A Gene Tunney question...?

[Abdullah]

I am a big fan of Tunney and believe his boxing ability was way before it's time. Not to say that there weren't some great boxers back then, but Tunney brought movement and accuracy not often seen in the heavyweight division in that era.

My question about Tunney is, has anyone ever read anything on why Tunney never fought a black fighter? Was there just more money fighting the white guys? Was Tunney a racist? I am definitely not jumping to that conclusion, but I have never actually read anything on the issue. I would hope that wasn't the case as he was known to be an intelligent man. I am curious if anyone who has read his book or anything on him might know if he ever gave a reason why?

Another request, does anyone have any audio of Tunney's voice? I couldn't find anything on youtube.

[PhillyPhan69]

I am reading "Tunney" right now, and am about 150 pages in. So far he started as an amatuer, entered the Marines and found that WW I had ended and the boxing carear he thought was a part of his past became a focal point of his life. I just finnished a chapter about Battling Levinsky, and about this time Dempsey wins the world championship. So far no mention of avoiding black fighters...If I come across anything I will post back, but since it is called "Tunney" it may be biased enough to ignore those points to paint a more positive light of him???

I also like Tunney, and think he gets forgotten and underrated on here at times. But to answer you question I have not come across anything to suggest he avoided anyone for personal reasons or management suggestions and scheduling yet.

[janitor]

Not only did Tunney never fight a black opponent but acording to Schmelling he never even had a black sparring partner.

You hear the ocasional rumour that Tunney was racist/elitist but the evidence is ambiguouus.

[Abdullah]

I am reading "Tunney" right now, and am about 150 pages in. So far he started as an amatuer, entered the Marines and found that WW I had ended and the boxing carear he thought was a part of his past became a focal point of his life. I just finnished a chapter about Battling Levinsky, and about this time Dempsey wins the world championship. So far no mention of avoiding black fighters...If I come across anything I will post back, but since it is called "Tunney" it may be biased enough to ignore those points to paint a more positive light of him???

I also like Tunney, and think he gets forgotten and underrated on here at times. But to answer you question I have not come across anything to suggest he avoided anyone for personal reasons or management suggestions and scheduling yet.

Thanks for replying. So, how is the book so far?

[Abdullah]

Not only did Tunney never fight a black opponent but acording to Schmelling he never even had a black sparring partner.

You hear the ocasional rumour that Tunney was racist/elitist but the evidence is ambiguouus.

I really hope that isn't the case. I can't stand when some people try to excuse to awful point of view by saying "it was a different time".

To my other question, anyone have a videos with Tunney's voice?

[TheGreatA]

I do know that he wanted to fight Harry Wills but Wills only wanted Dempsey at that point.

Never come across any audio of his voice but I'm sure some probably exists.

[TheGreatA]

Tunney makes a case why he feels he is entitled to a title shot before Harry Wills:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Tunney makes a case why he feels he is entitled to a title shot before Harry Wills:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Interesting line of argument.

[choklab]

there was so many more white boxers around then that world class black boxers were the minority. Nobody was grooming the black talent when irish, italian and jewish fans were paying to whatch their own people - or so they thought they were - so many italian and eastern europeans took irish or anglo sounding names to get "cross over" appeal from "mainstream" white ethnic groups. Black boxers who wanted to earn had to be "the opponent" since it was not an equal sociaty then. They never could pass for irish.
It was outrageous. all talented guys should have been afforded the grooming process required to break through but that was not so then. All champions have to be the house fighter to develop, without that it is unlikly to make a name or a fan base.
Theres an argument Tunney did not need to fight black guys since there was 5-15 times as many rated white guys en route to the title. Its strange he did not get at least one black opponent, even dempsey and corbet managed more...

[Abdullah]

Tunney makes a case why he feels he is entitled to a title shot before Harry Wills:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Thank you. That's all I needed to see. As long as he was willing to fight anyone and everyone, I don't think it hurts him that he never faced a black fighter. Harry Wills was the #1 contender for a long time and if Tunney offered him a fight him then he wasn't ducking anyone, in my view. I just never read anything on the topic. Thanks for the help people.

