blamebrampton | With due respect to ...

With due respect to ...

... those of you who are mourning him, I am probably going to bite the next person who tells me that Michael Jackson was a revolutionary figure in the fight for equality by African Americans. I hasten to add that this has so far been three in real life and double the number of media foik: my flist has been a bastion of sanity.

Aesthetic irony aside, it belittles genuine revolutionary figures. And I am not even talking about political giants like Dr King; there were many entertainers who walked a far more difficult path earlier and with more grace and charity, such as Ella Fitzgerald, Paul Robeson, Josephine Baker, Sammy Davis Jnr and Nina Simone.

I'm all for people loving the heroes they choose, but I would love a bit of perspective at times like these. And perhaps a little sense of history.

Flistees who are just missing the singing and dancing, I apologise for intruding on your sad day.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I know you will say, "But pir8, this is popular culture, my dear," but I don't think you can have a proper handle on him, not, um, having lived in the U.S. I suppose it's similar to those people who grew up with the Beatles. Sure, they were enornous here, but they inspired a social revolution in Britain that catapulted Britian out of the doldrums still hanging over the sod from WWII. A positive social movement doesn't have it's roots in the ballot box.

Michael Jackson. Okay, I think he was probably a pedofile, or at least a weirdophile. I know people who are in the position to know (like in law enforcement) who say that his behavior with children was at the very least improper. But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about his effect on American culture. He was more than an act. And this is from someone who thought he could sing and dance, but I did not adore him and I never bought one of his albums.

Having said that, he was THE musician who set the stage for black artists becoming crossover artists. Becoming, not black artists appealing to whites, but just plain, you know, artists. He actually symbolized for the music industry, what I think I certainly wish were the case in terms of gay rights. That they are just fucking rights and aren't labeled "gay" rights. That people who want to get married should just get married and their gender is immaterial. I wish.

Michael Jackson did it for the music industry, even though he wasn't an activist or a Paul Robeson or a Rosa Parks. He was a black kid who could sing and dance and he parlayed that into being an artist who appealed to audiences across the board. Without Michael Jackson, I think that rap would have remained a ghetto phenomenon. You wouldn't have had artists like Kayne West, Mariah Carey or Jennifer Hudson or a myriad of other singers who are now just singers.

I think you could honestly say that he broke down more barriers in terms of racial stereotypes (despite the fact he was extremely strange) in the music business than anyone else. Up until MTV, the music industry was still balkanized into it's little corners. Michael blew that all up. He OWNED MTV, and in the process he said quite distinctly, "I'm a singer." Not "I'm a black singer." And there is, obviously, a huge distinction.

The fact that he was clearly humiliated by his own racial identity is immaterial. His ability to cross that racial divide was something that no other artist had succesfullly managed. MTV had a lot to do with it, and, also, he was pretty talented.

I think that art can be pretty powerful. I'm not advocating nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize posthumously, but I am saying that from outside the U.S., it is possible not to understanding the pivotal role he played in the music industry in the U.S. No, he wasn't an activist. He was just a singer. But that doesn't mean that what he accomplished wasn't powerful.

So now you have lots of middle and uppermiddle class white kids listening to rap (I have one!) and while I personally abhor rap and many of the themes that define rap anger me, I also understand that it's--for the most part--black artists reaching out and speaking to listeners (a lot of them white) about their struggles, their anger, and their powerlessness. And I don't think that that would have been possible without Michael Jackson.

Thank you so much for writing this. As you know from my post, I couldn't agree with you more. And maybe we can curse him a little when having to listen to that rap. *g*

Oh, an excellent opinion; I'm learning something... although...

The fact that he was clearly humiliated by his own racial identity is immaterial

This, I have to disagree. I think it's really important—it doesn't change his impact and influence, but it does change how I, at least, perceive him, in areas other than artistic talent. :)

*Huggles you and runs away*

It kind of totally sucked for him, that he grew up in a society where anything but white was fug and then he grew old in a society that giggled at his freakishness for swallowing the indoctrination.

I'm not sure if anybody is a position to judge him for that. (Though I feel kind of safe in judging him for other stuff.)

Agree with that assessment entirely. This country is racist as all hell and there is NO WAY TO WIN or even get parity.

