Rise & Fall Of Jack Johnson

[BERIGAN]

Am I the only one who feels there is a glaring discrepancy between Johnson's articulate words (assuming that they are his) and the deliberately slurred, unschooled delivery? I can hear Burns say "Talk like a Negro." Ridiculous.

Samuel L. Jackson is his "voice" thru the documentary, I somehow feel wee Ken Burns didn't say to Mr. Jackson, talk like a negro!

[BERIGAN]

I thought it was interesting in part 2 how they didn't run with the "He threw the fight" angle, which is what I had always heard. In fact, I thought there was film footage of the punch not hitting, along with his hands blocking the bright sun.

Burt Sugar plainly stated that he (Johnson) more or less spasmed(can't recall his exact words) when he was knocked out and his arms went over his head. If you look at the photo again, his arms are over his face, but in the still they used, the sun was still on his closed eyes. Burns made a good argument that Johnson wasn't in as good a shape as he had been , his opponant was 27, and Johnson was 37 after all! In the earlier rounds, he was moving fine, but be the 20th (Yikes!!!) round, the film showed he was getting tired, rubber legged. And he was knocked out in the 26th. I have seen fights on tv where guys can't keep their arms up after the 7th round.

[Christiern]

Am I the only one who feels there is a glaring discrepancy between Johnson's articulate words (assuming that they are his) and the deliberately slurred, unschooled delivery? I can hear Burns say "Talk like a Negro." Ridiculous.

Samuel L. Jackson is his "voice" thru the documentary, I somehow feel wee Ken Burns didn't say to Mr. Jackson, talk like a negro!

I was, of course, being facetious with that hypothetical request. But you might considerthe fact that Mr. Jackson is an actor and the voice he uses for Johnson is not the voice he uses in normal conversation--it is very clearly a case of deliberate dumbing down, which is what I found offensive and, frankly, racist. You would not readily understand the latter, but please try.

[AllenLowe]

Hey, let's not insult Gerald Early, who is one of this country's finest critics -

[connoisseur series500]

You get the feeling that while White America hated Johnson, they also couldn't help but be charmed by him as well.  You also wonder why, if the stakes were so great, why didn't they cheat during the fights in order to stop Johnson?  Why didn't the beaten fighters just wrestle him to the canvas or something?  I think it's because they knew (and could always have known) that their supremacy was based on very little.  They feared that it would all come tumbling down, yet they did allow it in some unwilling but fatal way.  Strange.  Much was made of the riots after the Jeffries' fight, yet whites come out in throngs to greet the new champion in Chicago.  At the same time, you have whites actively supporting and training Johnson.  We saw his supporters patting him on the back and forming a protective ring around him after the fight. 

No doubt about it, much of America hated him, but he had his supporters as well.  Many of them were women as well!  This angle (except for the women) is completely ignored in the film.  We are getting only one side, even if it is the predominant side; and certainly the most provocative and interesting.

I don't get the point of this post.

I don't think "we are getting only one side" in this film. It was stated throughout that Johnson existed in an "integrated" society during his career. It was pointed out that a white, former opponent of Johnson (who had knocked Jack out in 3 rounds), later, taught him the finer points of boxing while they were in jail together. Several pictures of Johnson and his integrated entourage were shown. I've watched part 1 again to confirm my impressions.

However the magnitude of racial hatred that Johnson endured cannot be overstated. Lynchings of blacks occured not only after the Jeffries fight (actually white people rioted), but after every Johnson victory over a white opponent after he became champion. Sure he had his circle of supporters, but surely you don't believe that they were more than a small percentage of boxing fans. A black fan wouldn't dare attend a Jack Johnson championship fight. Why do you think there was a "white hope" fervor? White fans came out in droves to Johnson's fights in hopes of a white fighter dethroning him.

Jack Johnson was so despised by white America that it would be 22 years after he lost the championship that a black man would be allowed to fight for the heavyweight championship. And that was only after the boxing establishment was assured that Joe Louis "knew his place".

