Michael Jackson (photo: soulbounce.com)
In the wake of Reverend Al Sharpton requesting that the media respect the memory of Michael Jackson, and New York Congressman Peter King calling Jackson a "pervert" and "pedophile," it seems that an examination of celebrity, culture, race, and certainly the media is appropriate.
I'm admittedly not an Al Sharpton fan. I appreciate some of the causes that he pursues (though there are far too many that he ignores), but he is a polarizing figure that arguably does more harm than help regarding race relations. And while Sharpton is an intelligent man, it is understandable for one to question some of his motives. Many see Sharpton as an ambulance chaser, and in many cases that is quite apropos.
But after Peter King's YouTube comments (below), which have since been played on every television station in the country, it's hard not to heartily side with Sharpton.
The famous saying of "if it bleeds it leads" is absolutely true--the media will take the juiciest part of a story and stretch it out for as long as they can. That's not just for Michael Jackson, but for anyone.
With that said, what many in the media and certainly Michael Jackson detractors are attempting to do is old hat. Do we need yet another retrospective regarding the evolution of Michael's physical transformation? Is it really important to replay the b-roll footage of Jackson doing the perp walk to and from the courthouse in 2005?
In one breath, Peter King called Michael Jackson a "low life," "pervert," "child molester," and "pedophile." At the end of his rant, he asks "what does this say about us as a country?"
I think it says plenty.
It says that, first and foremost, due process apparently means nothing. That if one is accused of a crime and ultimately found not guilty, one remains guilty in the eyes of the general public.
But are all celebrities created equal?
Do we still discuss Marilyn Monroe's drug and sex issues? Or the fact that the Kennedy's and Frank Sinatra reportedly had ties to mobsters?
Do we bring up the fact that our founding fathers perpetrated the sin of slavery or that America’s beloved explorer Christopher Columbus is responsible for American Indian genocide?
Somehow these stories fail to get passed down to the next generation and are curiously absent from school text books and DVD documentaries.
It does seem that Michael Jackson, despite his later appearance as looking unequivocally white, is being attacked for both his celebrity and his blackness. He wouldn't be the first to face this kind of firestorm.
From OJ to Kobe Bryant to Ray Lewis, black celebrities who have crossed over into the mainstream and found themselves ensnared in legal trouble were deemed guilty in the court of public opinion longer after they were acquitted by a jury of their peers.
This isn't to say that these celebrities are innocent--far from it. Many people, black, white, and polka dot genuinely believe OJ Simpson was and is guilty of murder. And there's little doubt that the combination of celebrity and wealth will get almost anyone out of a legal entanglement.
With that said, are many in the media and those watching the coverage at home truly going to convict Michael Jackson simply because he was accused of a crime? Accusations don't equate to convictions--ask the hundreds of thousands of black men that were strung up in trees and mutilated because they "supposedly" committed a crime over the past few centuries.
Unfortunately, dead men tell no tales.
It's not that, in the wake of Jackson's death, we should remember him as a Saint--we shouldn't. Jackson, despite his ability to dance like no other and entertain fans across the globe, was a flawed human being. His imperfections should not be airbrushed and his brand should not be repackaged as the Messiah. At the same time, some of the vicious talk regarding Jackson is not just out of line, it's downright dangerous. After all, it was the combination of Jackson’s insecurity and inability to withstand the mounting pressure from family, fans, and the media that ultimately drove him to reject his own blackness.
In the end, if a mere accusation can automatically render one guilty in the court of public opinion, then I already know the answer to King's original question of "what does this say about us as a country?"
It says we're no longer living in the beautiful America that our founding flawed fathers created.
Originally written by Michael Langston Moore at the Boston TV Examiner
Comments
Michael NEVER REJECTED his own "Blackness." He had Vitiligo!! How many times do you need to be told that before you divorce yourself from the "ignorance??" The overwhelming majority of Charities Michael donated his over $375 MILLION to were black!
HYPOCRISY is an apt word.
Manny Pacquiao, a Filipino, is being slandered by black men for taking steroids. He's now guilty unless proven innocent in the court of public opinion.
Good article. But I am writing this to everyone I can who uses the term: "That said,..." or "Having said that,..." This is the most popularly repeated expression of the last three or four years. If I hear that overused term one more time I am going to snap, buy a machine gun and go mow down a bunch of journalists at a news office. "Having said that," I just want to say I hope I won't get arrested for fantasizing. And I hope I won't vomit now, after hearing myself use the term -- even if only in jest.