[janitor]

Thank you. That's all I needed to see. As long as he was willing to fight anyone and everyone, I don't think it hurts him that he never faced a black fighter. Harry Wills was the #1 contender for a long time and if Tunney offered him a fight him then he wasn't ducking anyone, in my view. I just never read anything on the topic. Thanks for the help people.

Wills had been waiting a long time though.

He had been presented with "one last fight to decide who would fight the champion" a few times before, and it hadn't happenend

[bodhi]

I really hope that isn't the case. I can't stand when some people try to excuse to awful point of view by saying "it was a different time".

To my other question, anyone have a videos with Tunney's voice?

That's not an excuse, it's a fact.

[mattdonnellon]

I think Loughran didn't fight any black fighters either, takes some swallowing that two of the top l/h and hw of the 1920-35 year period never fought a black opponent in what...a couple of hundred fights-some coincident?

[choklab]

I think Loughran didn't fight any black fighters either, takes some swallowing that two of the top l/h and hw of the 1920-35 year period never fought a black opponent in what...a couple of hundred fights-some coincident?


laughran fought godoy as a heavyweight. ..

[PhillyPhan69]

Thanks for replying. So, how is the book so far?


It's a pretty good read....giving some details from how he started boxing, life outside the ring and life influences...then moving into the evolution of the man and the boxer. Early on it seems he was considered a puncher more than a boxer, but seemed to understand that he would not attain what he desired untill he learned to master it. An early quote from when he met Dempsey prior to Dempsey winning the championship...was that it would take a great boxer not a puncher to beat him..but someday he was going to!

[PowerPuncher]

Tunney makes a case why he feels he is entitled to a title shot before Harry Wills:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Why do I have the feeling Tunney had an Arrumesque lying cunt of a promoter :yep

[My2Sense]

My question about Tunney is, has anyone ever read anything on why Tunney never fought a black fighter? Was there just more money fighting the white guys? Was Tunney a racist?

Possibly both, but there also simply wasn't a lot of rated black fighters out there at that particular time for him to fight in the first place. As it is, he pushed for a fight with Wills, the highest rated and most highly regarded black fighter at either LHW or HW, but was turned down.

[My2Sense]

Why do I have the feeling Tunney had an Arrumesque lying cunt of a promoter :yep

Actually, there was a number of reports at that time that shared a similar sentiment as the one Tunney puts forth in that article. Wills was probably still ranked higher on contender lists, but Tunney had been looking more impressive in his recent wins and some felt he would be a potentially tougher challenge for Dempsey than Wills at that point.

[Abdullah]

That's not an excuse, it's a fact.

So are you actually saying that it's ok to be a racist if you lived in the 20's?:patsch

[bodhi]

So are you actually saying that it's ok to be a racist if you lived in the 20's?:patsch

Yes, I do. The world and people were different back then than they are now. For them it was a fact that blacks are inferior to whites just like a few hundred years before the existence of witches were facts and burning them was an act of mercy and a good thing and nothing wrong. When you look at a historic period you must judge it by the standards of its time not of todays.
Racism back then was not wrong. This changed. But how can we judge them by today's standards when these weren't even known?

[mattdonnellon]

laughran fought godoy as a heavyweight. ..
Godoy wasn't black.

[Unforgiven]

Yes, I do. The world and people were different back then than they are now. For them it was a fact that blacks are inferior to whites just like a few hundred years before the existence of witches were facts and burning them was an act of mercy and a good thing and nothing wrong.

I'm not saying you're wrong but would you apply to same standards to Germans and attitudes towards Jews in the 1930s ?
I mean, to Hitler and his millions of supporters the inferiority and malevolence of Jews was a fact.
Just because a majority might believe and go along with something doesn't mean we cant say they should have known better.


When you look at a historic period you must judge it by the standards of its time not of todays.
Racism back then was not wrong. This changed. But how can we judge them by today's standards when these weren't even known?


