Issue Details Comments ›
The Original Johnson #10
Published by ComicMix,
One hundred years ago today, Jack Johnson beat Tommy Burns to become both the heavyweight champion of the world-- and the most notorious black man in the world as well. But that's not all he dreamed about...
Welcome, New York Times readers! If you'd like to read from the beginning, start here.
Credits: Trevor Von Eeden (Writer), Trevor Von Eeden (Artist), George Freeman (Colorist), Don Hillsman II (Inker), John Workman (Letterer), Carrie Wright (Letterer), Glenn Hauman (Assistant Editor), Mike Gold (Editor)
More: The Original Johnson
Comments (4)
Russ Rogers (10:46 AM on Tue Dec 30, 2008)
This makes Jack Johnson's sexual addictions, whoring and fetish for white women seem heroic, instead of what it was, a major character flaw. Personally, I find a flawed hero more interesting.
I continue to have problems with the whole concept of women seen as "His enemy's prized possession." The idea seems awfully degrading, especially for a comic so focused on civil liberties and human rights. Seeing Johnson's sexual addictions as a failing of personal character seems natural. Trying to portray his attempts to "possess" white women as some kind of twisted racial empowerment seems like a stretch.
Where is Jack's original johnson on page 57? The man is as smooth as a G.I. Joe action figure! Are we supposed to read that his penis and testicles are too tiny to be seen? Missing in his dreams? Or that he's erect and that his massive tool of heroic justice is just hidden by shadow?
I don't understand the aesthetic that says it's OK to illustrate graphic sex with a thirteen year old child [pages 40-41], but it would be too graphic and distasteful to draw Jack's Johnson. In the one case, every male has a penis, so it's silly, unnatural and strange to draw a naked man without one. In the other case, not every 13 year old boy has sex with whores, so it might be better to just mention Jack's youthful whoring and not graphically illustrate it.
Bob Kahan (9:27 PM on Wed Dec 31, 2008)
We also need to remember that "Jack Johnson did the eagle rock. Fare thee Titanic, Fare Thee Well" with a tip of the hat to Happy & Artie Traum.
Robert Beatty (8:42 AM on Wed Dec 31, 2008)
I'm not sure why an interracial relationship has to be seen as a "fetish" as Russ Rogers indicates. Do you use that term because you think people can only really love someone who looks like they do, and anything else is a "fetish"?
This is my first look at this comic, but I'd like to see more. I read about this in the NY Times and wanted to check it out because I admire the way Jack Johnson lived his life...not catering to what people of any color expected of him.
I think he was fearless to do and say the things he did at a time in America when Black people were being lynched with regularity. His defiance of the social norms is remarkable and speaks to a tremendous mental strength.
Hope you keep drawing as I'd like to see more.
Russ Rogers (5:00 PM on Thu Feb 5, 2009)
I have nothing against interracial relationships. And if you find a particular race particularly attractive, that is just a personal preference. Nothing wrong with that. (Ask Michael Davis!)
But, if you are attracted to someone because they represent "The Possessions of Your Oppressors," which seems to be a theme in this comic, then that is a FETISH. That is giving sexual power to something that has nothing to do with sex, like getting turned on by shoes or peanut butter. There is nothing particularly wrong with fetishes. They can be personal quirks, idiosyncrasies. But, objectifying women, as "the possessions of my enemy," and then getting a sexual kick out of "taking those possessions" is wrong.
Jack Johnson's sexual prowess is just not a heroic quality. I find Jack Johnson's sexual history was of grotesque proportions, not heroic proportions. Jack Johnson's sexual proclivities may have been controversial in his day, they may even be legendary today, but I don't think they are heroic or laudable.