Michael Jackson is Dead
by Guest Contributor (and regular commenter) Joseph Shahadi, originally published at Vs. The Pomegranate
Michael Jackson is dead.
My reaction is complicated. On Facebook my high school classmates and I are mourning Michael Jackson and sharing memories. Claudia wrote, “I remember when someone brought the Thriller video to school and there was a ‘viewing’ before 1st period in the auditorium….was one of the few times I wanted to get to school early.” And Anissia wrote, “cannot speak right now. I will be up all night watching these new reports. Is it a dream?”And then, “woke up this morning thinking ‘What a horrible nightmare,’ only to turn on the news to see it is real.” My classmates and I are exactly the right age to get this news like a punch in the gut. We were the kids that made Michael Jackson a superstar. Whether we liked him or not (and we liked him) Michael was an integral part of our childhoods. And his passing, especially at a relatively young age, is an unsettling reminder of our own mortality. I can close my eyes and see the auditorium Claudia mentioned, but that morning was decades ago now. It is an odd feeling.
Still, my ambivalence about Michael Jackson was best captured on Facebook by two people I did not know in High School: Mark wrote, “(I am) not sad that michael jackson the pedophile is dead… whatever”. While Stacia wrote, ” (I am not) happy with this two-edged sword media coverage. Can we get a *day* before ya’ll whistleblow the sordidness? 24 hours, yo.”
Three memories:
1. Motown 25. I think the thing that makes a person famous is often something that grabs the zeitgeist and expresses it in an overt way. So a lot of times the thing that makes someone famous is also the most banal thing about them, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing: it is how teen stars are made, and also why they fade (I am talking to you, Dude With the Long Hair and Other Black Guy in the Black Eyed Peas. Invest wisely. Boom Boom Pow.)
But that was not the case with Michael Jackson. I remember watching Motown 25 with my parents and when Michael performed the air in the room changed. Even they knew we were watching something important. Of course Michael had already been famous for a long time by then. Off The Wall is a great, great album (personally my favorite, even over Thriller) and of course the Jackson 5 were a legendary Motown act before that. To this day the visceral hit of joy I experience when I hear Rock With You, Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough, or any of the Jackson 5 stuff (which was technically before my time if are keeping track) is measurable. My breath changes and my pulse picks up. It is the sound of teenage happiness. But the pure pop sugar of the Jackson 5 and the percolating post-Disco of Off The Wall were a prelude to this moment. Thriller wasn’t out yet, and this was the premiere of Michael’s new single, Billie Jean. He took the stage and…
Motown 25. Everything that happened after that performance was different because of it.
2. I saw Michael and his brothers live in 1986, during the Victory Tour. I was way too Punk Rock by that point to be interested in the Jacksons but I worked in the offices of Universal, the record distributor (See kids, music used to be pressed into giant wax disks called “records” that were played by running a needle along the grooves, ask your parents about it) and I was literally handed tickets to the show. So I went. And a few hours later cynical, punk rock me, who was way more into the Circle Jerks than the Jacksons, found myself standing on my seat, screaming “MIIIICCCHAELLL! MIIIIICCCHHHHAEEEELL!!!!!”… just like everybody else in the stadium. I have never experienced anything like the wave of force that came over the audience when he performed. It was surreal. During Can You feel It a web of lasers splayed out over our heads, and we reached up, trying to touch them, as if they were his fingers. Michael, who was a superstar by this point, performed his solo hits, which were already iconic. The thing I remember most about Michael Jackson as a live performer was the way he paused and made us wait for him. Sometimes he would simply stop, as if he were overcome with emotion and the crowd (including me) ROARED in response. Every little hiccup, every exhale and “eee-hee” was designed to whip the audience into a frenzy… and it worked. Like Marlon Brando in Streetcar Named Desire, it can’t be described without cliches, because it was so singular.
3. Fourteen years later I was living and working at a Shakespeare theater in the Berkshire Mountains. Winter in the Berkshires is no joke and the mostly empty dorms were like the Overlook Hotel, scary and lonely. Eventually, most of the actors and Tech people left for other jobs and I spent the Winter cutting pictures out of magazines that had been left behind and gluing them to the front of the rusted refrigerator in a giant collage I called, No Girls, No TV Reception, and Too Far to Walk to the Gym. But at Halloween there were still a lot of people around so one of my roommates decided to hold a party and someone put on Thriller. By 2000, Michael Jackson was a freak and a has-been and Thriller had air quotes around it. “Omigod ‘Thriller’… awesome”, a few younger company members snickered from the sofa. But there must have been a critical mass of people who were the right age because, as the song built to its instrumental break everyone in the living room suddenly broke into the Thriller dance.
Spontaneously.
At exactly the same moment.
Hand to God.
The junior hipsters, for whom “awesome” means “so bad its good” spit out their beers and jumped out of the way as a roomful of dancing zombies surged toward them, grinning like maniacs. The moment passed as quickly as it came and the evening became more debauched (Theater companies are strange places, they run on sex and grudges) but for that moment it was as if it was the 80’s, which were sweet and corny and hopeful, even in their darkness, all over again.
So, when I heard that Michael Jackson was dead, I was shocked.
Shocked because he had long been a symbol to me, rather than a person.
Partly because he represents my youth, which is passed, and partly because it became increasingly obvious that, while the music is masterful in its ability to evoke pleasure, the person who made it was disturbing to consider. So when he died yesterday I was already used to separating the music from the man, and my feelings about both. His post-Thriller music was terrible (as far as I am concerned) and his ruined face, framed by its silky weave, had become a death mask of racial self-loathing. Most importantly, Michael Jackson’s name had become synonymous with child sexual abuse. He paid out millions to the families of boys who’d accused him of molestation. And, while he was acquitted, that was not a definitive vote of confidence in Jackson’s innocence. In legal terms it meant that they could not prove he did it, NOT that he didn’t do it. However, fans who cannot reconcile the music with the man, insist on qualifying the abuse with “alleged”, a soft-pedal that angers those of us for whom sexual violence against children is a personal issue. Rape is always “alleged” and this is the uncertainty that haunts every sexual crime. In the absence of physical evidence it boils down to who you believe. Survivors know this and live with the possibility that we will not be believed, a pressure that is often brought to bear to keep us silent.