Well, what you call the "standards of the time" was, firstly, the white man's standard of the time.
So, by taking the perspective of the 1920s white American as primary, perhaps that's racist in itself. It's no coincidence that many whites benefitted from the racist system that they conveniently thought was right and moral.

Secondly, there was much opposition to racism even in the 1920s. Globally as well as just in the USA. Intelligent progressive people, some highly educated, of all races, were proposing an end to racist systems and discrimination.
And many everyday people were mixing and living together.

If "racism was not wrong" back then, then "race-mixing" must have been. Would you say people who mixed back then were actually acting immorally ?

The American President Woodrow Wilson actually blocked a 1919 League of Nations proposal concerning the international elimination of racial discrimination in the world. Probably because he wanted to keep blacks down in the USA.

Anyway, none of this I really know the answer to. It's the problem of moral relativism. I think you put the case a bit too strongly, by saying "racism was not wrong back then", and I understand where Abdullah is coming from.

Having said that, where I differ from Abdullah is that I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GENE TUNNEY WAS RACIST. He was just a great fighter, and one long dead too.
I dont ever delude myself about "sporting heroes". Really, they might all be nasty idiotic people outside of their sport as far as I know.
Gene Tunney could have been KKK through and through for all I care. He was a great fighter inside the ropes, that's all that I really care about.

[janitor]

Actually, there was a number of reports at that time that shared a similar sentiment as the one Tunney puts forth in that article. Wills was probably still ranked higher on contender lists, but Tunney had been looking more impressive in his recent wins and some felt he would be a potentially tougher challenge for Dempsey than Wills at that point.

To be fair though, the powers that be just kept putting one hurdle after another in front of Wills, untill age caught up with him and they got the result they wanted.

The Fulton and Firpo fights had been sold to him as eliminators for title shots. You can understand why he might have been reluctant to fight yet another eliminator against Gibbons or Tunney.

[janitor]

Yes, I do. The world and people were different back then than they are now. For them it was a fact that blacks are inferior to whites just like a few hundred years before the existence of witches were facts and burning them was an act of mercy and a good thing and nothing wrong. When you look at a historic period you must judge it by the standards of its time not of todays.
Racism back then was not wrong. This changed. But how can we judge them by today's standards when these weren't even known?

I think that the most sophisticated people always questioned the inferiority of other races, and indeed the existence of witches.

[Mendoza]

I am a big fan of Tunney and believe his boxing ability was way before it's time. Not to say that there weren't some great boxers back then, but Tunney brought movement and accuracy not often seen in the heavyweight division in that era.

My question about Tunney is, has anyone ever read anything on why Tunney never fought a black fighter? Was there just more money fighting the white guys? Was Tunney a racist? I am definitely not jumping to that conclusion, but I have never actually read anything on the issue. I would hope that wasn't the case as he was known to be an intelligent man. I am curious if anyone who has read his book or anything on him might know if he ever gave a reason why?

Another request, does anyone have any audio of Tunney's voice? I couldn't find anything on youtube.


Tunney's voice can be heard. It should be noted that in the 1920's to early 1930's, there were very few top ranked black light heavies and heavies in comparison to most eras. Tunney wanted Wills in the ring. Wills declined.

Tunney to me was a fancy Dan erudite type who also happened to be a tough marine and boxer in the ring. He can come across as a snob for sure, and was a big fan of Irish boxers both before and after him.

[PowerPuncher]

Actually, there was a number of reports at that time that shared a similar sentiment as the one Tunney puts forth in that article. Wills was probably still ranked higher on contender lists, but Tunney had been looking more impressive in his recent wins and some felt he would be a potentially tougher challenge for Dempsey than Wills at that point.

