Black Boxing

[dino]

Why is that every single white fighter whether from the United States or Europe no matter how good is always down played. And other fights even racist ones who associate themselves with figueres such as Malcom X are depicted as heroes.

If you watch boxing from the standpoint of a non-racist its clear that there is a bias towards blacks in boxing. Everybody remembers Floyd Patterson but Ingmarr Johansson (as an example) who was World Heavyweight Champion and defeated Floyd Patterson is hardly remembered by anybody.

Another point is every single white fighter who is a legitimate contender and happens to be white is always adressed as "white hype or hope." A title which downgrades there actual ability and accomplishments.

johansson was trash..thats why he's not rememberd u little fun boy

[beez721]

Its a legitmate and obvious questoins. That deserves to be answered with a reasonable response.

problem is,,,your statements are innaccurate marciano wasnt idolized? there hasnt been many good white heavyweights,,,thats the problem,,,and this is coming from a white boy

[Rockin']

You are right and as a whiteman I support your post. If you want acolades and respect they must be earned no matter what skin color. Blacks are simply better fighters than whites IN GENERAL!!

That is as uneducated a statement that I have heard on this site. The fact is that through history the mass group of head line fighters comes from whoever occupies the ****** at the time. Back in the 30's-50's it was the ***s and the italians doing well in the ring. Later the blacks began to occupie the ****** and now they have the most formidable force of fighters. Its not race that matters, black, white and ***ish people are still breathing the same air as every one else.

Its not race, its poverty level desires and dreams of stardom in the ring. The poverty breeds tough kids and the money breeds kids who go to school and choose not to fight.

If I stepped into the ring with your attitude about blacks and whites than I would not have won a single fight. But I stepped into every fight with the knowledge of my humanity aswell as his, and knew that I was going to have to work hard to win the fight. Skin color has nothing to do with ability.

Rockin'

[McKay 1]

If the boxing press and press in general was not under the total tyrannny and lies of the ***s you would not have this situation of pro black bias in boxing.

[aps214]

I'll try to simplify as best I can.

Slavery was definitely an issue, but not in the simplified way that textbooks try to describe. There was no mass calling for the end of slavery in the South from Northern states, only for it to be contained in states that were already Slave States. Lincoln himself ran on this platform, even though his party was strongly abolotionist. He even went so far as to push through the Crittendon-Johnson Resolution of 1861 which stated that the purpose of the war was not to end slavery.

One of the root causes of South Carolina's move to secede was related to tariffs imposed by Washington on European goods. Europeans were suffering economically because of the constant wars on the continent and abroad, and in an effort to raise capital, tried to dump cheap goods on the US market. This led Congress, dominated by Northern states, to impose high tariffs on goods imported from Europe in order to protect the budding American industrialization.
The net effect of the tariffs was to increase the price for raw goods and cause Europeans to reduce imports of American goods, such as cotton. This meant that farmers in the South, who relied heavily on income from exported goods suffered a decrease in sales and an increase in the cost of the goods they needed to do business at the same time.

The reason that Congress, more specifically the House of Representitives, was dominated by the North was that immigrants came primarily to the North because the job market in the South was dominated by slavery, therefore held less opportunity. The increase in population meant increased representation in the House.

With the disproportionate immigration to the North, the people felt a need to protect future jobs on the frontiers by disallowing the addition of more Slave states. Kansas was initially a Slave territory until they were denied Statehood because of it. The laws in Kansas changed and they were set to be admitted as a Free State when the Civil War broke out.

The limitiation of admission of Slave States meant that as more Free States were admitted to The Union, the abolitionists would gain more and more strength in Congress, eventually dominating the Senate as well as the House. Southern politicians and landowners felt that this would eventually lead to the end of slavery, causing great disruption in the economic system in the South.
Faced with what they tought were unfair economic conditions as well as the threat of the eventual end of slavery several Southern states seceded in the wake of South Carolina's secession.

