The eighteenth-century represented an era when boxing experienced a huge popularity surge in the West and more particularly in Britain where the English Restoration had just released the restrictions that had been placed on public entertainment. A form of revival was happening in the social scene in the country. The Mendoza-Humphreys era refers to a boxing rivalry that started in the late 17 th century and extended into the early 18 th century in Britain. The ideas, practices, and interests of the British public during this period will be analyzed and compared and contrasted to the era of Italy under Mussolini. The Mussolini era in Italy began after the first world war and extended well into the 2 nd world war representing a period of great change in the Italian society albeit it was not for the better.
There was an English Restoration that was happening in Britain with the leadership at that time encouraging the growth of the sports industry to take care of the society's desire for competition. This allowed various types of competitions to be held in and around the city such as boxing and cock-fighting among many others. In what was a reflection of the British society at that time, most boxers were drawn from the lower classes of society while the rich were the spectators, even betting on the boxers. The boxers were many and to cash in on the boxing craze and became prizefighters who would let wealthy individuals bet money on their performance and when they win, the money is shared out proportionately ( Schechter, 2013). The poor seemed like they were fighting for their lives while the rich were using it as entertainment and this is where Daniel Mendoza found himself.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Daniel Mendoza was a boxer of Jewish origin from East London and as society would have it at the time, he was quite poor. Like many other young men, Mendoza decided to become a boxer and used it as a way out of his poverty despite his relatively small stature; Jews were viewed suspiciously in British society at the time and regularly faced antisemitic taunts from Britons. However, in a uniquely British habit, these antisemitic feelings were always left behind when the sport was involved as it became all about the entertainment that was found therein. Boxing seemed to bring together the nation albeit for the period that the boxing was going on with the boxers gaining supporters from all corners of the society.
In 1789, he became the British boxing champion and the British press was all awash about his story and journey to becoming the national champion despite his poverty. Again, in typical British fashion, the nation rallied behind him and supported and respected him as champion. It was a weird thing having a poor Semitic boy conquering Britain in their ‘national’ sport and being celebrated showing how the society at that time valued sport, and boxing in particular. The ideas of the British public regarding boxing may have come from their practice of settling their quarrels with fists rather than swords or pistols. People who excelled in winning duels through their fists thus received respect from the public.
One incident involving Mendoza before he was famous shows how valued fistfights were by British society at the time in solving private quarrels. A porter had challenged the owner of the goods to a duel after they disagreed on how much should be paid. Mendoza on witnessing the incident felt that the porter was being unfair and decided to intervene. Mendoza accepted the challenge on behalf of the owner and time and venue for the fight was organized. A hastily assembled ring was put together on the side of the streets and the two fighters jumped in. Mendoza fought the porter in a ring and won in 45 minutes after the porter said he could not take it anymore. This marked the beginning of Mendoza's rise to fame as news from his victory spread across the city ( Blady, 1988). The solving of private disputes with fistfights remained a valued way of solving issues among the Brits during that era even when their neighbors along the English Channel were using guns and swords.
The Mendoza-Humphries bouts formed the highlights of Mendoza’s career and also showed the British Press’ appetite for rivalries and more especially those involving sport. The two boxers fought each other four times and the papers covered the bouts extensively including the taunts that the boxers made at each other. Up to seven English papers of the time published articles on the bouts with spectators split on who would win the fights. One English boxing author at the time, Pierce Egan, was quoted saying how the many people in the crowd were supporting Mendoza in spite of many of them being antisemitic in nature, once again showing the respect they had for boxing. This appetite for rivalries was not just with the press but the people themselves as they would turn out in large numbers to watch the bouts. It is said that over 60,000 people were present on the day of their first fight where Humphries was declared the winner after Mendoza sprained his ankle and could not continue with the fight ( Schechter, 2013)
The interests of the British public in boxing and other duel sports were further confirmed when even the royal family showed their interest in the sport. After one of his fights, King George III asked to meet Mendoza at Windsor Palace. Mendoza effectively became the first English Jew to have a conversation with a king ( Schechter, 2013). This showed how segregated the society was that it had to take Mendoza to be a boxing champion for a Jew to get the chance to speak to the king. Through the respect earned for being a boxing champion, Mendoza was handsomely paid and even poems and songs are written about him and his exploits. The ability of the British society to respect and love Mendoza as a boxer but still be antisemitic in nature was a perfect representation of the society at the time; highly segregated on cultural lines with immigrants such as the Jewish, Irish and Africans being highly despised and discriminated, but offering these immigrants a chance to achieve greater social and economic mobility via boxing than any other profession. The highly discriminatory practices of the British against immigrants were not isolated incidents but systemic. In Humphrey's case, for example, the boxer was able to secure a good donation from a client to start a coal business. For Mendoza, he ran a boxing academy and a pub which was only possible because of his boxing prowess.