I'm not convinced 'Wills turned down big money to face Tunney and Brannon', $100k in those days was huge money and I cant i. I doubt Wills would turn that kind of money down and I doubt either man was keen on facing Wills. This is simply a case of hyping up the Brannon win to get the Dempsey fight

Tunney also didnt take a real HW challenger of substance when he had a chance to fight another blk HW of substance in Godfrey, he avoided the fight

By '26 Wills was certainly well faded though and something like 35-37, he'd been at the top for 12years by then

[bodhi]

I'm not saying you're wrong but would you apply to same standards to Germans and attitudes towards Jews in the 1930s ?
I mean, to Hitler and his millions of supporters the inferiority and malevolence of Jews was a fact.
Just because a majority might believe and go along with something doesn't mean we cant say they should have known better.

No. That's something different. Jews were never seen as inferior throughout history. Just as differen and responsible for the deah of Jesus. That's why they were discriminated in the middle ages.
What Hiler did was something new and everybody, even himself knew it was wrong. There is not one document with the order of holocaust. Because they knew it was wrong.
Different with the inferiority of blacks. This was a fact for the people for a few hundred years. People knew they are right. Only over more than one hundred years this changed.
This has nothing to do with the opinion of the majority but with things perceived as facts for a long time. See, when something is right for hundreds of years it doesn't become wrong in one generation. The enlightment needed hundreds of years to be the majority oppinion and even nowadays, 400 hundred years later, there are still people denying it.


Well, what you call the "standards of the time" was, firstly, the white man's standard of the time.
So, by taking the perspective of the 1920s white American as primary, perhaps that's racist in itself. It's no coincidence that many whites benefitted from the racist system that they conveniently thought was right and moral.

No. It's the standard of the majority of Western, or here US, society. Of course they benefitted of it. It wouldn't have been standard for a very long time if they wouldn't have benefitted.
They didn't think it was right and moral. They knew it was. Big difference. Thoughts can be doubted. Knowledge not.


Secondly, there was much opposition to racism even in the 1920s. Globally as well as just in the USA. Intelligent progressive people, some highly educated, of all races, were proposing an end to racist systems and discrimination.
And many everyday people were mixing and living together.

Yes! Since the American civil war the views started o change. Bu there was even segregation and discrimination 30 years later. Of course there were people against it. And the numbers grew. But the inferiority of blacks was still the majoriy opinion back then.


If "racism was not wrong" back then, then "race-mixing" must have been. Would you say people who mixed back then were actually acting immorally ?

For the majority of people in these times in the US? Yes, I do.


The American President Woodrow Wilson actually blocked a 1919 League of Nations proposal concerning the international elimination of racial discrimination in the world. Probably because he wanted to keep blacks down in the USA.

Yes, the US were slower than mos of he world in this regard. On one hand. On the other hand the US started this development by freeing them.


Anyway, none of this I really know the answer to. It's the problem of moral relativism. I think you put the case a bit too strongly, by saying "racism was not wrong back then", and I understand where Abdullah is coming from.

Nah, I just use the historic method which is used in the historic sciences. History is even a bigger hobby for me as boxing. It's not moral relativism. I don't say it's the right thing what they hought back then. I neither say they were right. I don't judge. I just state the facts.


Having said that, where I differ from Abdullah is that I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GENE TUNNEY WAS RACIST. He was just a great fighter, and one long dead too.
I dont ever delude myself about "sporting heroes". Really, they might all be nasty idiotic people outside of their sport as far as I know.
Gene Tunney could have been KKK through and through for all I care. He was a great fighter inside the ropes, that's all that I really care about.

:good


See, I'm not American. I'm German. I have a totally different view on this subject than Americans or even British people. I have no interest to side with either the White Americans not the Black ones. I'm neutral on this and honestly I don't give a shit about the problems you have or had with racism over there - just like you guys don't give a shit for the similar problems we have over here. I just see it for what it is without judging it.

[bodhi]

I think that the most sophisticated people always questioned the inferiority of other races, and indeed the existence of witches.

Depends on the time. Slavery to it's high time was not in question and so was the inferiority of these slaves.
Same with witches. During the witch craze even the opponents of it didn't doubt the existence of witches, they just said it's wrong to kill them because they are witches. I'm really into this subject but the only sources I could show you are in German and this won't help you much I think.