Another thing that your history book likely didn't teach you was that the Emancipation Proclomation did not free all ******. It only freed those in areas still under Confederate control as of January 1, 1863 and even named states, and portions of states, where slavery would still be legal. It was part punishment to Southern states, and part recruitment effort. The Union was losing more men than it was recruiting, the draft was causing riots because it only drafted the poor (they didn't even try to disguise the fact that you could buy your way out of the draft in those days, for a sum that was astronomical for the working class and poor, but barely noticable to the wealthy) and desertion was escalating. The hope was that it would incite the newly freed ****** to rise against their masters and create another front for the Confederacy to have to defend.

Anything else you need to know?

Yes I need to know would there have been a Civil War without slavery? I think you know the answer to that question. NO. No slavery=No War. If there was never moral condemnation of slavery but Northen abolitionists this War wouldnt be in the history books.The South's economic system was based on slavery.Southern political leaders knew if the South lost their ****** that its Socio-economic system would crumble.Most Northen politicians were for the abolition of slavery on moralgrounds. Certainly you know where Lincoln stood on the issue. The 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act made it possible for slavery to be introduced into New Territories. This caused the majority of the politicians in the North to call for an end to the reprehensible institution of slavery, spearheaded by Abe Lincoln. Nortehn abolitionists Brown and Henry..I forget his last name were the most vocal in regards to starting war to end slavery. These leadersthrough their words and actions CONVINCED THE MAJORITY of Northerners that war was justified and necessary with direct references to SLAVERY.
If there was no disagreement over slavery, the south wouldnt have felt threatened culturally and Southern politicians wouldnt have attempteed to secede. SLAVERY was the primary interest of the SOuth and thus the main reason for the South to seek independence and continue its barbaric ways.. So you dont have to answer anymore of my questions I jsut answered them all and then some. And the best part is they are my own words, not Googled like yours were!

[aps214]

That is as uneducated a statement that I have heard on this site. The fact is that through history the mass group of head line fighters comes from whoever occupies the ****** at the time. Back in the 30's-50's it was the ***s and the italians doing well in the ring. Later the blacks began to occupie the ****** and now they have the most formidable force of fighters. Its not race that matters, black, white and ***ish people are still breathing the same air as every one else.

Its not race, its poverty level desires and dreams of stardom in the ring. The poverty breeds tough kids and the money breeds kids who go to school and choose not to fight.

If I stepped into the ring with your attitude about blacks and whites than I would not have won a single fight. But I stepped into every fight with the knowledge of my humanity aswell as his, and knew that I was going to have to work hard to win the fight. Skin color has nothing to do with ability.

Rockin'

Rockin thats why I stated in GENERAL.. Numbers dont lie. There have probably been more black world class level fighters and champions throughout history CUMULATIVELY AS A WHOLE then any other race or ethnicity, maybe even combined. Do you doubt that statement?

[Chet's Revenge]

Why is that every single white fighter whether from the United States or Europe no matter how good is always down played. And other fights even racist ones who associate themselves with figueres such as Malcom X are depicted as heroes.

If you watch boxing from the standpoint of a non-racist its clear that there is a bias towards blacks in boxing. Everybody remembers Floyd Patterson but Ingmarr Johansson (as an example) who was World Heavyweight Champion and defeated Floyd Patterson is hardly remembered by anybody.

Another point is every single white fighter who is a legitimate contender and happens to be white is always adressed as "white hype or hope." A title which downgrades there actual ability and accomplishments.

Really a shame what the world of boxing has come to isn't it? No longer about fair and honest competition but instead about political motives and racism, notably that against white boxers.

[LondonRingRules]

Kill this ****** thread. Just kill it and drop the ****** subject. It doesn't even have the grace of being completely banal like most threads.

[Chet's Revenge]

Still have to be optomistic inspite of the corruption and racism in the sport. Can't give up hope. Maybe things will take a change for the better.

[MetalVomit]

If the boxing press and press in general was not under the total tyrannny and lies of the ***s you would not have this situation of pro black bias in boxing.

Not this again