As for me, I have no doubts whatsoever that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
I’m sure my opinion is shaped by my history as an adult survivor of child sexual abuse, but the hair splitting around Michael Jackson’s appetite for young boys sickens me. Already we are being encouraged by his famous friends, associates and diehard fans to remember him only for his music, while code words like “eccentric” and “idiosyncratic” (both employed by Al Sharpton on CNN last night) are being floated to posthumously frame his behavior. I can already see how this is going to go. The discourse will split between people who dismiss the abuse as an unproven attack on the image of a great star and those who refuse to allow that to happen. Part of what makes a great star is the ability to forge a personal relationship with fans. So maybe those who feel that connection with him cannot entertain the possibility that he has acted out sexually with children. I can also anticipate the ways that these arguments will become racialized too, as with OJ before him. But before those voices get too loud I want to suggest something: People are complicated, as are our responses to them. While I am disgusted by the reframing of Michael Jackson’s inappropriate behavior with children as a personal foible, I understand the difficulty some have in reconciling these monstrous private acts with the public persona that brought so many so much joy. Including me.
But still.
I can’t let that discomfort, or even my own nostalgia and love of his music completely overshadow my conviction that we should be talking about the sexual abuse of children when we talk about Michael Jackson. If we excuse his behavior–sleeping with young boys (which he described as “a beautiful thing”, giving them alcohol, presenting himself as their peer etc.–then we are handing a defense to men who behave similarly and that is not acceptable to me.
So:
Michael Jackson was both an iconic star and a pedophile, and these identities do not contradict each other.
And, paradoxically, Michael Jackson is an important African American star who obliterated his blackness, bleaching his skin until it was notebook paper white and thinning his nose until it… literally… disappeared.
Michael Jackson was complicated. We are also complicated. And I do not trust simplistic responses to his death.
—
Latoya’s Note: Joseph sent me this piece after reading some of the responses to the open thread we posted on Friday. In order to head off some comments at the pass:
On self-hatred
Yes, we know, Michael Jackson had vitiligo. Reporter Lee Thomas also has the same affliction, and his hands are a similar color to Jackson’s skin. However, you will also notice that Thomas’ hair texture did not change in this process. One could make compelling arguments for or against Jackson having issues with blackness. But that is not the key thrust of this piece and I doubt we will ever have a definitive answer.
On posting this type of critique
We received very strong reactions to Atlasien’s piece on David Carradine, and I did not bother to address the most outlandish of those as the answer was within the first three paragraphs: Atlasien took great pains to explain she was not critiquing the man, but the body of work. And there was much to critique, as David Carradine had made his living playing in yellowface. Jackson’s career was amazing, revolutionary, and groundbreaking – there is not much to critique from our perspective, but plenty to appreciate. It was his personal life that caused all the controversy.
On the allegations
On the original thread, I noticed people took great pains to defend Jackson’s legacy against the allegations made by certain children and their parents. One of the reasons that Joe’s piece is so compelling is because of his perspective – as a survivor. Quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck what you believe happened between MJ and the children he played host to, (though here’s an op-ed that refocuses the issue) but you will respect that this topic may be triggering for many people reading, as we do not display our histories of abuse with our online handles. You need to post as if you are speaking to a childhood sexual abuse survivor, because you may very well be. – LDP
(Image Credit: Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988), Jeff Koons)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
atlasien wrote:
Thanks for this perspective as an abuse survivor.
I don’t have much to say… other than to reinforce that dividing “work” from “life” is almost impossible when we try to comprehend the kind of celebrity level that Michael Jackson had.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 10:10 am ¶
safia wrote:
As a child sexual abuse survivour I really appreciate this article. It rasies some of the concerns I have been having and the complications/contridictions I feel about his death.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 10:55 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
Great post. I am shocked, too… it’s been a few days now and I still cannot believe it. Yeah, MJ had some deeply messed up personal problems (I honestly don’t know what to believe regarding his alleged paedophilia), but regardless but his music was still huge… he was a major influence on Bollywood, Hindi pop, and Indian culture…
in fact, I think his death is the biggest celebrity death since Princess Diana died in 1997, being that they were world-wide recognized icons and everyone, EVERYONE knew who they were.
RIP
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
Glossolalia Black wrote:
The Victory Tour was 1984. I was 12, and also too punk rock to care, but still thrilled that Mom took me. It was in D.C. I saw him.
It saddens me that this man never had a childhood, and now, will never have an old age.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 11:12 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
Before this gets going I thought I’d say a few things:
I wrote this because I was disturbed at how much of the internet conversation was splitting between discussions of the more disturbing elements of Michael Jackson’s life–the abuse, the extreme de-ethnicizing surgeries–and his music, which brought joy to so many. It was shaping up as if the only way to be a true fan was to ignore these things. And I disagree. I disagree because I was/am a true fan of his music. And I disagree because I think allowing Michael Jackson’s inappropriate behavior with children to live in a kind of bubble of excuse creates a dangerous precedent. Most children are not molested by frightening strangers (although that does happen) most are sexually violated by someone they know, love and trust. I am very aware of –however innocently–creating a “Michael Jackson Escape Clause” for men or women who exploit the trust of children.
But I didn’t reference my own history as a survivor to stifle criticism of my essay–If you disagree with me, please feel free to say so. I put it in for three reasons:
1) It is fair for people to who disagree with my take to know where I am coming from.
2) I feel a responsibility to other survivors and to children to speak up.
3) I am not ashamed to be a survivor.
I hope that makes things clear.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 11:35 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
Joe,
Great post. I wasnt a fan of Jackson past ten years old. Like yourself, I was a punker so more interested in black/purple hair and Social Distortion than pop music.
The whole sexual abuse thing gives me major pause myself, whilst not a victim I knew family members who were and his behavior echoed what I had seen in my own life. You cannot fool someone who has been there.
At the same time I still view it as a loss for our generation and a loss of an icon. It has gotten me to think alot about my own youth and childhood.
It also got me thinking about people who get a “pass” for their behavior because of their talents and success elsewhere. Roman Polanski is another example. It is a great failing of our system of justice that is supposed to be equal, but where fame and money makes some MUCH more equal than others.
Personally, I felt it much more when Pavarotti died. Not only had I seen him sing before, unlike Jackson, I knew Pavarotti had a flawed life but none of it involved the abuse of children.
No one for sure will ever know the truth, but for those of us who believe in God AND have family members who have suffered at the hands of those who would use children to satisfy themselves, I know real justice is being done as we speak, one way or the other.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 11:40 am ¶
B wrote:
Good article and follow-up comment at #5, Joseph. It seems to me that no matter what you believe about the abuse allegations (and for full transparency, I believe the victims), you should at least reject the argument that “MJ’s music brought joy to me and the world; therefore, he could not have done what he was accused of.” I’ve heard many people say this over the years, and I’ve seen it repeated dozens of times online these past few days.
There is no connection between the two. None at all. Troubled people who pave a path of hurt and destruction though life are completely capable of being creative geniuses whose art touches us.
Maybe it’s a defense mechanism and some people are afraid of admitting they like the music because they think it also says, “And therefore, I condone his actions.”