I don't dislike him for choosing to change his looks to imitate white features; it really is his choice, and if he was luckier in picking his plastic surgeons the outcome would have been very different. But it does tell me is that his strength in his artistic talent and his courage to explore new frontiers in his art doesn't extend to his personality ... in a way, I do feel sorry for him, for clearly having something that's haunting him that only he, and the few who are close to him, may see. But as Brammers wrote in the post, I can't see him as a revolutionary figure for that reason. I don't think of him any less—it's just, that role isn't him, and to put him in it does belittle the figures that really belongs, even if, in the end, MJ's impact on breaking racial barriers may be no less significant.

Mmmm. Do I make sense?

I actually don't see him much of a freak. I see him as someone who's half crazed with loneliness and obsession.

I didn't say you thought of him as a freak. I was talking about society.

I do think it's kind of easy to sit back and judge him, but people REALLY thought that being African American was being ugly, stupid, poor, uneducated, every negative thing in the book. I don't think we can just brush this off as, "That was his choice. He was a coward for not standing up for himself."

The courage to explore = Win? Not always.

I don't see him a Revolutionary person himself, but I think many people used him, their love for his craft, his persona, to do revolutionary things. MJ was not MLK Jr, but for some people MJ was the gateway to MLK and that's not something I can dismiss that easily.

that he grew up in a society where anything but white was fug

I'm a bit younger than he was, but the Black is Beautiful idea (slogans, badges, hair care and all) predates me, and he didn't start changing his looks radically until the 80s and 90s, by when there were many acclaimed African-American beauties, both male and female.

I think he may well have believed this, but I don't think that society at large is to blame.

We're still having those issues. In this day and age we're still talking about "bad" hair (people getting fired over wearing their hair "ethnically") and too wide noses and creams to make skin lighter, and photoshoping Beyonce to make her look latte instead of espresso. The slogans may predate you to Ali-times, but it's not something people can overcome in such a relatively short amount of time. Tyra Banks is not that old (is she?) and she still had to deal with being PoC and not measuring up to the white standards of beauty.

I think it was only important to him. To the rest of us it was more of a WTF, Michael? But then again, I didn't grow up black in a society that is incredibly racist. On the heels of electing a black president, we have nutballs gunning down blacks in a Holocaust museum. The vitriol aimed by Obama by the Palin camp was incendiary. IMO.

I think this is why I cannot put him in the hero / revolutionary figure category. He puts himself first—and I don't mean that he's selfish—more that he cannot get through the ghosts from his own past. From a person who broke the racial divide as he did, it must be sad and so disappointing for the black kids who had looked up on him to see him ... betray their identity. He's a showcase of how one of the biggest challenges (flaws, maybe) of this country can rip a person apart, but the breakthrough he accomplished was almost canceled out ... by the fact that he himself, as a role model, he ended up trying to eliminate evidences of what had to be the pre-requisite of the breakthough—which was his heritage. I can't imagine what white supremicists have been saying about him :(.

Palin ... is in the Jerry Springer Camp of Politics. :) I can't imagine how someone like her make it that far and what it says about us, as the citizen of the country that has allowed her to do so. Incendiary is too classy of a word to describe her ways.

I certainly don't see him as a revolutionary hero. I don't think he saw himself that way. He saw himself as an entertainer. But honestly, I don't think it diminishes what he accomplished, despite his enormous failings as an individual. His art became more than him, IMO. I can look at his personal life and shudder, but what he did on a societal level? Artists are STILL reaping the benefits of his trailblazing today.

I grew up in the era of both MJ and Farrah Fawcett, and I'm kind of puzzled why there are so many accolades for her in this post in response to *his* personal failings. She sold one poster. She issued in an era of blow dryers and curling irons. She starred in one television show that was nothing but T&A and a couple of good movies. She was not the only actress by a long shot to star in consciousness raising entertainment. And she died with dignity. She wasn't trail-blazing in the least. What she was was a beautiful woman who ended up capitalized on that beauty--hello, Hollywood--and found she could act. But one television show and two movies is not exactly much of a career. And, frankly, lots of people die with dignity. They just don't have their best friends shooting it all with a video camera. In fact, I have an LJ friend who just lost her mother to Leukemia, and by all accounts, she gave it her all and died with as much dignity as FF. But no one was filming it.

