Burns fight on the basis that Johnson would come directly back to Britain and fight Langford--- who the British fight fans loved.
Johnson after beating Burns went straight to CANADA instead and fought an exhibition fight with former circus strongman & wrestler Victor McLaglen.
He double-crossed not only the British but Langford as well. It's not a small wonder that the British government sided with America when Johnson fled the country--- telling the champion that he could reside there, but couldn't fight there.
Johnson had hoped to fight Billy Wells in England, but he was denied--- soon after he went to France. Sure he'd fight Jim Johnson in the first all-black Heavyweight championship match, but by that time he had no choice.
It was take whatever he could or starve. He was considered poisonous and nobody really wanted him around. That's why he joined a circus for a time and even did some wrestling matches. That's why he fought Oscar Wilde's nephew Arthur Craven in a boxing match. Anything and everything to get by.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 21 Nov 2018, 00:59
by APerno
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 20:41
Johnson, in his own words, said that two black guys didn't draw money. Of course he "ducked" Langford and McVea and others. Not because he couldn't beat them but because there was no money in it.
Prior to the Burns fight, he agreed that IF he beat Burns he'd defend it against Sam Langford. The British Sporting Club, in good faith, funded the Johnson/Burns fight on the basis that Johnson would come directly back to Britain and fight Langford--- who the British fight fans loved.
Johnson after beating Burns went straight to CANADA instead and fought an exhibition fight with former circus strongman & wrestler Victor McLaglen.
He double-crossed not only the British but Langford as well. It's not a small wonder that the British government sided with America when Johnson fled the country--- telling the champion that he could reside there, but couldn't fight there.
Johnson had hoped to fight Billy Wells in England, but he was denied--- soon after he went to France. Sure he'd fight Jim Johnson in the first all-black Heavyweight championship match, but by that time he had no choice.
It was take whatever he could or starve. He was considered poisonous and nobody really wanted him around. That's why he joined a circus for a time and even did some wrestling matches. That's why he fought Oscar Wilde's nephew Arthur Craven in a boxing match. Anything and everything to get by.
Taking the situation into the next decade:
That's why Tex Rickard wouldn't give Harry Wills a shot at Dempsey's title. No way was he going to watch all that money go out the door, again. But go figure this . . .
1. When Johnson fought Jeffries the only white man he would let ref the fight was Rickard, because he was the only white man Johnson trusted.
2. In 1924 after Rickard blocked Wills from the title in '22 and '23 he matched Wills against Firpo in 1924. Harry Wills made $125,000 off that fight, making him (a Negro) the highest paid athlete that year (and that includes Babe Ruth).
3. Also in 1924 when Nat Fleischer asked Rickard to create his first rankings for The Ring Magazine, Rickard placed Wills at number one and Dempsey at number two, (Fleischer reversed the order putting Dempsey on top but then added an asterisk. [The first Ring ratings had an asterisk. LOL])
4. Then in '26 when Dempsey was no longer champion Rickard immediately announced he would be promoting a Wills-Dempsey fight the next summer (and would have but Wills was finished by then and was stopped by Sharkey who then got the Dempsey fight).
Tex Rickard liked Jack Johnson, Tex Rickard liked Harry Wills, he took care of Harry Wills, but he was never going to allow Harry Wills to have a shot at the title, it was all about the money. The Johnson fiasco cost Rickard millions and for five years he was in the weeds (1910-1915) then once he got back control of the title via Willard no black man was going to screw things up for him again, but in the most ironic way he took better care of black fighters than any other promoter. (I forget one, he also got Johnson his best payday.)
Why an I rambling on about Rickard, because you are correct it was all about the money and Johnson was too expensive to ever let happen again. He hurt the cause for black fighters for two decades.
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 21 Nov 2018, 01:25
by HomicideHenry
And to further enlarge on what you wrote, the animosity towards Johnson extended well beyond the Dempsey era. When Joe Louis was climbing up the ladder, he was under strict guidelines to never emulate Johnson in any way shape or form. And when the elderly ex-champion tried to visit Joe Louis's training camps--- he was turned away.
Johnson was poisonous, even then. Because of that mistreatment Johnson knocked Louis until his dying day saying "The Brown Bomber" was just a robot who'd get exposed.
Louis's trainer Jack Blackburn, in particular, ran Johnson down in the press saying that "The Galveston Giant" wasn't all that great and that he was lucky a guy like Louis wasn't around when Johnson was.
There was one modicum of truth in the many things Blackburn said, and that was the claim Johnson pushed back the progress of black-white relations not only in sports but across the board. Fairly or unfairly, it was the truth.
Johnson was the personification of every black stereotype of the age. The fears of a black menace coming after white women, and acting thuggish rather than sportsman like, he played up to the hilt. Had Johnson been a more reserved man, like Wills, he'd of probably been accepted.
Johnson would fade away into obscurity after his death. The only people really singing his praises was Nat Fleischer, who ranked Johnson the greatest Heavyweight of all time.
It wouldn't be until the 1960s civil rights movement would Johnson reemerge and be made into this larger than life figure ahead of his time thanks to the Broadway production and film The Great White Hope, as well as Muhammad Ali claiming that he was exactly like the ex champion.
His legacy only continued on courtesy of the 1967 NCR-315 computer tournament as well as the original Title Boxing game (cards) and of course the rediscovery of the Johnson-Willard fight which prompted RING magazine to make this 60+ year old match the cover of an issue, putting to rest the myth he took a dive.