It’s okay to feel empathy for someone who grew up being abused by his father and consumed by the music industry and fans, while at the same time hating what he did to others, and yet still enjoying his art.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Great piece. As another survivor (man, this topic has made me realize again how many of us there are) I agree with what’s been posted, especially by Joseph. One of the saddest things about this story have been the endless rationalizations and excuses put forward by people I respect concerning his behavior and their willingness to normalize pathological behavior in an attempt to maintain their fantasy at the price of some child’s reality.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 12:17 pm ¶
deathblossom wrote:
When his second set of allegations appeared, which was when I was old enough to form an opinion on them, I was sickened at what he had done and that despite what he had done, that justice would never be served for what he had done because of who he was and I was, to a lesser extent, sad that someone so revered was secretly an abuser. But as I got older and the R. Kelly trial rolled around recently, I felt less this way and felt more that by condemning Michael, that I was also condemning myself in a lot of ways. Not because we had done anything remotely similar, but because a lot of the condemnations I was trying to put on him were turning into condemnations of myself because I identified with him as a abuse victim who has probably never told anyone the true extent of it or that it even happened at all and is now struggling through adulthood trying to negotiate a healthy expression of sexuality – both for myself to express and people to express towards me. It’s like, you’re not hurting anyone, but is anything you are or are not doing any healthier for you yourself?
Because of that, my feelings for him are very different from those of R. Kelly. Him, I can write off, never listen to again (of course, I never liked him that much and he was more of an “I’m riding in the car with the fam, I have little choice” artist), and do so without ever regretting. But I couldn’t do it for Michael. I left his songs on my iPod.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 1:12 pm ¶
Olivia wrote:
Everyone born mid ’60s and later has never known life without Michael somewhere in it. So it’s understandable not being able to comtemplate a would and life where Michael will no longer be.
It hit me so hard at first, and then I thought I was fine(I tried to convince myself) but now it just seems to be relentlessly slapping me about or something. I just can’t believe it still. To not cry I have to not think about it any longer…
Man, it’s hard =(
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 1:33 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
I’m sticking my toe into frigid waters here, and will probably regret it.
I am not speaking as a survivor, but as a therapist who has worked with a number of them, and who has also worked with a number of perpetrators. Despite assertions to the contrary, this topic is so fraught for so many, it is difficult to offer any alternative viewpoint, as it is often framed as “not believing the victims”, or “excusing and rationalizing the actions of perpetrators”. We have not yet evolved in our grappling with this issue to the point where we can really tackle the complex constellation that comprises human sexuality, particularly a sexuality that is expressed outside the accepted norms of our society. I’ve been in many situations in which this has been attempted by professionals who have never in any way tried to diminish, disrespect or minimize the experiences of survivors, but who were summarily shut down for even suggesting that there may be some nuance to this discussion. I try to be always aware of how discussions like this may be triggering for some. But, even though both Latoya and particularly Joseph have been generous in opening the floor for discussion with some caveats, I am not sure that the atmosphere is truly safe for persons with a different perspective.
I will say this: the term pedophile is often used arbitrarily, and inaccurately. There is a distinction between child molestion, which is a behavior, and pedophilia, a paraphilia that may never involve actual offenses against children. I respect any else’s views to the contrary, but I personally don’t feel that we as media consumers have the evidence or diagnostic criteria to make such an assessment. Of course, I say this with the recognition that even suggesting this will probably open me up to much criticism, but I think one of the best ways to truly help survivors, especially survivors on the path to becoming perpetrators, is to recognize that we still have much to learn and that uncritical aceptance of one version of events does little to help victims and can create a stifling climate that has a larger scope than what Michael Jackson did or didn’t do. Some of you may be too young to remember McMartin, Fells Acres, Little Rascals, etc., but I am not. I’m not comparing the specifics of the allegations against Michael Jackson with these cases, but suggesting that for may years, to criticize or raise questions about these cases was to be vilified, and much of the same language has been used against those who express any view other than that Michael Jackson was a predatory pedophile.
I’m also not ignoring Joseph’s discussion of, in the minds of some, the conflation of Jackson’s music with his character, and the suggestion that being an artistic genius somehow negates being a sexual abuser. I agree with B: there is no connection between the two. The defense of Jackson based solely upon his iconic status and musical output is belittling and offensive to not just his alleged victims, but anyone victimized by a person of status and fame. It is possible to separate the two, and I think that is necessary if we are ever to gain a fuller picture of where we are coming from on this issue. If you take away fandom or admiration, where do you then fall in this discussion? I say this to say that I am not operating from the position of an uncritical MJ fan. I think this is too important a topic and too complicated a discussion for that.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 1:56 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
joseph,
thanks for this article. i think it lends itself well to a question with which we, as consumers of art, are often faced: “does the personal life of an artist affect our interpretation and appreciation for the art? should the personal life of the artist even matter?” i could easily replace “artist” with the word “politician” or “important figure” here as well. part of me thinkss it does.
for example, when we find out that our favorite singers, writers, painters, dancers, etc are racist, it hurts. we may have spent money and time in participating in the construction of said artist’ very popularity (and thus material gain) only to be rejected on account of race/ethnicity. will we stop buying? maybe, maybe not, but we will never forget what has been said/done. it cheapens the experience somewhat knowing that someone for whom we formerly had respect may have said/done something quite inflammatory and personally offensive.
i think the same goes for mj and any other celebrities accused of crimes. it’s important for us to not lose perspective. these entertainers, despite their god-like status, are still people. they fuck up royally and we should hold them as accountable for their actions as any other human being.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 2:15 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
We drove 200 mi to see that concert. I was 8!
*****
Thank you for your perspective as a survivor.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 2:42 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
This is the best, most nuanced analysis of Michael Jackson I’ve read since his passing. Thank you Joseph.
I tend to see defensive readings of Michael as a kneejerk reaction to the exploitative tabloid reports that feed on him as a ‘freak’ figure. After all, Letterman et al. certainly didn’t mock Jackson because they were particularly concerned about sexual abuse, but because he was a weird, easy target. And he made a good target because he crossed boundaries.
He often transgressed gender rules. The reason I was so attached to him as a little girl confused about my gender was that without being able to put it into words I saw something queer in his gender too. I loved how his soft voice offset his heteronormative lyrics.
MJ’s slender form and higher pitched voice marked him as much as his ‘racial transition’ or whatever we might call it. And while I understand why black Americans would be leery of his adoption of a lighter skin color, I do think that white people were anxious because he crossed a racial boundary and perhaps reminded us that whiteness is a construct, even physically.
The sad thing is that in this media environment Michael is either assumed innocent or mocked as a freakish pariah. As the butt of so many hundreds of jokes he was never held accountable, nor were his actions placed in a context of confronting sexual abuse.