The article would have been fair if you hadn't ruined it with the line michael rejected his own blackness. It is common knowledge the man had vitiligo.
prweb.com/releases/2009/07/prweb2613654.htm
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205624/The-black-girl-turned-white-woman-vitiligo-changed-colour-entire-body.html
dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1201841/I-turned-black-white-How-skin-disordered-changed-mans-identity-place-world.html
floacist-mj
Jan--you do realize this is a pro Jackson article, right?
Jackson didn't "reject" his blackness in the sense that you're thinking--turning his back on the black community. But while it's common knowledge he had vitaligo, I think you can certainly argue that he rejected parts of HIMSELF, and therefore his blackness. From the nose job, to the chin cleft and other work done.
I think it would be silly to think he never bleached his skin to a certain degree, and for whatever reason, he had white children.
So yeah, I never doubt that Michael Jackson was black or was pro black--I truly believe he was, despite how white he got. But I do think he rejected a part of himself, too. Conflicted in a sense, I think he rejected portions of his blackness to feel comfortable and "right" under the spotlight and media glare.
Samuel
Many celebrities have had plastic surgery so why are the media and the public obsessed with MJ surgery. MJ had vitiligo and therefore on the stage he couldn't look like a leopard, he tried to use brown make up which was unsuccessful and then tried to even his skin tone up but that doesn't mean he was not proud to be a black african american.
The fact he had children with debbie rowe was because he was desperate to be a dad and she offered to have his children.
Listen, I am an MJ fan too--make no mistake. But why were people obsessed with his surgery and physical appearance? I think they would've cared less had he not been considered "weird." And even MJ's body guards in a recent interview would admit that even MJ himself thought of himself as "different."
From the whole insane "sleeping with boys" crap to the Bashir documentary to Bubbles the chimp and tabloid rumors and Elvis Presley's daughter--it was just a lot of STUFF.
You have to remember, Jackson, since his was a kid, was arguably the best entertainer in America and even the world. So to see the greatest entertainer ever change so dramatically is off-putting to people. And some use it to sell magazines and newspapers, which was wrong.
And I get you--it doesn't mean he wasn't proud to be black. But the perception by the average joe and the media would think otherwise. Not everyone is well informed on MJ.
Just because Michael had these surgeries does not mean he rejected his "blackness" as the author stated. He was faced with incredible pressures to remain young and "cute" in the public eye. He had Body Dysmorphic Disorder and I would like this fine author to look more into that and also the devastating effects of Vitiligo on a person's self-esteem. Lets try to understand MJ more before casting stones. And look at his actions and hear his words-he said he was proud to be a black American and he gave millions to black causes and he broke down racial barriers that were impenetrable before him. Black Americans should be very PROUD of all Michael accomplished and his surgeries and Vitiligo should not lessen this pride in him. Don't say he was not proud to be black again. It isn't fair and it is also too pat of an answer for the complexities of Michael's life and how he dealt with it. You did not walk in his shoes. Be merciful to Michael. He went through so much we could never comprehend.
Michael stated quite strongly in the Oprah interview that he was, "Was a black American and proud to be a black American". He also admitted to having Vitiligo which is a very debilitating disease that leaves the victim of it with alabaster white patches of it all over their skin. Being in the public eye and extremely famous, this must have been devastating to Michael. He started out life criticized by his own father who called him "Big nose" and then an adoring public became disappointed with his changing looks from that of a cute child to a pimply-faced adolescent and told him so. He told a story (see it on YouTube) of a woman in an airport who excitedly told her friend that the Jacksons were there! When they spotted Michael the one turned to the other and said within Michael's earshot, "Eeeew! What happened to Michael? He used to be so cute!" Michael heard that and was deeply hurt. This explains so much in why he had the surgeries he had. cont'...
Again, that is all true, but that's not what's up for debate. We all know the truth on Michael because we're Michael fans. That's why we're here.
Everyone else out there isn't a Jackson fan, so they have different perceptions of him, and it's not just a pure media creation, either. He did stuff and engaged in behavior that was deemed odd and off putting. That harms his image in the eyes of other people. Like when he dangled his child out the window--think about it objectively...if that was Joe Blow on the news, what would you think?
So yeah, there are going to be some in the media who look at Michael Jackson and think he rejected his blackness. Perception is NOT reality, sure, but perception lingers for years and years despite the reality of any situation.
Some will forever look at Jackson's physical appearance, surgeries, dating choices and children and think he rejected his blackness.
Just another case of blacks refusing to accept responsibility and protect each other by any means necessary. If a white politican used the N word like Sharpton uses anti-semitic slurs do you think he would still have a career?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!