"Although charismatic and charming outside the ring, Johnson often behaved crassly inside the ring. He would continually taunt his opponents, but would also carry them round after round in order to dish out more punishment. It is true also that Johnson had to take his share of abuse from cornermen and the crowd as well; nevertheless, it is doubtful that Tommy Burns deserved all the physical and verbal abuse that he received."

Why wouldn't Johnson torture Burns who was incessantly calling him racial epithets before, during and after the fight? It is well documented that Johnson taunted the fans and his opponents because of the verbal abuse heaped on him during fights. What would you have had him do, show some brotherly love? He was a boxer for chissake. And he retaliated the best way he knew how.

If you are a boxing fan, which I assume you are, I'm sure you have seen photographs of Johnson fights where some ringsiders are sitting there with shotguns! In answer to your question about why didn't somebody do something to him, I believe they were too cowardly. And there is an account of an attempt to cheat Johnson. A fight was arranged with Stanley Ketchel, the middleweight champion. The promoter and both fighters secretly agreed that they would not seriously hurt each other and just go the distance. This was to appease the white Ketchel fans who fervently believed Ketchel was the best fighter in the world. Well, Ketchel double-crossed Johnson and knocked him down. Johnson immediately arose and destroyed Ketchel in a matter of seconds. In the film of that fight, Johnson is seen leaning on the ropes staring at an unconscious Ketchel, who is spread- eagle on the canvas, pulling Ketchels teeth out of his boxing glove.

I agree with you for the most part, but I must correct some factual errors.

I am at work and don't have access to my sources, but it did not take 22 years before another black American would fight for the heavyweight title. It was probably more like 12 years. It would also have occured sooner than that had Joe Louis not been knocked out by Schmeling on the way up.

In addition, there were black champions in the lower weights soon afterwards.

I would also quibble with the statement about the boxing establishment barring all blacks from fighting for the title. Really, it was up to the boxers themselves. Just as Tommy Burns allowed Johnson to fight for the money, Jack Dempsey wanted not part of black boxers. It was ultimately up to the boxing champion and his entourage.

However, the stigma resulting from Johnson's antics definitely contributed towards denying other blacks a chance to fight for the title. Joe Louis helped erase this image with his clean and boring image. America is not to be excused here, but Johnson did push the envelope. It was part of what made him great.

No, I am not a boxing fan. I was as a kid, but I loathe the sport. I find it brutal and I see it as still run by criminal forces.

As for the rest of your post, I basically agree.

[connoisseur series500]

Hey, let's not insult Gerald Early, who is one of this country's finest critics -

And he seems a nice guy to boot; but he still didn't add much at all.

[Christiern]

Hey, let's not insult Gerald Early, who is one of this country's finest critics -

I heard him on the "Jazz" series and on these programs. Definitely seems like a nice guy, but he contributed absolutely nothing to either series.

What is he a critic of? Certainly not deceptive "documentaries."

[Dan Gould]

Hey, let's not insult Gerald Early, who is one of this country's finest critics -

I heard him on the "Jazz" series and on these programs. Definitely seems like a nice guy, but he contributed absolutely nothing to either series.

What is he a critic of? Certainly not deceptive "documentaries."

I know he's been involved in Miles Davis Conferences at Washington University (my Grad School alma mater).

[AllenLowe]

Early's got two collections of essays in book form - one is Tuxedo Junction, the other, I don't recall the title. Find them if you can; he's incredibly insightful -

Edited January 19, 2005 by AllenLowe

[skeith]

Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but a major point of the film was not clear to me and that involved the Mann Act prosecution of Jack Johnson. Now I certainly consider it likely that there charges were trumped up... But as presented by Burns that was not clear. The Mann Act was described in the program as transporting a woman accross state lines for prostitution or other immoral purposes. The federal case, as by described in the program, involved a young prostitute from Wisconsin that Johnson became involved with while living in Chicago, which is obviously in Illinois, and Johnson brought her to Illinois. Isn't that a violation of the Mann Act or what do I misunderstand?

Edited January 19, 2005 by skeith

[Christiern]

Early's got two collections of essays in book form - one is Tuxedo Junction, the other, I don't recall the title. Find them if you can; he's incredibly insightful -

I hope "Tuxedo Junction" isn't an insihtful analysis of Glenn Miller.

I'll make it a point to explore his works.

[AllenLowe]

I think the point with the Manne Act is that it was selectively applied - especially in this case -

[AllenLowe]

In response to Chris -Early's books are quite good, essays full of interesting and not obvious points. He's refreshingly non-doctrinaire and very open. Some of his best work are his pieces on Baraka - he's also written a great essay on the Harlem renaissance -

Edited January 19, 2005 by AllenLowe

[skeith]

I think the point with the Manne Act is that it was selectively applied - especially in this case -

If that was the point, the makers of the film never expressed it, at least not that I heard. The implication I took was that it was a completely unjustified prosecution.

[Cali]

The federal case, as by described in the program, involved a young prostitute from Wisconsin that Johnson became involved with while living in Chicago, which is obviously in Illinois, and Johnson brought her to Illinois.  Isn't that a violation of the Mann Act or what do I misunderstand?

The law, as described in the film was to make it illegal to transport women accross state lines to engage in prostitution to "profit" the person that took the woman out of state. In other words "pimpin'" out of state. Hence, the term "White Slavery". Jack Johnson surely was not guilty of that.

[Cali]

I agree with you for the most part, but I must correct some factual errors.

I am at work and don't have access to my sources, but it did not take 22 years before another black American would fight for the heavyweight title.  It was probably more like 12 years.

First, Conn 500, I'd like to express my appreciation for your civil response to my disagreement. Thank you.

I'd like to reprint an exerpt from BOXING GREATS by Steve Bunce and Bob Mee: "For Johnson it was the end of a long journey in pursuit of Burns and the start of his decline as a fighter. He made five successful defenses before agreeing to fight Jess Willard in 1915. He lost and it was 22 years before another black fighter, Joe Louis, fought for the title. Louis won the championship in 1937 and from the start everything possible was done to ensure he was not perceived as another Johnson."

Respectfully, no black fighter fought for the heavyweight title from April 15, 1915 until June 22, 1937. I made no claims regarding the smaller weight divisions. But the heavyweight champion was widely regarded as the toughest man in the world. That was a point re-affirmed in the Burns documentary.

Before Louis was allowed to fight for the title, his management had to guarantee that he would never be photographed in the company of white women, that he would never boast of his victories, to never show emotion in the ring, that he would always be respectful of and mannered in his responses to white people and the press. That's why Louis had a "boring image". It was demanded of him. His patented response after every fight was, "Hi Ma, I glad I win". All relations he had with white women were done secretly and out of the public's eye. His public image and his private image, however, were worlds apart.

Burns documentary was very sketchy. I have other docs on Jack Johnson that are more thorough, one of these is the PBS doc that has the Miles soundtrack. Burns did not deal much with Johnson's exploits in other countries. He ran businesses while in Russia, played concerts in Europe where it is said he even played classical piano. Also, I agree the music in Burns doc was pitiful.

Lastly, I am unabashedly a big boxing fan. I collect Ring Magazines, classic boxing films and have dozens of books on the subject. I believe boxing when taken to it's highest levels as exemplified by Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan and Joe Louis is an art form.

[connoisseur series500]

Was it as long as 22 years then? Wow! I guess I never really totaled it all up. Again, I was at work where I did not have access to my sources (I use books not internet for research.)

I used to be a big boxing fan as a young man, but I just found it too brutal to take. I do understand that it provides some hope of great income for ne-er do wells like Mike Tyson, and perhaps it keeps many others off the streets; but I just don't like the brutality. Now football is different! And I want my team to beat the crap out of the other team.

Boxing appears as legalized assault.

It's a shame when you get such a bright young guy like Antonio Tarver. I really hate to see someone like that in the fight game. He shouldn't be taking blows to the head.

[Johnny E]

The federal case, as by described in the program, involved a young prostitute from Wisconsin that Johnson became involved with while living in Chicago, which is obviously in Illinois, and Johnson brought her to Illinois.   Isn't that a violation of the Mann Act or what do I misunderstand?

The law, as described in the film was to make it illegal to transport women accross state lines to engage in prostitution to "profit" the person that took the woman out of state. In other words "pimpin'" out of state. Hence, the term "White Slavery". Jack Johnson surely was not guilty of that.

Exactly, Cali beat me too it.

All in all, I liked the film. But what the hell was Crouch in it for? I never knew he was a boxing expert or an authority on anything for that matter. Even in jazz circles (which he's primarily known for) he is considered a lightweight intellectual/provocateur at best. And where were all the boxers? Did he even have a boxer in the film? I'm sure he could have found more insightful (if somewhat less high profile) people than the talking heads he used. It's almost like Baseball, Jazz and Jack Johnson were the same film with the same crew. Certainly there are others that know more.

[GregK]

I heard him on the "Jazz" series and on these programs. Definitely seems like a nice guy, but he contributed absolutely nothing to either series.

What is he a critic of? Certainly not deceptive "documentaries."

Chris, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'm curious-were you ever approached about adding commentary to the Burns Jazz series? I'm sure you could have added something about Bessie Smith at the very least!

[Christiern]

I heard him on the "Jazz" series and on these programs. Definitely seems like a nice guy, but he contributed absolutely nothing to either series.

What is he a critic of? Certainly not deceptive "documentaries."

Chris, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'm curious-were you ever approached about adding commentary to the Burns Jazz series? I'm sure you could have added something about Bessie Smith at the very least!

Greg,

No, Burns never called on me for an interview, he just wanted photos--which I regret having given him. Frankly, after viewing the jazz series, I feel lucky not to have been an obvious part of it.

[wolff]

Is Bert Sugar an analyst on the program?

[Cali]

Yes.

[BERIGAN]

Am I the only one who feels there is a glaring discrepancy between Johnson's articulate words (assuming that they are his) and the deliberately slurred, unschooled delivery? I can hear Burns say "Talk like a Negro." Ridiculous.

Samuel L. Jackson is his "voice" thru the documentary, I somehow feel wee Ken Burns didn't say to Mr. Jackson, talk like a negro!

I was, of course, being facetious with that hypothetical request. But you might considerthe fact that Mr. Jackson is an actor and the voice he uses for Johnson is not the voice he uses in normal conversation--it is very clearly a case of deliberate dumbing down, which is what I found offensive and, frankly, racist. You would not readily understand the latter, but please try.

Chris, I really think you are making mountains out of molehills. Samuel L. Jackson was raised in Tennessee, and he was "impersonating" the voice of a man born in Galveston, Texas who I believe only had 4 years of formal education. He didn't sound dumbed down, just southern. His words sounded pretty smart, but if Sidney Poitier had portrayed him, I would have been shocked!

[Christiern]

You should also consider the fact that we are talking about the turn of the century--people, regardless of color, spoke differently then. Yes, Johnson came from a humble background, but poverty does not always translate into the kind of delivery Jackson gave it. Besides, Jackson was around educated whites long enough for it to have shaped the way he spoke. You have but to listen to his words articulate statements to realize that he had open ears. I hope it does not bother you that all black people don't sound like Steppin Fetchit. What Jackson did here, IMO, is perpetuate a stereotype.

[skeith]

The federal case, as by described in the program, involved a young prostitute from Wisconsin that Johnson became involved with while living in Chicago, which is obviously in Illinois, and Johnson brought her to Illinois.   Isn't that a violation of the Mann Act or what do I misunderstand?

The law, as described in the film was to make it illegal to transport women accross state lines to engage in prostitution to "profit" the person that took the woman out of state. In other words "pimpin'" out of state. Hence, the term "White Slavery". Jack Johnson surely was not guilty of that.

I don't have a copy of the film, but I don't remember the "profit" element being there. Furthermore, I have read a text of the Mann Act and it makes no reference to profit. If you can direct me to text which talks about profit I would appreciate it.

One more thing, I believe that Chuck Berry was convicted under this law and there was no issue there of his making any profit as I recall it.

Edited January 20, 2005 by skeith