[enquirer]

Man,this stuff is more interesting than the boxing. Start a thread in the lounge peoples,but be nice,dont get all steamed up.....

[Unforgiven]

No. That's something different. Jews were never seen as inferior throughout history. Just as differen and responsible for the deah of Jesus. That's why they were discriminated in the middle ages.
What Hiler did was something new and everybody, even himself knew it was wrong. There is not one document with the order of holocaust. Because they knew it was wrong.
Different with the inferiority of blacks. This was a fact for the people for a few hundred years. People knew they are right. Only over more than one hundred years this changed.
This has nothing to do with the opinion of the majority but with things perceived as facts for a long time. See, when something is right for hundreds of years it doesn't become wrong in one generation. The enlightment needed hundreds of years to be the majority oppinion and even nowadays, 400 hundred years later, there are still people denying it.



No. It's the standard of the majority of Western, or here US, society. Of course they benefitted of it. It wouldn't have been standard for a very long time if they wouldn't have benefitted.
They didn't think it was right and moral. They knew it was. Big difference. Thoughts can be doubted. Knowledge not.



Yes! Since the American civil war the views started o change. Bu there was even segregation and discrimination 30 years later. Of course there were people against it. And the numbers grew. But the inferiority of blacks was still the majoriy opinion back then.



For the majority of people in these times in the US? Yes, I do.



Yes, the US were slower than mos of he world in this regard. On one hand. On the other hand the US started this development by freeing them.



Nah, I just use the historic method which is used in the historic sciences. History is even a bigger hobby for me as boxing. It's not moral relativism. I don't say it's the right thing what they hought back then. I neither say they were right. I don't judge. I just state the facts.



:good


See, I'm not American. I'm German. I have a totally different view on this subject than Americans or even British people. I have no interest to side with either the White Americans not the Black ones. I'm neutral on this and honestly I don't give a shit about the problems you have or had with racism over there - just like you guys don't give a shit for the similar problems we have over here. I just see it for what it is without judging it.

Fair enough. You make some good points. :good

But I think it's debatable what the "norm" of racism was in those times, or any other times.
I mean, obviously individuals had different outlooks and beliefs to different degrees. There was a level of racism in 1920s America that would have been seen as wrong even then, but that too would be subjective due to who's perceiving it, so it's hard to gauge.

[bodhi]

Fair enough. You make some good points. :good

But I think it's debatable what the "norm" of racism was in those times, or any other times.
I mean, obviously individuals had different outlooks and beliefs to different degrees. There was a level of racism in 1920s America that would have been seen as wrong even then, but that too would be subjective due to who's perceiving it, so it's hard to gauge.

The norm was what was perceived by the large majority as he norm.

Thing is, I sometimes can't understand the way my grandparents think. The farther we go back the harder it get's. But I like to think about it.

[choklab]

Godoy wasn't black.


he wasnt african, but I dont think a chiliean would make it into the KKK membership clup do you? If laughran was racist he wouldnt fight GODOY.

[Duodenum]

Another request, does anyone have any audio of Tunney's voice? I couldn't find anything on youtube.Isn't that interesting? Gene only died in 1978, yet I don't recall ever seeing him on television or speaking in a film clip. Of course there's simply no way such a recording does not exist.

My father recently purchased a superb CD of historical recordings from the late 1800s and early 1900s (consisting of then contemporary acts like minstral performances and some other such cultural curiosities no longer considered, "politically correct"), and included is a pristine comedic dialogue involving Corbett. Not only did Gentleman Jim have a superb speaking voice, it may actually have the best vocal quality of any heavyweight champion I've ever heard speak. (This shouldn't be surprising. The urbane Corbett came from a family of "Lace Curtain" Irish, had a quality education, and was a trained and experienced stage actor.)

[he grant]

To have over seventy fights and not one black opponent speaks for itself.

