In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

two thousand years ago than a civilized man of the twentieth century” (267). Here the writer reveals the thorny paradox of Anglo-Saxon racial ideology: How can the “civilized” world celebrate the atavistic essence of manhood while maintaining legal and cultural authority over those “primitive ” races that represent atavism itself? “Another thing,” London writes, “despite Jeff’s primitiveness, he is more disciplined than the other man, vastly more disciplined” (267). In Jeffries, London ¤nds the ideal combination of the primitive and the civilized—a “disciplined” brute who will inevitably defeat the apish Johnson’s “cleverness.” In fact, Johnson was, by all accounts, a boxer of extraordinary technical skill—in London’s own comparison, a “boxer” to Jeffries’s “¤ghter” (Jack London Reports 267). As Gerald Early notes, Johnson’s extraordinary technique and his unapologetic attitude had a powerful impact on the future prospects of African American boxers. Not only would black contenders be denied chances at the title for several years, but those who eventually built successful careers often felt it necessary to project a more benign image than Johnson’s—both in their role as public ¤gures and in the ring itself. According to Early, “Because Jack Johnson was such a technically accomplished¤ghter and because of the bitter taste he left on the collective palette of the American male sporting public, black ¤ghters may have found it advantageous to adopt a more clumsy, less schooled appearance of ¤ghting” (“Three Notes” 141).37 As objects for public consumption, black ¤ghters learned the dangers of being too “clever.” From his role as reporter, London described the extensive preparations for the championship match and, along with nearly all observers, predicted an easy victory for Jeffries. Crowds throughout the country—black and white—gathered in arenas, saloons, and public streets to listen to wire service reports of the match. The ¤ght itself was hardly a contest. After entering the ring to the strains of a popular tune entitled “All Coons Look Alike to Me,” Johnson permitted the bout to last until the ¤fteenth round only so that he might better taunt Jeffries. Johnson reportedly announced, “Package for Mister Jeff,” before each bone-crushing blow. When the knockout punch¤nally, and mercifully, arrived, Jeffries had been utterly humiliated.38 A letter to the New York Times, re®ecting the frantic tone across white America, called the match “A calamity to this country worse than the San Francisco earthquake” (qtd. in Farr 127). Throughout the United States, mobs of angry whites attacked those black citizens who dared celebrate 50 / Inside and Outside the Ring Johnson’s victory, or in some cases any black citizen who dared appear in public at all. Hundreds were injured, and at least eight were killed in the immediate aftermath of the ¤ght.39 Other, less immediate consequences of the upset included the passage by the U.S. Congress of two notorious pieces of legislation. One, a ban on the interstate transport of boxing ¤lms, arose from the widespread fear that footage of Jeffries’s defeat would shock and horrify the general public and would incite further civil unrest. The other, known as the “White Slave Traf¤c Act” and often referred to by the name of its sponsor as the “Mann Act,” prohibited the transportation of women across state lines for “immoral purposes” and had been debated with Johnson and his numerous white girlfriends in mind. In his own written response to the bout, London reluctantly admits Johnson’s superiority over Jeffries: Jeff today disposed of one question. He could not come back. Johnson in turn answered another question. He has not the yellow streak. But he only answered that question for to-day. The ferocity of the hairychested caveman and grizzly giant combined did not intimidate the cool-headed negro. . . . But the question of the yellow streak is not answered for all time. Just as Johnson has never been extended, so has he never shown the yellow streak. Just as a man may rise up, heaven alone knows where, who will extend Johnson, just so may that man bring out the yellow streak, and then again, he may not. So far the burden of proof all rests on the conclusion that Johnson has no yellow streak. (Jack London Reports 294–95) Here, London reiterates a common apprehension directed toward any boxer, but toward Johnson in particular throughout his career—the “yellow streak.” Once exposed, this mark of cowardice can never be removed from a boxer’s reputation. In...

Share