Italy under the Mussolini Era had a completely different experience from Britain in the Mendoza era. Unlike Britain, which experienced an opening up of its values, Italy had a dictatorial and punishing leader who placed restrictions of many public practices and simply curtailed his people’s freedoms. Benito Mussolini was a politician in Italy who had come through the ranks to lead the National Fascist Party after the 1 st World War. Mussolini had a huge number of volunteers, approximately 30,000, referred to as fascists akin to a private army who protested urging the then Prime Minister to be removed and Mussolini appointed in his place and that is what happened. Between 1922 and 1943, Mussolini served as prime minister and he had used his power to override laws and effectively turn Italy into a dictatorship/ police state; his word was the law ( Bosworth, 2007). This was unlike what Britain experienced in the era of Mendoza where the liberal space in the country was growing and not shrinking like in Italy.
Like in Mendoza’s Britain, Italy was also deeply divided in terms of class with Mussolini attracting wide support from the military and among the industrial and agrarian elites and the other lower-class workers and immigrants not supporting him. Opposition to Mussolini’s reign was however dealt with ferociously effectively limiting internal opposition to his reign ( Bosworth, 2007). This kind of social stratification and discrimination was visible in both Mendoza’s Britain and Mussolini’s Italy although in Britain it looked more subtle and was based on culture while in Italy it was based on political/ ideological beliefs. Further, in both countries and eras, immigrants still formed the bulk of the lower-class workers.
One major difference in the two eras was the fact that Mendoza’s Britain encouraged the opening up of public spaces to champion for the individual liberties of the people while Mussolini cut out most forms of individual liberty beginning with d eregistering political parties and turning the country into a one-party state. Britain encouraged a lot of theater, and the sight of a roadside ring for fighters, or theater for actors became more common in London and the cities around ( Schechter, 2013). In Italy, using the fascists' blackshirts as an always-ready private militia to clamp down on personal freedoms. This was also surprising to the King at the time who thought Mussolini was well primed to restore law and order into the society but this was never to happen. Instead of a functioning government that respects personal liberties, Mussolini had biased institutions and overzealous individuals who had no problem breaking the rules simply to appease him ( Bosworth, 2007) .
The behavior of the print media across the two eras was also quite different. The British media during the days of Mendoza was free and flourishing. Newspapers published stories they found interesting to the public with the Mendoza-Humphreys largely publicized including their well-documented exchanges before and after their fights. At one point, more than seven local newspapers had covered their upcoming bout and even some American newspapers covered the story ( Schechter, 2013). Such free press was not witnessed in Mussolini's Italy as he tightened his grip on power. He had total control over anything the press said and he made sure it was not anything that implicated him or his leadership ( Bosworth, 2007). The liberty of the press in these two eras represents the way of life the citizenry in the two eras were used to, the Brits were enjoying increased personal liberties while the Italians were regressing liberty-wise.
The two eras represented different times in the two countries and it was inevitable that the societal practices and ideas were not the same. The Mendoza era was a more positive time for British entertainment although it was used to advance stereotypes of cultural discrimination where immigrants would be the ones fighting and the Brits doing the spectating and the betting. The Mussolini era in Italy was a dark one politically and socially as Mussolini turned the country into a police state where he was in charge of everything in the country ( Bosworth, 2007). A comparison of the two eras is not a permanent representation of the two countries but a temporary one just for the period under discussion.
References
Blady, K. (1988). Fight with porter in The Jewish Boxer's Hall of Fame . Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., pg. 9
Bosworth R. J. B. (2007). Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship , 1915-1945. Penguin.
Schechter R. (2013). Mendoza the Jew : Boxing, Manliness, and Nationalism, A Graphic History. Oxford University Press.