[Abdullah]

Isn't that interesting? Gene only died in 1978, yet I don't recall ever seeing him on television or speaking in a film clip. Of course there's simply no way such a recording does not exist.

My father recently purchased a superb DVD of historical recordings from the late 1800s and early 1900s (consisting of then contemporary acts like minstral performances and some other such cultural curiosities no longer considered, "politically correct"), and included is a pristine comedic dialogue involving Corbett. Not only did Gentleman Jim have a superb speaking voice, it may actually have the best vocal quality of any heavyweight champion I've ever heard speak. (This shouldn't be surprising. The urbane Corbett came from a family of "Lace Curtain" Irish, had a quality education, and was a trained and experienced stage actor.)

Simply amazing. Any way you could put it on youtube?

[Abdullah]

Yes, I do. The world and people were different back then than they are now. For them it was a fact that blacks are inferior to whites just like a few hundred years before the existence of witches were facts and burning them was an act of mercy and a good thing and nothing wrong. When you look at a historic period you must judge it by the standards of its time not of todays.
Racism back then was not wrong. This changed. But how can we judge them by today's standards when these weren't even known?

That's the dumbest thing that I have ever read. Everyone wasn't racist back then so how can you say "it was a different time". As if everyone was racist. Maybe most people thought that way, but since when is the majority always right. "Racism back then wasn't wrong", you say? Wow, what a moron.:patsch

[bodhi]

That's the dumbest thing that I have ever read. Everyone wasn't racist back then so how can you say "it was a different time". As if everyone was racist. Maybe most people thought that way, but since when is the majority always right. "Racism back then wasn't wrong", you say? Wow, what a moron.:patsch

You obviously aren't able to understand history. I pity you.

[TheGreatA]

That's the dumbest thing that I have ever read. Everyone wasn't racist back then so how can you say "it was a different time". As if everyone was racist. Maybe most people thought that way, but since when is the majority always right. "Racism back then wasn't wrong", you say? Wow, what a moron.:patsch

I don't think he's saying that it isn't wrong but that being a racist then did not necessarily mean you were a horrible person. All people are just a product of their time. I imagine in the future we will be criticized for many of the things we do on a daily basis but again, this doesn't necessarily mean everyone at the time is a bad person. Misguided perhaps.

[Abdullah]

I'm not saying you're wrong but would you apply to same standards to Germans and attitudes towards Jews in the 1930s ?
I mean, to Hitler and his millions of supporters the inferiority and malevolence of Jews was a fact.
Just because a majority might believe and go along with something doesn't mean we cant say they should have known better.



Well, what you call the "standards of the time" was, firstly, the white man's standard of the time.
So, by taking the perspective of the 1920s white American as primary, perhaps that's racist in itself. It's no coincidence that many whites benefitted from the racist system that they conveniently thought was right and moral.

Secondly, there was much opposition to racism even in the 1920s. Globally as well as just in the USA. Intelligent progressive people, some highly educated, of all races, were proposing an end to racist systems and discrimination.
And many everyday people were mixing and living together.

If "racism was not wrong" back then, then "race-mixing" must have been. Would you say people who mixed back then were actually acting immorally ?

The American President Woodrow Wilson actually blocked a 1919 League of Nations proposal concerning the international elimination of racial discrimination in the world. Probably because he wanted to keep blacks down in the USA.

Anyway, none of this I really know the answer to. It's the problem of moral relativism. I think you put the case a bit too strongly, by saying "racism was not wrong back then", and I understand where Abdullah is coming from.

Having said that, where I differ from Abdullah is that I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GENE TUNNEY WAS RACIST. He was just a great fighter, and one long dead too.
I dont ever delude myself about "sporting heroes". Really, they might all be nasty idiotic people outside of their sport as far as I know.
Gene Tunney could have been KKK through and through for all I care. He was a great fighter inside the ropes, that's all that I really care about.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care if he was a racist or not. I would like to believe because he was a reader and an educated man that he would be a little smarter than that. I know those qualities that I mention really don't mean anything. One can definitely be an educated racist. And yes, he was a great fighter regardless of this issue.

[janitor]

Depends on the time. Slavery to it's high time was not in question and so was the inferiority of these slaves.
Same with witches. During the witch craze even the opponents of it didn't doubt the existence of witches, they just said it's wrong to kill them because they are witches. I'm really into this subject but the only sources I could show you are in German and this won't help you much I think.

In the UK after the civil war, the contemporary press was sneering about the witch hunters. I don't think that educated people believed it generaly.

What would you i9dentify as being the high point of slavery, and were the practicioners necesarily of a different race to the slaves?

[Abdullah]

You obviously aren't able to understand history. I pity you.

Oh, your one-line comeback. Is this what you call "pulling rank"? "You obviously aren't able to understand....BULLSH*T! You pity me, Mr T.? Ok, buddy, I pity you too.

I understand that people's ways of thinking change from generation to generation. Look at Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Louis came from an era where he let his fist do the talking and didn't speak out at times because it wasn't the popular approach. By the time of Ali's era it was speak out and do it loud. Burn your draft card and say "hell no we won't go". I understand that just fine. But something so obviously false like the "superior race" is something that is fairly easy to see. What I am saying is that there were some open-minded people who didn't think that way back then. People who were capable of thinking outside of the box. I just don't think we can say that it was OK. Even today, a lot of people who consider themselves racists aren't really racist when you get to the core of them. Just a bit ignorant.

[choklab]

I don't think he's saying that it isn't wrong but that being a racist then did not necessarily mean you were a horrible person. All people are just a product of their time. I imagine in the future we will be criticized for many of the things we do on a daily basis but again, this doesn't necessarily mean everyone at the time is a bad person. Misguided perhaps.



absolutly. its ignorance not badness. old people said terrible things, i remember folks from that generation, it did not make them bad. they reached an age where they didnt think they needed to reasses their beliefs and said embarasing outdated things.

[bodhi]

In the UK after the civil war, the contemporary press was sneering about the witch hunters. I don't think that educated people believed it generaly.

Like I said the time of the witch craze was a strange era. The middle ages just ended. The enlightment just stared. The 30 year war was just over and whole middle europe was devestated. The pestilence burned through the population like a bushfire. The so called "little ice age", a drop of around 2 degrees on averave per year which changed agriculture big time, had just begun. People died like flies, 80% of the people from the village I came from died in just 5 years in these days. Of hunger, of the plague, of the hands of former soldiers.
People needed somebody to blame. These were witches. Interesting fact, in Catholic territories about 50% of people burned for withcraft were male. In protestant areas 90% were female.

And no, not even the educated people doubted the existence of witchcraft. For the people back then magic, he devil, spirits and so on was fact. hey didn't believe in it, they knew it existed. It's hard to understand for people of today but if you read contempory sources and reports of witch trials, and there are a few hundred around, you will see this is true.

Fascinating stuff if you can view it from a distance.


What would you i9dentify as being the high point of slavery, and were the practicioners necesarily of a different race to the slaves?

Depends. Of modern times I'd say mid 18th to mid 19th century. In the middleages slavery wasn't that common, because the church was against it. The Christian churches thought of all humans to be equal and thus one human can't be owned by another - and no serfdom is not the same as slavery. Slavery became just big again when new "races" (in Germany we are taught there is no such thing as different races which actually is supported by genetic sciences) were discovered and seen as inferior and not really human and so the protection of the church wasn't there for them.

Of course then there is the antique. Slavery was even more common back then than in modern times. Slavery was he backbone of heir economy. And seen as something completly different than later on. In the Roman Empire some slaves were even something like shadow emperors.

[bodhi]

I don't think he's saying that it isn't wrong but that being a racist then did not necessarily mean you were a horrible person. All people are just a product of their time. I imagine in the future we will be criticized for many of the things we do on a daily basis but again, this doesn't necessarily mean everyone at the time is a bad person. Misguided perhaps.