He meant so much to me as a child for the reasons mentioned above, yet it hurt to learn that he was capable of abusing others. You Joseph, have articulated for me that contradictory feeling I have looking back on Michael, and again, thank you so much for that.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 2:57 pm ¶
Elton wrote:
As unpopular as it is to say it, I agree with Winn that pedophilia, a socially unaccepted (unacceptable?) sexual orientation with a myriad of possible distinctions and connotations depending on the social and historical context and definition of the label “child,” is not the same thing as child rape. Conversely, not all people who rape children are actually pedophiles.
In a fascinating article from TIME magazine, “Michael Jackson: The Death of Peter Pan,” Richard Corliss suggests that if Jackson had sexual contact with children, from his perspective and intent it was as a peer. That does not make it ok, but it does present a possible context and motive based on evidence instead of fabricating one based on media-inflated prejudice about what a stereotypical pedophile wants and does.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1907344,00.html
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶
c.n. edaw wrote:
Great post. I am among the conflicted.
It was easier to take the high road with R.Kelly, because 1)I didn’t like his music all that much. 2) Worked in urban radio where the buzz about his proclivities toward young girls was rampant 3) His marriage to Aaliyah served as proof postive for me that he was up to no good.
I was disturbed by the Bashir expose’ of MJ not only because Micheal’s answers were very incriminating, but also because I thought Bashir was a sleaze looking to frame him in a poor light. And its not hard to make a weird guy look weirder. So I remained conflicted.
I know there is no such thing as a “perfect victim” but I had a hard time believing the allegations against Micheal Jackson because nearly all of the alleged victims we know about
were connected to con artist families.
That’s what got him acquitted, along with lack of evidence, and no shrink being able to say he fit the profile. So, I remained conflicted.
I mean how hard is it to extort money from an andrognyous, weird, single guy who likes to spend time with kids by accusing him of being a child molester–especially in the late 80’s and 90’s when there was increased paranoia about child predators.
I remember it happened about 1/2 a dozen times in my middle school. We had a gay male choir director who seemed a little off. It was proven he never did jack to anyone and I even knew kids who admitted to making up stories about him, but this guys teaching career was ruined because at that time you investigated ANYTHING, EVERYTHING, and the kids were always assumed to be telling the truth.
Yes, it is good that increased light was shone on this crime and that more has been done to encourage victims to come forward, but there’s also evidence of a lot of people’s careers and lives being wrecked during that period of time by false allegations. I remember a well publicized day care case and of course the many times those allegations were played out in divorce proceedings during that time period, only to be unfounded.
That, and the “repressed childhood memories” was also the hallmark of the time period with regard to child sexual abuse, which sadly probably made coming out as a victim that much harder in the years to follow once many of those stories and methods of obtaining them were discredited in a lot of circles. And in my opinion MJ was an easy mark during the height of that phase.
On the other hand, I personally know what it is like to be abused by someone who is seen as a celebrity. And celebrity tends to buy credibility even when everyone knows you are scum. MJ was beyond a celebrity to a lot of people who very well may have looked the other way. Just as a lot of those con artist parents may have pimped out their kids to him in exchange for money and being a part of that culture of celebrity.
I also think MJ was probably abused, if not at the hands of his father, someone else he came into contact considering he was performing in and hanging out in adult venues as a child. So he could have repeated that cycle and very well be guilty as sin. So, again I am conflicted.
If I was sure, I’d probably not even care that he’s dead. Now that he is I feel sad that if he truly wasnt guilty his legacy is tarnished and people who want to remember him fondly are made to feel bad about doing so.
And if he was guilty; I feel awful for those kids he hurt who have to watch people extol his virtues in a 24 hour news cycle.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
I’ve been in many situations in which this has been attempted by professionals who have never in any way tried to diminish, disrespect or minimize the experiences of survivors, but who were summarily shut down for even suggesting that there may be some nuance to this discussion.
*deep breath*
Perhaps because the “nuance” often (but not always) amounts to the suggestion that it wasn’t the adult that was the cause of pain but instead a society that refuses to accept a child’s right to his/her sexual expression and wrongly limits their ability to consent. In those cases it’s not an attempt to “diminish, disrespect or minimize” the experience but to re-frame the abuse as something that is unfairly marginalized or simply misunderstood. I’m not suggesting this is what you meant, but please understand that the prevalence of this type of apologist makes listening to nuanced conversations very difficult for many survivors of abuse.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:29 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Winn
I’m glad you’ve commented and I am not mad or threatened by what you have said. You are right, we are speaking from different perspectives: you as a therapist and me as a survivor.
It is appropriate to your role to cultivate neutrality… that is what allows you to do your job. I have benefited too much from that process to judge you for speaking from your expertise. Yes, diagnostically there are shades of distinction that are often collapsed in popular discourse–and it is important to keep those in mind. But while it is necessary for you to question any “uncritical acceptance of one version of events”, my survival has depended on just the opposite. This is appropriate for me because I am not a therapist who works with abusers, but a man who survived being targeted by one as a boy.
But I think it is possible to have this conversation without getting caught in a discussion about diagnostic semantics: Michael Jackson famously cultivated an “ageless” persona well into his adulthood and encouraged children to consider him a peer. And by his own admission he thought sleeping with boys in his bed was “a beautiful thing”. By themselves, this behavior (about which there is no dispute) tells the story for this survivor.
So, while you are speaking from your expertise, which I respect, I am speaking from my experience.
@ktrujillo
Yup. There are a lot of us. Even though I know better it always surprises me too. We are the only “group” I have ever encountered where race, class, religion, gender and sexual orientation are all secondary (although all of those things come into play once you get into stuff like access to therapy, permission to tell your story, etc.) We are everywhere, in every walk of life. Thanks for speaking up.
@deathblossom
“I identified with him as a abuse victim who has probably never told anyone the true extent of it or that it even happened at all and is now struggling through adulthood trying to negotiate a healthy expression of sexuality – both for myself to express and people to express towards me. It’s like, you’re not hurting anyone, but is anything you are or are not doing any healthier for you yourself?”
I am not sure what you mean here. But even though it isn’t clear your pain is coming through. My strong advice is to speak with a therapist. For me, community with other survivors has also been very important. Perhaps if you talked with someone who’d lived through something similar you would not need to identify with Michael Jackson to feel less alone. Because you aren’t.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Elton
Your comment disturbs me. The point of view of the perpetrator is not the one that defines the experience, especially when the other person(s) in the equation is/are child(ren). Michael Jackson may have thought he was a peer to the young boys he acted out with sexually, but he wasn’t. He was a billionaire in his 40’s. While the cultivation of a soft, pre-pubescent voice and the use of cosmetic surgery to obscure his true age may have been symptoms of a complex rejection of his own adulthood in favor of an idealized “childhood”… that is not in any way an excuse to act out sexually with children.
Sexual congress between adults and children is not a “Sexual orientation”… it is a pathology. And what you have described re: Michael Jackson is a classic delusion of an abuser.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Elton,
Sorry, but I do feel there is a minimization going on when we seek to explain the actions of someone who abused children.
The children who have been abused dont really care WHY someone abused them. It doesnt mean anything to them and the damage it has done to their lives and the people around them.
When Time says “If Jackson committed these acts, it was not predator-to-prey but peer-to-peer” they are minimising the actions of many molesters who were abused as children.
I dont think this type of minimalising and rationalising would be done for anyone else out there who used children to fulfill their sexual needs and I feel when you and publications talk like this you are, intentionally or not, giving a pass for someone because of their fame or their wealth.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:57 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@Joeseph,
Co-sign! This rationalisation leads down a slippery slope because I think many, if not a majority of molesters, were molested themselves.
It doesnt make it okay and it doesnt explain it.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 3:59 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
@ktrujillo,
Thank you for your comment. Believe me, I understand your perspective about attempts to “re-frame the abuse as something that is unfairly marginalized or simply misunderstood.” I have seen this occur and have been both disturbed by it and spoken out and written against it within the therapeutic community. However, I think there are more than just two sides to this issue; it is not just a dichotomy between complete conviction in the veracity of any and all allegations on the one hand and knee-jerk apologia for the sexual victimization of children on the other. Those who dared to question the veracity of allegations during the day-care abuse scandals of the 1980’s were called apologists for pedophiles and were vilified for not being willing to automatically and uncritically “Believe the Children”, which was used like a cudgel to silence questioning about both the allegations and those lodging them. As c.n. edaw pointed out, the repressed memory movement was in full swing at this time, and contributed to the poisoning of the atmosphere, did long-lasting and perhaps irreparable harm to the therapeutic community in terms of professional trust and evidence-based clinical skills, inhibited research, and ultimately, did a tremendous disservice to victims, both real and alleged. We as a culture went for far too long not discussing abuse, keeping it secret, and imbuing victims with a sense of shame and guilt about what they had experienced. With the best of intentions, the pendulum, I believe, swung too far the other way, so that any criticism or questioning now makes one the devil incarnate. I am and will continue to question this assumption. Perhaps, as Joseph pointed out, it is not necessary for survivors to do so, as they are coming from a very different perspective and have a different task ahead of them. But as a human being who cares about both those who suffer and those who perpetuate suffering into subsequent generations, and as a professional who has a duty to delve into all the levels of meaning possible in such a situation, it is my responsibility to question this assumption, and to learn as much as I can instead of deciding I already know. Suspension of belief can sometimes be as, if not more, critical than suspension of disbelief.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 5:01 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
I’ve read a lot of accounts of child sexual abuse from a foster care perspective. I don’t think I personally could ever knowingly take in a child who has sexually perpetrated (that’s the terminology in common use). But I have enormous respect for the parents that will. With therapeutic parenting these children have a hope of living a normal life and not becoming full-fledged sexual predators.
And in all these accounts, I haven’t noticed much concern about why the sexual perpetration started. There’s not much point because it’s pretty obvious, and the stories are so similar. Adults (or older children) used children for sex. The victims learned a pattern, then some go on to apply it to other children.
Being judgmental to the point where we believe it’s a kind of unstoppable primal evil (e.g. satanic ritual abuse panics) isn’t helpful. But I also don’t think it’s helpful to say “oh it’s really complex” because it’s actually incredibly simple. The complicated part is understanding how to heal from it, breaking the cycle and stopping it from happening again.
Another issue in this kind of therapeutic foster parenting is dealing with false allegations. Often children will remember details of sexual abuse but won’t remember exactly who did it to them, so they’ll name whoever’s closest, or they’ll make false allegations to get moved somewhere else they think they’ll be happier. But just because a child makes false allegations doesn’t mean they weren’t a “real” victim, or that they shouldn’t ever be believed about anything.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 5:14 pm ¶
BHJ wrote:
This blog disappointed me especially– on a site like Racialicious. I sort of thought the point of the site was to not judge people based on limited information. You out right called him a pedophile when really no matter what inclinations or hunches you may have you weren’t there and you don’t know. Isn’t this exactly the same logic that goes on in racist/homophobic/sexist/religious extremist minds? “I know one so it must be true for all.” You have the right to your opinion and as you said you don’t care about anyone else’s but isn’t this particular website a forum where you should try to? Calling him a “freak” etc makes it that much easier to demonize him and again that’s the same logic that the groups I named above would use.
Second I’m sure you know that as an abused child you have a much higher risk of becoming an offender. I was severely physically abused by my own mother until I was 17 and I know that I struggle all the time with my anger and depression and I am committed to seeking therapy before I bring my own child into this world. Perhaps you and others have sought help yourself. My point is that it would be wrong for anyone to outright condemn any one of us to a life as abusers because of our former victimization. Nor is it fair for us to call someone an abuser when we are familiar with what it is to constantly struggle with the fact that no one may believe us. I think the parents of these poor kids played on that. Myself yet that doesn’t matter either, we have to strive to be open minded either way and not judge things we no nothing about.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 8:05 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Thank you Winn for your thoughtful response.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 8:52 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ktrujillo
#17 Cosign. Well put.
@Winn
#22 I am grateful for the clarification you provided in your response to ktrujillo. I absolutely agree that neither hysteria nor denial are productive responses to the sexual abuse of children. That is why I chose to be open about my own abuse in this essay.
@BHG
Using your logic I am a potential offender because I talk candidly and rationally about being a survivor but Michael Jackson, whose behavior with and toward children is most charitably described as bizarre, is probably innocent? There are so many different levels of wrong in that assumption that it should have its own parking garage.
Listen, you had terrible things happen to you as a kid, right? Made you feel worthless? Less than human? Me too. So did a lot of people. So I am a little tired of hearing MJ fans mythologize his terrible childhood. Michael Jackson had a hell of a lot more resources at his disposal to heal himself than I did. But he didn’t. Did he?
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 10:42 pm ¶
April wrote:
@Joseph:
“Michael Jackson had a hell of a lot more resources at his disposal to heal himself than I did. But he didn’t. Did he?”
Whoa. As if money or fame could buy healing. I appreciate your post, but that comment really turned me off.
@Latoya:
Sorry, but that note about “self-hatred” baffles me. Didn’t almost every black performer wear a Jheri curl in the ’80s? Does anyone question Prince’s blackness, or Al Sharpton’s, or James Brown’s? Their hair is/was far from nappy.
Posted 29 Jun 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶
m. wrote:
jvannsteppes (#14) basically said everything I wanted to say re: Michael and exploitation, the media/tabloids, et cetera.
And I’ve noticed more often than not, right next to cisgender or straight peoples’ comments re: his “effeminate” mannerisms, it’s white people or people that aren’t Black either laughing the loudest at him for his “racial transformation” or talking the most about his self-loathing behavior without any thoughtful analysis attached. And it makes me angry, because although I believe it is important to view entertainers–hell, Icons–through as critical a lens as anybody else, I am sick to death of the fact that so many white people and quite a few non-Black folks (even if they mention the fact that his skin lightening was a result of the disease he had) always fail to acknowledge that his multiple surgeries were a result of racism – something perpetuated *by them*. No one knows his internalized struggles as well as he did. So obnoxious comedians’ jokes, journalists’ comments/criticisms and tabloid headlines re: his “becoming white” have always been pretty hard for me to take seriously…especially when coming from the mouths of those who’ve *only* known being white. Yeah, we get it: he altered his physical appearance DRASTICALLY. Like I said; many will mention vitiligo, but it is also important to talk about how racism and certain disorders informed his decisions.
I am angry that his time came so soon. I am angry that his reputation is so tarnished. I am angry that from day one, he was an easy target: easy for his father to go after when he was a child, then later on the media when he entered adulthood and began his solo career. I am angry that he made some very serious mistakes that can never be taken back. Mostly, though, I am heartbroken. My heart aches over the fact that his heart did, too…throughout most of his life. He was gifted, unequaled, overworked, lonely…and very, very flawed. I just hope the coming journey brings a lot more happiness to him than this world did. Rest in peace, Michael. You are greatly missed.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 4:32 am ¶
Adrianna wrote:
I ‘m speechless. And I don’t know what to say.
Thank you for opening up and talking about something so personal Joseph.
When I found out he died I did not feel anything yes I grew up on listening thriller and all his other music ,but once the he stated being accused of child molestation . All i could think was that this tragic person died . Peace. I stopped caring about him and his music a long time ago
I find it really hard to separate artist from work . I can’t I just can’t it’s too hard because they made it it’s theirs and i]I can’t claimed it as my own. Maybe that is why don’t worship artist anymore like I used to when I was younger ,because Having to deal with bullshit as a women of color i can’t excuse the person. It raises too much too doubt, confusion.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 6:05 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@April –
The self-hatred argument with Michael runs a bit deep. Yes, everyone had a jheri curl in the 80s. But as others have pointed out, his hair has been straightened for 20 years and his cosmetic surgery vast.
It is my personal opinion that MJ did suffer from self-hatred – just not the racial variety. He didn’t flee from other black entertainers or the black community (though he did withdraw from most of society). It was truly hatred of the self, and all his former self represented. (I also think Janet and LaToya shared this same tendency, on a different scale). So he set about destroying his former self, correcting this and changing that until he was unrecognizable.
That’s my take on it anyway – I’ve gotten a dozen tips over the last few days that argue it all kinds of ways. And the only person who truly knows the answer is no longer with us. So, it is an unknowable quantity, and it’s probably more complicated than any of us think.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 8:14 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@BHJ (and any others who are wondering):
The mod note was as brief as possible because I didn’t want it to compete with Joe’s piece, but I’ll reiterate here: I don’t care what anyone’s personal opinions on MJ are. It’s not something that is knowable. If the accusing child rescinded all his past statements about MJ tomorrow, there would be some who wouldn’t believe that; if MJ were to come back from the dead and say he did it, there are some who wouldn’t believe him. It doesn’t really matter; we are all speculating.
As I said before, I don’t care what you think about the situation.
What I do care about is speaking with respect for those who have been abused. Some of the comments on the last thread were really flip, and while I was never abused as a child, it is clear there were those on the thread that were. That’s why my admonishment at the end was to write as if you are speaking to a childhood sexual abuse survivor. You can defend any position you like. Joe owned up to his thoughts in his mind, based on his experiences. They are not universal. But whatever you choose to say, make sure you have considered its impact on others. Some of the comments I deleted made me sick.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 8:27 am ¶
Mary wrote:
This isn’t conclusive evidence either way, but it’s worth noting that molesters often seek out children who are already vulnerable in some way. That can include kids who are ill, poor, or from broken or dysfunctional homes. Not only are these kids more susceptible to emotional manipulation, if their families are in some way perceived as untrustworthy, any allegations are less likely to stick.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 8:31 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:
@April,
Let me tell you, if you dont have personal experience, that therapy takes a whole lot of resources. Many people dont have the time or the vast amounts of money involved.
Michael Jackson had both the time and the money, that is what Joseph was saying. It is also not clear that he used his hundreds of millions of dollars to this end.
We all know he sure spent hundreds of millions indulging in his childish fantasies. It is possible he spent hundreds of thousands in therapy…………let’s hope.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
Joy wrote:
“I don’t give a [] what you believe happened between MJ and the children he played host to”
I thought this was the point of the post? For people express how they feel about Michael’s death based on their belief of whether or not the allegations are true.
I don’t think BHG was disrespectful – what I read in BHG’s post was not that Michael was probably innocent and that this post is wrong for suggesting otherwise, but that it’s disappointing for people to appear to jump to conclusions and to use characteristics such as “freak.”
Hesitating to condem is not the same as condoning the alleged act or minimizing actual or alleged vicitms. I don’t think anyone on this thread wanted to do that.
(As far as Michael’s issues with his blackness . . . that needs to R.I.P.)
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 10:44 am ¶
Thea wrote:
Thanks Joseph, this was great. I also appreciate the conversation a lot.
Don’t have much to add – I saw MJ when I was 11 in Singapore (so you know those were expensive tickets) and strongly recall my parents (who had only come along to make sure I didn’t get into trouble, who were in their late 40’s at the time, and who were a college teacher and an accountant) standing on the chairs and screaming MICHEAAAAALLLLLL! Incidentally that was about two days before the first child abuse allegations broke.
I have been fairly fascinated by the sadness that around his death, because a week ago he was still considered a highly creepy and undesirable character. The parallel between the coverage of his death and some of the issues with atlasien’s Carradine post makes sense to me; as if his death, and that rule that we should not speak ill of the dead, wipe away anything that he did that gave people pause – or our right to try and untangle it all.
I too have felt incredibly sad. When the news of his death broke, I was in the middle of teaching an ESL class to laid off immigrants when one of my students interrupted to tell everyone that he had died. This class did not know who Elvis was, but they all sure as hell knew MJ. And I also got a flurry of text messages, and my mother called me from Spain.
But my sadness is not so much about the loss of his genius, but the loss that happened before his death, and that’s been cemented by it – that’s there no going back, he is the person that he was, and there’s no other chances to change that. But what I mean by saying that I feel a sadness about the loss that happened before, is that maybe there already was no going back.
Even if he’d released another 3 groundbreaking albums and changed music again, that wouldn’t change the abuse allegations.
Anyways, thanks for giving us a space to try and figure some of this out.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 11:02 am ¶
1234 wrote:
But for someone who is innocent (and this is my opinion) to be accused as an abuser, there also comes a certain stigma that is certainly very harmful psychologically as well, especially for someone like MJ. I think this is one of the things that MJ suffered from most. At least for me, I don’t think he could ever taint someone’s childhood, not because he was a “star” or because of his music, but simply because I believe that MJ truly believed in having a pure and untainted childhood. And this is not an argument over whether or not he was innocent, which is not what you are going for either, it’s just a statement saying that MJ was stigmatized by this too, and it had a large hand in the public’s “monstering” of him, which could further lead to self-loathing.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 11:54 am ¶
Mia wrote:
Hi Mia and when i heard about Michael Jackson tragic death i was sad too. so when i had saw that you wrote about him i read it immediately and i was really good you couldn’t have done better theirs no changes that need to be made. your story on him was great and i can’t wait to see what other stories you have wrote your an amazing writer, and your stories are worth reading.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 11:57 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@April
You are right, I spoke sharply because I was irritated and I didn’t expand on my thought. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify:
“As if money or fame could buy healing. I appreciate your post, but that comment really turned me off.”
As I said to ktrujillo above (#18) anyone of any background is vulnerable to sexual exploitation as a child… but the things that separate us, race, class, culture etc., all come into play after because they circumscribe access to services and permission to tell your story, which is the only way to heal. Yes, Michael Jackson had a terrible childhood that left him feeling worthless–just like a lot of people, all over the world–including me. But while compassion for the child you were is necessary for healing so is holding the adult you become accountable for his/her own choices.
My point is a) Michael Jackson’s bad childhood was not special… many, many people suffer as he suffered and do not make the choices he made as an adult and b) he had resources that most survivors can only dream of to aid his healing as an adult and he did not use them. That is a choice–and it is perfectly acceptable to hold him accountable for that.
@LDP
“He didn’t flee from other black entertainers or the black community (though he did withdraw from most of society). It was truly hatred of the self, and all his former self represented. (I also think Janet and LaToya shared this same tendency, on a different scale). So he set about destroying his former self, correcting this and changing that until he was unrecognizable.”
I get your point here but I wonder about partitioning his “former self” away from his racial identity as you have here. Your “self” and your racial phenotype are not so easily separated. (Yes, race is a social construct, that isn’t what I am talking about–I am talking about the biological realities of the thing we call “race”). As a fan of the music I understand the mourning… but I am extremely confused by the rush to crown MJ a fallen icon of the black community–given that he methodically and purposefully destroyed every visible marker of his blackness (Not to mention: he married two white women–in fact was never linked to a WoC even casually a la Brooke Shields–and went out of his way to end up with fair skinned, blond haired , blue eyed children) I have seen AfAm celebrities raked over the coals for even one of these things but Michael Jackson–who did all of them in the most extreme way possible–gets a shrug and a pass? I have to admit that I do not understand that…
Anyway my point is that the racial deformation he undertook can’t be considered separately from the self-hatred that is part and parcel of a person with a background of abuse. Michael Jackson may not have hated being black, but he certainly hated LOOKING black… and that should be noted too.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
Joseph thanks for sharing your ambivalent feelings towards MJ based on your own personal experiences. I agree with you 100% that MJ’s actions towards children not his own should not have been condoned while he was alive and should not be condoned even after his death. I myself don’t know where I stand regarding whether he was really guilty of molestation or not. But I did think that alot of what he mentioned in the Bashir interview regarding his interactions with children (and alot of his attempts to live like Peter Pan at his ranch) were inappropriate to say the least. Even if his interactions with children really didn’t result in him molesting them as he claimed, it was still not right for no one within his entourage (and family members) to advise him not to behave like that with children not his own (he shouldn’t even behave like a kid with his own children which I’m assuming he did also). That’s because as a public figure he’s giving the impression that it’s ok to engage in childish behavior around real kids when you’re an adult; it gives sexual predators of children an excuse to engage in this behavior in their minds. I really think the guy’s story is one that shows he really needed intensive therapy to get over alot of his issues instead of making more albums (and later indulging in buying useless junk to fill up his ranch with). At the very least he should have been told there are boundaries to be observed when adults interact with children (whether they are one’s own or other kids).
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 2:22 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Okay. I said this on the other thread. But in light of the tone of some of the comments, it may be worth repeating here:
I bring this up because I keep hearing this “He was so damaged as a child that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong, he needed healing too” bullshit meme running through these threads. In adult-child social interactions, it is the responsibility – I would argue damn near the sacred duty – of the adult in question to insure the safety of the child. Whether or not Michael Jackson viewed himself as a child or not is past irrelevant to me. The fact remains that he was not one. He was a spectacularly rich adult with agency and NO sense of appropriate boundaries with kids. And I believe that he repeatedly used that agency to gain and subsequently betray the trust of the children he “loved.” This undertaking was neither violent nor malicious, but the absence of malice does NOT indicate the absence of harm.
Many pedophiles imagine their interactions with children as consensual, healthy and loving. But they are not. They are none of those things. And when the question becomes one of protecting a child with no personal agency versus healing a damaged and damaging adult with full personal agency, the child comes first. Always. You shouldn’t have to be a survivor to be able to wrap your mind around that.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 5:01 pm ¶
ktrujillo wrote:
Many pedophiles imagine their interactions with children as consensual, healthy and loving. But they are not. They are none of those things. And when the question becomes one of protecting a child with no personal agency versus healing a damaged and damaging adult with full personal agency, the child comes first. Always. You shouldn’t have to be a survivor to be able to wrap your mind around that.
This.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 10:48 pm ¶
m. wrote:
I think what Latoya and April have pointed out make sense. I was even hesitant to refer to his “self-loathing” actions as informed by racism in my original post, because I’m still not too keen on that theory. He had so many other demons he was battling, things the public can only speculate over. Anorexia, body dysmorphia, PTSD…everyone’s got a reason, but we don’t know his.