I'm not surprised by the iconization of MJ, but I can't help but equate the iconization of FF with Princess Di. These beautiful women who capture the camera, and then WE, as a public feed, off of that beauty. Is it ANY surprise that MJ under went the knife repeatedly to become a beautiful woman?

I knew very little about Farrah, but I could sing Beat It with my broom when I was ... 6 or 7 years old, when I was half the world away :)

MJ's influence is undeniable—I still look at his choreography and just the way he moves with nothing but awe and admiration. He's born to be an entertainer, and an explosive one who definitely changes the way we regard his art. I remembered him by watching a few of his videos and stage performances; I think he'd like that—he dedicated his life on it.

And I can understand the attraction of becoming a beautiful woman. I'm not a vain one by all means, there're still days I'd look at a pretty woman (or man) and just sighed, wondering why it can't be me (there, I admit it!! :) ) I don't even rely on my looks at all for my job... the pressure must be a 1000-fold if I am.

I see what you're saying ... but I think it's the other way around. The Beatles weren't an instrument of social change (despite what they liked to allege), they were a band that was made incredibly popular because they *coincided* with a moment of broad social change.

If Lennon and McCartney had never met, then The Who, or The Rolling Stones, or Donovan would have been even bigger and more famous. Just as if Jackson Pere had been stopped from ruthlessly manipulating his children, then Smokey Robinson and Earth Wind and Fire would have been more famous, and perhaps Marvin Gaye or Prince would have been the first hugely popular African-American artist.

Because the stage was already set: culturally the battles had been hard fought by many others for years, even in the entertainment industry, there were fifty years of black singers and musicians, from Satchmo to Ella, to James Brown, Jimi Hendrix and Marvin Gaye who had already achieved very broad and significant commercial success.

So I can accept that for many Americans he marked the first black crossover artist and in that way he paved the way for others to follow, but I think that this was an accident of time, place and talent rather than his intent. He just wanted to sing, dance and be famous.

Regardless, it's a very sad loss for his children and the rest of his family and friends.

Just popping in to note that on a personal level, I'd be WAY sadder if Prince had died. I'm a few years too young to remember MJ as anything besides a Grade-A nutcase, but Prince! I love that little man and his absurdly sexy songs. He's merely a Grade-C nutcase, what with being a Jehovah's Witness and a vegan (which are perfectly common and not totally unreasonable life changes to make) and renaming himself O(+> (which is, admittedly, not, but which is probably a more healthy way to rebel against a record company trying to own your soul than, say, building Neverland Ranch and hanging around small children).

This is beyond significant personal success. I guess my point is that, from the American perspective, Michael Jackson just wasn't in the right place at the right time. He was the man. They are obviously extremely talented musicians out there ), but Marvin Gaye had been around for years and Prince hadn't yet arrived (and I believe that Prince benefitted enormously from MJ's success. I will grant you that it is impossible to divorce MJ's success from the advent of MTV. However, I still maintain that he was completely unique in his appeal and that there weren't others who could have filled the gap. There wasn't a "slot" to be filled. He made it. He took it for all it was worth. And he paved the way for musicians like Prince.

I will say that I say "Purple Rain" when it came out. I was living in Berkeley at the time. We went with another couple and we were the ONLY white people in the audience. Which was filled. So even someone as talented as Prince had to "prove" himself to the larger American audience. Which, of course, he did.

I think that his enormous abilities have been overshadowed by his strange dive into teh crazy. However, that doesn't diminish what he accomplished.

And I guess this goes back to the question I posted in romaine's journal. Is the larger issue more important than the man (or woman). Is the fact that he was suspected of being a pedofile (with some fairly damning evidence) detract from the fact that he blew apart the racist glass ceiling in the music industry? I don't know. I wasn't a big fan of his so I haven't had to make that leap. However, I was a big Woody Allen fan and now I can't watch his movies. Can I disabuse his affect on American cinima? No.

So what I am asking is the intent more important than the results? Does the fact that he wanted to be famous and found a sound and a move that was so unique that it crossed racial lines, diminish what he accomplished?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

With due respect to ...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject