Jack Johnson and Racial Favoritism

By Brock Kaiser: There is a saying that sometimes the more things change, the more they actually stay the same. Race was once again ushered into the forefront in boxing this week as the United States Congress approved a resolution this past Wednesday urging a posthumous presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, who in 1908 shocked the world by becoming the sport’s first black heavyweight champion.

For perspective on what this meant, it would be 39 years later before Jackie Robinson, who to his own credit broke through the color barrier of baseball, would make his mark.

The pardon is an attempt to make reparations for Johnson’s 1913 conviction and resulting jail sentence for violating the Mann Act, which made it illegal to transport women across state lines for immoral purposes.

A more candid explanation of the situation was that Johnson was condemned because he was black, the women he was with was white, and both the title and choice of company he kept was reserved for what was assumed to be the “more pure” of all the races.

Johnson fled the country after his conviction and would eventually loose his title to Jess Willard in 1915. He would later return to the states to serve a 10-month jail sentence and would renew his boxing career after leaving prison. However, declining skills, lack of motivation for training, and the denial of getting another opportunity for the title ensured that he would never again regain the championship he once held.

Johnson died in a car crash in 1946 at age 68.

There is another saying that you should never be afraid to ask questions, no matter where the answers may lead you.

So while congress assuredly gave themselves the figurative congratulatory “slap on the back” for their efforts, we are left to ask ourselves whether or not is it ever too late to do the right thing? And more so, how does anyone truly determine what the “right thing” really is?

As well, one has to wonder if guilt was embedded in this gesture of goodwill more so than the conviction for righting a past injustice, and even those who held the best intentions in this act must acknowledge that there is perhaps a air of meaningless about it. No one in our current government was responsible for convicting Johnson and no one who was directly affected by that conviction is still alive today, including Johnson himself.

In other words, perhaps all that happened this past week was that the possibility of making amends was issued to no one who is alive by individuals who themselves did nothing wrong.

Is there not a clearer example of an empty apology?

Then again, and perhaps even more importantly as we judge this resolution, does it really matter what the motivations behind an action is if at the end of the day it truly is the right thing to do?

While the answers to these questions aren’t always clear, at the very least what happened this week served as an ironic reminder that while the issues related to race are often convoluted, the racial lines that are often drawn in boxing are still very clear even today.

When Miguel Cotto and Antonio Margarito fought in their welterweight showdown, the fight was labeled the Hispanic Super Bowl, a not-so ambiguous nod to the battle lines were clearly drawn between those of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent.

For years Roy Jones Jr. had been reviled for his showboating antics in the ring and mocking his thoroughly outclassed opponents. Yet when Joe Calzaghe displayed the same actions in their fight it was largely ignored by those of European descent because, presumably, it was there “their guy” doing it.

And these are just two examples of where race influences our partiality. Go to any Pay-Per-View party, or sit in any boxing arena, or (and especially) log onto at message board where anonymity is king and you will quickly see how racial bias plays a part in who we cheer for and why.

The mistakes for engaging in this behavior are obvious. When all we see is race the focus we have is, by definition, limited and incomplete, and incomplete focus often leads to faulty conclusions. An example of this being the belief that a certain brash, black champion needed to be put “back in his place” by charging him with a ridiculous crime.

But at the same time we must also be careful about condemning those who root for their own. People of all creeds and colors often choose their associations (such as friendships and marriage) based at least partly on race. It is often an unconscious decision and rarely a determining one, but still a very real and human favoritism none the less.

Most would agree that as long as race never takes the place of evaluating the content of ones character, it is a harmless and natural preference. Believing this, why should whom you decide to root for as a fan be any different? Is there really that much of a contrariety between rooting for your country to do well in the Olympics and wanting Manny Pacquiao to win his fight because he is Filipino like you? Many would suggest it is not.

There is a third saying that suggests that you should be the change that you want to see in the world, and without a doubt this world would be a lot better if we all saw more than the color of someone’s skin. But perhaps it would also be better if the change we strive to make is to hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect out of others. With that, race will always play a role in boxing, and maybe that’s actually a small part of the appeal of the sport.

Let’s just make sure congress never has to do what they had to this week ever again.

7 Responses to “Jack Johnson and Racial Favoritism”