Mendoza the Jew: Boxing, Manliness, and Nationalism

Controversial Article Reporting

Name of Student

Course

Lecturer

Date
 Surname 2

Daniel Mendoza (1764-1836) was an outstanding sportsman’s in the late eighteenth and

early nineteenth century. He was also a debatable figure of the Georgian Anglo-Jewish

community. The basis of his career growth would mount on his style of fight that championed

his rise from a greengrocer to having a successful boxing career. Regardless of his successful

career in boxing, Mendoza's growing popularity was seen as a growing threat to the Jewish

community, which had tried to demystify the misinformed public that Jews were not weak and

deformed. During the period, there was a wide stereotypic belief that Jews were cowards, which

resulted in the development of pugilism which constructed to deform the ill-informed stereotypic

beliefs about the Jews; this caused the writers to lament since they were short of an appropriate

picture to paint about the Jews since they were scared of them.

Mendoza and Richard Humphreys Fight

The famous contest happened at Odiham in Hampshire on January 9, 1788. The fight was

held on a specially established stage in the presence of hundreds of watchers who had come to

witness the great fight. The fight is marred with countless controversies from both camps of its

supporters, with the losing side Mendoza citing foul play in them lose. Despite Humphrey's win,

the fight's perspective would change the personal contest to be more of an ethnic and religious

battle between the Jews and the Christians.2 Mendoza fighting skills and mastery of the defensive

of boxing could be firsts seen in the beginning minutes of the fight; his lethal attacks were able to

wear out Humphrey. However, the official's contempt gave Humphrey an upper hand in the

fight, which won the first round of the contest after Mendoza slipped and hurt his ankle from the

slippery grounds.1. Even though Mendoza was vouched to win the fight, English writers reduced

1
Timothy Hughes Rare and Early Newspapers, “The Mendoza and Humphreys Boxing Match". (London
Chronicle).
2
Schechter, Ronald, and Liz Clarke” Mendoza the Jew: Boxing, Manliness and Nationalism,” (Oxford
University Press, 2013).
 Surname 3

Mendoza's ability to win the fight to see Humphrey as the stronger opponent since he was

English. On account of the London Chronicle, "The Jew was carried off the stage exhausted ….

Humphreys was not out of breath."1 Such statement was discriminating and falsely not providing

the real account of the contest the fight downplayed to be more of an ethnic battle between the

Jews and the English.

However, the London Chronicle's account of the battle was controversial, pinning a

contrasting image of the real fight. Despite Mendoza's mastery and Dominance against his

opponent, the Newspaper outlet centered on issuing a misinformed account of the fight that

labeled Mendoza a Jew as a weak figure. The Newspaper account of the match is seen to favor

Humphreys, who is native English; the distortion of the information is labeled to stamp the

English superiority against the non –English native or else the Jews. The late eighteenth and

early nineteenth-century discrimination against the Jews played a dominant in the fight, with the

main intention to create a superficial image of white Privilege and Dominance against other

races. Humphreys win over Mendoza built the writer's confidence in continuing to ridicule the

Jewish race and religion. In respite of the Jewish fight to get a proper representation of their

tribe, the English would reduce their effort and make them seem cowards and weak through the

literature and articles. The article account would term it a gamble that would see the Jews lose to

the Christians. Such ridiculous comments would make the fight seem personally inclined to

religious superiority targeting the Jews.

Mendoza's persistent referral as a Jew was discriminatory and failed to issue Mendoza's

identity as a fighter. The intention was to lessen Mendoza a Jew to a weak opponent, regardless

of his skill which almost gave him a win in the first round; neither this was ment2ioned with the

writer elevating Humphrey as the stronger opponent in the fight.

2
 Surname 4

The article would ridicule Mendoza, terming him an unworthy opponent in the fight" A battle in

which there was so much dexterity and skill, with such equality of strength and muscle, perhaps

never was fought." This statement from the London Chronicle would reduce the Jews to mere

deformed and weak figures that do not deserve to be recognized in any writing. More so, the

fight was focused on Humphrey to be the stronger opponent who is far from the facts3.

The newspaper printing would underline Humphreys win as a victory for the Christian

and English race. Newspaper outlets such as the Whitehall Evening Post, The World, and other

English newspapers would discriminate and favor Humphreys wins over Mendoza. Seemingly,

there was a lack of a positive intention within the Anglo-Jewish and Georgian history. The

World would publish Humphrey letter to solidify his victory over Mendoza by suggesting that

the Jews’ comment was contradictory of whether his loss was as a result of his injury from his

slip “Yet I cannot help remarking that neither Mr. Mendoza nor his friends seemed decided

where they should fix this unlucky disaster. At first, it was his ankle, and then some people

could have sworn they saw three of his bones come out. The disorder moved gradually to his

hips, from whence, lest it is mistaken for a rheumatic complaint, it is settled, with most

excruciating pain in the loins; where I am aware it may abide as long as he finds it convenient.”1

The newspaper agencies are said to have been biased with the Mendoza and Humphreys contest's

factual accounts. The newspaper agencies would target making its writing favor the English race,

making them appear superior to other races. Anti-Semitism played a huge role in defining and

publishing the contest's outcome, where a majority of the article reporting seen to have favored

Humphreys victorious statements and accounts.

31
Timothy Hughes Rare and Early Newspapers, “The Mendoza and Humphreys Boxing Match" (The London
Chronicles)
 Surname 5

The political and social events in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century shaped

the social disparity and injustice against the Jewish race and religion. The Jews were seen as

outsiders who were deprived of their civil rights; therefore, most Jews, such as Mendoza, could

not have been vocal because of the structures restraining them in their preexisting societies.2 The

highly contested fight between Mendoza and Humphries was later reduced to a propaganda

printing that would elevate the English Dominance over other races. The writers comment about

Jews losing twenty thousand Sterling pounds in the London Chronicle would target the Jews and

make them seem unrighteous since it goes against their principles and religion. Such would also

frame them as losers which confirms their weak identity as an ethnic group.

Bibliography

42
Schechter, Ronald, and Liz Clarke” Mendoza the Jew: Boxing, Manliness and Nationalism, ” (Oxford
University Press, 2013).
 Surname 6

Schechter, Ronald, and Liz Clarke. Mendoza the Jew: Boxing, Manliness, and Nationalism.

Oxford University Press, 2013.

Timothy Hughes Rare and Early Newspapers. "The Mendoza and Humphreys Boxing Match..." -

RareNewspapers.com. Last modified January 10, 1788.

https://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/607586?acl=833002368&list_url=%2Flist%3Fa

cl%3D2242169%2525code%3DMendoza%2525rc%3Dblog
Surname 7