Nah. What I say is that we can't judge them by the standards of our time but we have to judge them by the sandards of their times. That is the historic method actually.

[TheGreatA]

Nah. What I say is that we can't judge them by the standards of our time but we have to judge them by the sandards of their times. That is the historic method actually.

Isn't that essentially the same thing?

[bodhi]

Oh, your one-line comeback. Is this what you call "pulling rank"? "You obviously aren't able to understand....BULLSH*T! You pity me, Mr T.? Ok, buddy, I pity you too.

I understand that people's ways of thinking change from generation to generation. Look at Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Louis came from an era where he let his fist do the talking and didn't speak out at times because it wasn't the popular approach. By the time of Ali's era it was speak out and do it loud. Burn your draft card and say "hell no we won't go". I understand that just fine. But something so obviously false like the "superior race" is something that is fairly easy to see. What I am saying is that there were some open-minded people who didn't think that way back then. People who were capable of thinking outside of the box. I just don't think we can say that it was OK. Even today, a lot of people who consider themselves racists aren't really racist when you get to the core of them. Just a bit ignorant.

You judge them by our standards. That's something that never will work. You won't be able to understand the people back then when you do so.

[Abdullah]

You judge them by our standards. That's something that never will work. You won't be able to understand the people back then when you do so.
Yeah, that's true. I agree with that. Other examples of that are like, have you ever sat with someone much older than you and their sense of humor is a lot different or just some of there basic ideas? I just think that somewhere in these peoples lives, at least some of them must have realized that this superior race thing is just false. Maybe I'm wrong.

[bodhi]

Yeah, that's true. I agree with that. Other examples of that are like, have you ever sat with someone much older than you and their sense of humor is a lot different or just some of there basic ideas? I just think that somewhere in these peoples lives, at least some of them must have realized that this superior race thing is just false. Maybe I'm wrong.

They were indoctrinated with this from birth on. Even if they would start doubting it, it's very very hard to overcome.

[My2Sense]

To have over seventy fights and not one black opponent speaks for itself.

Not really. Tommy Loughran had more than twice that number of fights and never fought a black opponent. Shit happens.

[McGrain]

Not really. Tommy Loughran had more than twice that number of fights and never fought a black opponent. Shit happens.


Having seventy fights and never meeting a black opponent doesn't "speak for itself" because another guy fought one-hundred and forty fights without meeting a black opponent?

[My2Sense]

I'm not convinced 'Wills turned down big money to face Tunney and Brannon', $100k in those days was huge money and I cant i. I doubt Wills would turn that kind of money down and I doubt either man was keen on facing Wills.

Who do you mean by "Brannon"?

Wills was already on record as turning down or ignoring big money offers to fight Gibbons and Tunney; that part wasn't "made up." Gibbons had been aggressively pushing for a fight with Wills for at least a couple of years.


Tunney also didnt take a real HW challenger of substance when he had a chance to fight another blk HW of substance in Godfrey, he avoided the fight


Gibbons was the #2 HW contender when he fought Tunney, behind only Wills. Godfrey wasn't even in the top 5 then, or even thought all that much of in general.

[My2Sense]

Having seventy fights and never meeting a black opponent doesn't "speak for itself" because another guy fought one-hundred and forty fights without meeting a black opponent?

Correct.

[Duodenum]

Simply amazing. Any way you could put it on youtube?My father took it with him to his annual winter stomping grounds a couple thousand miles south of me, and he won't return until April. Regardless, putting it on youtube is considerably beyond my nascent computer skills at present. I do have a tech savvy relative who might be able to help me with that, however. This CD is readily available though, and here are the details, including Corbett's part in it:[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Abdullah]

My father took it with him to his annual winter stomping grounds a couple thousand miles south of me, and he won't return until April. Regardless, putting it on youtube is considerably beyond my nascent computer skills at present. I do have a tech savvy relative who might be able to help me with that, however. This CD is readily available though, and here are the details, including Corbett's part in it:[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Hey thanks.:good