In a recent joint resolution of the United States Congress, the legislative branch urged President Barack Obama to posthumously pardon Jack Johnson, the first African-American to become a heavyweight boxing champion in 1908, for his criminal conviction for violating the Mann Act. The Mann Act was a piece of federal law that made it unlawful to transport women across state lines for illicit purposes. Johnson allegedly transported a White female "prostitute" across state lines, for such purposes - an individual whom he would eventually marry. The conviction was pretextual in that it was a way to punish Johnson for his open challenge to discriminatory laws and social norms of the era, and supposedly for defeating numerous White boxers whom he faced in the ring, including Jim Jeffries, resulting in subsequent riots.
Following his conviction, Johnson was sentenced to a year and one day in jail. Yet, instead of serving his time for a racially-motivated prosecution, he fled the United States, spending seven years in Europe and Mexico before returning home to serve 10 months in prison for his conviction.
By advocating for Johnson's pardon by President Obama, has the United States Congress, in a sense, legitimized Johnson's resistance to racially motivated persecution? The pardon, strictly speaking, would be for an unjust and racially-motivated prosecution. The larger issue however was Johnson's defiance to White supremacy in the early twentieth century (which lasted for several more decades), a supremacy which was both de facto and de jure in various parts of the country. His resistance was the predicate for his conviction under the Mann Act. First, Johnson's resistance involved his non-compliance with the legal and social norms of the day by openly consorting with and eventually marrying a White woman - it was only in 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in Loving v. Virginia, that anti-miscegenation laws preventing marriage between Whites and non-Whites were unconstitutional. Second, Johnson refused to "know his place" as an African-American man by continually defeating less qualified White boxers.
Johnson's resistance was not just his actions aimed at undermining race laws and social norms, which led to his conviction, it was also the blatant act of leaving the country to evade punishment for his "crime". While for some, evading punishment may appear to be an act of cowardice, for others such evasion is more than justified, particularly in the case of an unjust prosecution resulting in an act of persecution. Refugee law is replete with examples of individuals escaping persecution where their state of origin is seeking to prosecute them on the pretext of some violation of a law of general application.
While Congress' joint resolution focuses on pardoning Johnson for the violation of the Mann Act, there is an implicit legitimization of Johnson's defiance of race laws, social conventions regarding the intermingling of races, as well as his flight from serving his prison sentence.
Sources:
Following his conviction, Johnson was sentenced to a year and one day in jail. Yet, instead of serving his time for a racially-motivated prosecution, he fled the United States, spending seven years in Europe and Mexico before returning home to serve 10 months in prison for his conviction.
By advocating for Johnson's pardon by President Obama, has the United States Congress, in a sense, legitimized Johnson's resistance to racially motivated persecution? The pardon, strictly speaking, would be for an unjust and racially-motivated prosecution. The larger issue however was Johnson's defiance to White supremacy in the early twentieth century (which lasted for several more decades), a supremacy which was both de facto and de jure in various parts of the country. His resistance was the predicate for his conviction under the Mann Act. First, Johnson's resistance involved his non-compliance with the legal and social norms of the day by openly consorting with and eventually marrying a White woman - it was only in 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in Loving v. Virginia, that anti-miscegenation laws preventing marriage between Whites and non-Whites were unconstitutional. Second, Johnson refused to "know his place" as an African-American man by continually defeating less qualified White boxers.
Johnson's resistance was not just his actions aimed at undermining race laws and social norms, which led to his conviction, it was also the blatant act of leaving the country to evade punishment for his "crime". While for some, evading punishment may appear to be an act of cowardice, for others such evasion is more than justified, particularly in the case of an unjust prosecution resulting in an act of persecution. Refugee law is replete with examples of individuals escaping persecution where their state of origin is seeking to prosecute them on the pretext of some violation of a law of general application.
While Congress' joint resolution focuses on pardoning Johnson for the violation of the Mann Act, there is an implicit legitimization of Johnson's defiance of race laws, social conventions regarding the intermingling of races, as well as his flight from serving his prison sentence.
Sources:
John Baiata, "Another 'Teachable Moment' for Obama?" MSNBC, July 31, 2009. Online: http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/31/2016934.aspx
Frederic J. Frommer, "Congress Urges Pardon for First Black Boxing Champ." NBC, July 29, 2009. Online: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32211141
Frederic J. Frommer, "Congress Urges Pardon for First Black Boxing Champ." NBC, July 29, 2009. Online: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32211141
No comments:
Post a Comment