He'll always be something of a controversial figure in boxing. Was he really as good as claimed? What would have happened if he fought black contenders instead of white contenders as champion? Why was he so insistent on being the villain? How would he have faired against later champions?
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 21 Nov 2018, 15:57
by APerno
HomicideHenry wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018, 01:25
And to further enlarge on what you wrote, the animosity towards Johnson extended well beyond the Dempsey era. When Joe Louis was climbing up the ladder, he was under strict guidelines to never emulate Johnson in any way shape or form. And when the elderly ex-champion tried to visit Joe Louis's training camps--- he was turned away.
Johnson was poisonous, even then. Because of that mistreatment Johnson knocked Louis until his dying day saying "The Brown Bomber" was just a robot who'd get exposed.
Louis's trainer Jack Blackburn, in particular, ran Johnson down in the press saying that "The Galveston Giant" wasn't all that great and that he was lucky a guy like Louis wasn't around when Johnson was.
There was one modicum of truth in the many things Blackburn said, and that was the claim Johnson pushed back the progress of black-white relations not only in sports but across the board. Fairly or unfairly, it was the truth.
Johnson was the personification of every black stereotype of the age. The fears of a black menace coming after white women, and acting thuggish rather than sportsman like, he played up to the hilt. Had Johnson been a more reserved man, like Wills, he'd of probably been accepted.
Johnson would fade away into obscurity after his death. The only people really singing his praises was Nat Fleischer, who ranked Johnson the greatest Heavyweight of all time.
It wouldn't be until the 1960s civil rights movement would Johnson reemerge and be made into this larger than life figure ahead of his time thanks to the Broadway production and film The Great White Hope, as well as Muhammad Ali claiming that he was exactly like the ex champion.
His legacy only continued on courtesy of the 1967 NCR-315 computer tournament as well as the original Title Boxing game (cards) and of course the rediscovery of the Johnson-Willard fight which prompted RING magazine to make this 60+ year old match the cover of an issue, putting to rest the myth he took a dive.
He'll always be something of a controversial figure in boxing. Was he really as good as claimed? What would have happened if he fought black contenders instead of white contenders as champion? Why was he so insistent on being the villain? How would he have faired against later champions?
OK, here’s one more; Jack Johnson made D. W. Griffith rewrite his film Birth of a Nation.
In the novel The Clansman, Tomas F. Dixon (1905) paints the portrait of a brutish slave named Gus who brutally beats and rapes a 15 year old white girl named Marion Lenior. The girl so distraught by the attack retreats to a nearby cliff and commits suicide. In The Clansman the slave Gus is an amalgamation of all the White man’s fears: an animal like creature of no restraint, who is a constant threat to the White man's wives and daughters.
Years later that racist definition, the violent black man, gave way to a new fear, the fear of the 'uppity' Negro who had the audacity to think himself the equal of a white man. So ‘uppity’ were these new Black men that many thought themselves worthy to marry white women. By 1915 the fear of miscegenation had taken a strong hold on White society.
D. W. Griffith in his film interpretation of The Clansman, Birth of a Nation (1915) rewrote the story of that violent rape into a story of possible miscegenation and Jack Johnson became his metaphoric villain.
In January of 1911, Jack Johnson married a white woman named Etta Duryea and then in the following year broke off that relationship. Etta Duryea, who was prone to depression then decided to commit suicide. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Jack Johnson, now a free widower, just two months later, marries a second white woman, Lucille Cameron. (note italics) and needless to say all through the next year Etta Duryea and the current wife Lucille Cameron become tabloid headlines as the the racist newspapers paint them as living proof of the dangers of miscegenation.
Griffith’s saw his opportunity in these headlines and rewrites the novel's rape story to accommodate this new Jack Johnson driven fear, miscegenation. In the film the original rape victim, the 15 year old Marion Lenior disappears from the story and is replaced by a new victim Flora Cameron, (Ironically the Cameron family does appear in the original Clansman but Flora Cameron is a Griffith creation.)
Gus, the once brutal slave is also rewritten as a Captain in the Union army, (he even appears in officer's uniform with a saber by his side,) he is rewritten into an accomplished Negro who dares to believe himself worthy of a white woman. This new Gus now confronts the apply named Flora Cameron in the wood, but he does not attack her, instead he promptly takes a knee and proposes marriage to the shocked white girl. Flora Cameron, becomes so distraught at prospect of being seen as ‘low enough’ to be thought the wife of a Black man quickly proceeds to the nearest cliff and (untouched by the gentle Gus) throws herself to her death.
This rewrite played well with racist audiences who in their minds were so fearful of miscegenation that they could understand suicide as the proper or noble alternative to the degradation of a miscegenist marriage. This of course makes sense for the day, after all Jack Johnson, Etta Duryea and Lucille Cameron had made the fear a headline "reality."
Jack Johnson held such power over White society that he made D. W. Griffith rewrite Birth of a Nation, a film considered by many America's first great epic film
Re: Jack Johnson
Posted: 21 Nov 2018, 17:07
by Ambling Alp II
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018, 04:00
You shouldn't do that. Hank makes up quotes all the time. He's not without knowledge, he's just a loon that is extremely biased and would rather lie than admit he's wrong.
But in this particular case he seems to be reasonably accurate.
