ARE SPOILERS POSSIBLE FOR HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARIES? IF SO, THERE MAY BE SOME HERE.
This inaccurate, intellectually dishonest propaganda puff piece represents a new low for ultra-PCers Burns and Ward. They have done their mightiest to make a hero out of a self-indulgent thug, making a mockery out of historical reporting in the process.
Jack Johnson was indeed a man of the future: he would fit right in with the egomaniacal, spoiled-rotten sports "heroes" that are so prevalent today. In a sense, he had great courage, demanding liberties and privileges that the society of his day (virulently racist, by today's standards) considered monumental affronts. But his brand of courage was more a form of supreme gall, borne by an overbearing sense of special entitlement. There can be little doubt his behavior promoted racism by appearing to confirm the worst fears whites held toward black men that they were, at heart, irresponsible brutes with an insatiable lust for white women. Contrary to the subliminal thesis here, Johnson was anything but a social reformer blazing a trail to freedom.
Other heroic qualities are magnified out of proportion here, with editorial sleights-of-hand. Johnson's quotes come almost entirely from a ghost-written autobiography, making him appear more articulate than he really was. The herculean physical courage attributed to him is not confirmed by the facts: His first three fights after winning the belt in 1908 (McLaglan, O'Brien, Ross) were six-round, no-decision exhibitions; the fourth (Kaufman) was a ten-rounder of the same variety. The fifth was supposed to be an exhibition, but middleweight Stanley Ketchel got too frisky, so Johnson sent him to the oral surgeon. The phony nature of these fights goes unnoticed by the documentary, except for the Ketchel episode.
Thus, Johnson's first real title defense was the 1910 bout against Jeffries, who had not fought in six years. Johnson held the crown for five years after this, during which he made only four defenses. By contrast, the man he dethroned Tommy Burns had made 12 defenses in the previous two years. (Interestingly, Burns weighed only 168 for the Johnson fight, about 10% below his normal fighting weight.) The film apparently ignores only one of Johnson's fights as champion a draw. That seems to be a telling omission. (Perhaps it was mentioned in passing ; I DID blink a couple of times.)
In the end, Johnson was toppled by untalented strongman Jess Willard, and here Burns & Ward go unbelievably astray. They ascertain Willard was 27 at the time, "a full decade younger" than the champion. The challenger was actually 33, a fact Burns & Ward obliquely acknowledge earlier, if your arithmetic is better than theirs. They note at one place Willard began his boxing career the day after the Johnson-Jeffries fight (1910); a little later, they report Willard started boxing at 27. That would have made him 32 at Havana in 1915 almost correct.
Was Johnson unmercifully persecuted by the government, as Burns & Ward claim? Yes and no. While the Mann Act was not inspired by the practice of rich men traveling with their in-house concubines, Johnson was clearly guilty of violating it. His selective prosecution probably had some racial motivation, but Johnson's violations were so blatant and well-publicized, he might well have been prosecuted if he had been white.
Ken Burns' Civil War series (1990) was criticized by the PC lobby for being insufficiently anti-Confederate and driven by a white southerner (Shelby Foote). Ever since, he has been an increasingly obsequious afro-centric. It is getting pretty tedious.
This inaccurate, intellectually dishonest propaganda puff piece represents a new low for ultra-PCers Burns and Ward. They have done their mightiest to make a hero out of a self-indulgent thug, making a mockery out of historical reporting in the process.
Jack Johnson was indeed a man of the future: he would fit right in with the egomaniacal, spoiled-rotten sports "heroes" that are so prevalent today. In a sense, he had great courage, demanding liberties and privileges that the society of his day (virulently racist, by today's standards) considered monumental affronts. But his brand of courage was more a form of supreme gall, borne by an overbearing sense of special entitlement. There can be little doubt his behavior promoted racism by appearing to confirm the worst fears whites held toward black men that they were, at heart, irresponsible brutes with an insatiable lust for white women. Contrary to the subliminal thesis here, Johnson was anything but a social reformer blazing a trail to freedom.
Other heroic qualities are magnified out of proportion here, with editorial sleights-of-hand. Johnson's quotes come almost entirely from a ghost-written autobiography, making him appear more articulate than he really was. The herculean physical courage attributed to him is not confirmed by the facts: His first three fights after winning the belt in 1908 (McLaglan, O'Brien, Ross) were six-round, no-decision exhibitions; the fourth (Kaufman) was a ten-rounder of the same variety. The fifth was supposed to be an exhibition, but middleweight Stanley Ketchel got too frisky, so Johnson sent him to the oral surgeon. The phony nature of these fights goes unnoticed by the documentary, except for the Ketchel episode.
Thus, Johnson's first real title defense was the 1910 bout against Jeffries, who had not fought in six years. Johnson held the crown for five years after this, during which he made only four defenses. By contrast, the man he dethroned Tommy Burns had made 12 defenses in the previous two years. (Interestingly, Burns weighed only 168 for the Johnson fight, about 10% below his normal fighting weight.) The film apparently ignores only one of Johnson's fights as champion a draw. That seems to be a telling omission. (Perhaps it was mentioned in passing ; I DID blink a couple of times.)
In the end, Johnson was toppled by untalented strongman Jess Willard, and here Burns & Ward go unbelievably astray. They ascertain Willard was 27 at the time, "a full decade younger" than the champion. The challenger was actually 33, a fact Burns & Ward obliquely acknowledge earlier, if your arithmetic is better than theirs. They note at one place Willard began his boxing career the day after the Johnson-Jeffries fight (1910); a little later, they report Willard started boxing at 27. That would have made him 32 at Havana in 1915 almost correct.
Was Johnson unmercifully persecuted by the government, as Burns & Ward claim? Yes and no. While the Mann Act was not inspired by the practice of rich men traveling with their in-house concubines, Johnson was clearly guilty of violating it. His selective prosecution probably had some racial motivation, but Johnson's violations were so blatant and well-publicized, he might well have been prosecuted if he had been white.
Ken Burns' Civil War series (1990) was criticized by the PC lobby for being insufficiently anti-Confederate and driven by a white southerner (Shelby Foote). Ever since, he has been an increasingly obsequious afro-centric. It is getting pretty tedious.
Tell Your Friends