Posted 30 Jun 2009 at 11:08 pm ¶
Kenny wrote:
Good grief all this talk of pedophelia! Let the man rest in peace.Anyone who actually followed that trial could see it was nonsense.Newsflash : he was acquitted. Because so many presumed guilt, they were shocked .I know Black women who straighten their hair(as most do) and then criticise him for his being straghtened! Another newsflash: White folks get plastic surgery more than Blacks.They also often have noses they don’t like. The media started de-humanizing Jackson while his skin was still brown after he swept the grammys and AMA’s. The attempted sabotage of the victory tour that same year was shocking. The tabloids calling him Jacko and self proclamed .The so-called legitimate press followed suit teachng our kids that name caling is OK.MJ was the greatest and some people were not happy about his massive success worldwide. He will be sorely missed whether you it or not.
Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 11:18 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
@m
“I was even hesitant to refer to his “self-loathing” actions as informed by racism in my original post, because I’m still not too keen on that theory.”
Again, I find this fascinating. Michael Jackson did not just have a jheri curl as April said (why does everyone fixate on the jheri curl?)… he purposefully and methodically destroyed every single marker of his own blackness. Yes, of course it is impossible to know for certain what was happening in Michael Jackson’s head… but we can certainly analyze the face he put forth in the world. I thought Carmen put this beautifully in her post when she wrote,
“Whatever drove this apparent self-loathing, I don’t believe we can separate race from the equation. Race cannot be separated with precision from body dysmorphic disorder, hatred of his tyrannical father, or any potentially relevant theory being discussed right now.
Why?
Because if he hated his body, he was hating a black man’s body. If he hated his father, he was hating a black man. Race ran through it all; we cannot and should not dismiss its effect”
The only reason I am returning to this here is that the denial around discussions of Michael Jackson’s face is so often part and parcel of that which also excuses his behavior with children. And as I have said, I believe that is extremely dangerous.
@ktrujillo
Yes. That. (Thank you Fiqah.)
Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶
Brothel Poet wrote:
I have been arguing on line for a few days about Michael Jackson and what he means. I believe he most likely was a pedohphile and abused children. I still mourn his death. I mourn his life.
I read LaToya’s book and in it she claimed Joseph molested Michael and his sisters. I believe her, I believe her, I believe her. Michael should have gotten help and he should not have touched those children. He passed on the torch of his own pain and I think he should not have.
However, Michael was abused himself. And if anything his death teaches us is that the exploitation of children only perpetuates more exploitation. People who put their children in show business should be assigned a social worker. And, as my husband points out, we should examine Michaels life in terms of what it says about us as culture. We ALL leave children at the mercy of exploitive adults, and an equally exploitive media. We got pleasure out of Michael and none of us in our society seemed to question what our pleasure meant for him until his face was gone and he was diddling other kids.
Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 4:03 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
I feel that what people miss here is that more than we care to acknowledge, just as violence begets more violence, abuse is the same. It doesn’t just come from thin air. Many abusers have experienced or witnessed abuse themselves. Granted, this is certainly no pass, but in my opinion, when I am able to step back from my own experience and view it objectively, there is some sympathy for some abusers in that there is a possibility that they have gone through much of the same. It’s a twisted cycle.
That said, when I looked at Michael in the context of the molestation trials, I couldn’t help but to wonder where the cycle began for him, and where it would end. And even in his death, his is far from over.
Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 11:45 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Hm. I think I’m done being nice now.
Kenny. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA when someone brings up Michael Jackson’s pedophilia isn’t gonna make it any less of a reality. Michael Jackson was acquitted. We all know that. Hey, you know who else was acquitted of child pornography and statutory rape charges? R. Kelly. Yeah. Right. “Acquitted” is not the same as innocent.
I strongly question this continuing apologist approach that frames these children as scheming liars, while infantilizing the ADULT who has hurt them. Michael Jackson hurt little boys…buuuuut Michael Jackson is the one who needed the world to comfort him? It’s Michael Jackson who needed our empathy? It’s Michael Jackson whose pain was on par with or trumped that of the children he damaged? Michael Jackson who had suffered enough? Michael Jackson who needed a fucking hug? Seriously? HELL NO.
You wanna say that Michael Jackson needed help? Fine. I’m not gonna argue with that. You wanna say that the tabloids and mainstream media absolutely dogged this man for decades? I won’t dispute that either. You wanna say that this man deserved some kinda empathy because of his own suffering? G’head, I won’t stop you.
But I challenge ANYONE who denies that Jackson was a pedophile to ask themselves why it seems so damned impossible. I challenge them to find a way to reconcile their image of an “innocent”, “child-like” Jackson with the man who was shrewd enough to purchase the Beatles’ publishing rights. Finally, I challenge them to ask themselves if they would let THEIR kids spend the weekend alone at Never Land Ranch.
Yeah. Right.
Posted 02 Jul 2009 at 10:24 am ¶
anna wrote:
Has anyone else seen this? http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977723610 I’ve looked all over the net to see if anyone else is covering. Nothing so far.
I’m just sad. He died before the truth came out. I’ve had hard time expressing my feelings surrounding MJ’s death. He was my introduction to music. I can’t even begin to explain the impact he had on my life. It saddens me to know that he tried so hard to prove himself to us and even in death continue to ridicule him.
Posted 02 Jul 2009 at 2:12 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@Anna
No one here is ridiculing Michael Jackson.
You haven’t seen anything further about your link (which seems to be a report that one of the boys who accused MJ has recanted) because it is not true. It is an internet hoax.
Although it is worth noting that one of the posters on that thread wrote,
“Just because Michael had his kids sleep in the same bed as him, doesn’t mean he did anything sexual with them. In his eyes. He thinks, that when you do that. It makes them feel loved. and cared for. That your not having them off in the furthest part of your house. Where you can’t talk to them. Share things with them. Again. People have their own outlook on things.”
…And it is this attitude, which is being encouraged by some MJ fans since his death that is SO DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN.
Posted 02 Jul 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶
golby260 wrote:
I just want to throw this out there, and I’m almost sure that I don’t really care to reply to responses (and this comment may be unpublished, and I might get banned for this, too; that’s the moderator’s right, if she must):
The feelings centering around Michael Jackson have become like a religion. There’s one camp that believes that MJ was this holy figure that could do no wrong, and there’s the other camp that believes that MJ was of the devil. There’s this amorphous middle camp overlapping both groups that just believes he was “twisted” or “complicated. Now I don’t know which camp to side with (my whole family is of the former camp, and I used to give the latter camps more credit until last Thursday.) …
But here’s where things get complicated for ME:
1) My mom will believe to this day that the accusers in both trials were just after him for money. My older brother also believes this, and keeps finding things I wish he could send me links to that claim that MJ took drugs to even out his skin color to treat his vitiligo, that he likely had lupus at one point, Martin Bashir is just an ambulance-chaser pretending to be any step above a tabloid reporter, and that Vanity Fair likes to lie about people who are already unpopular in the public eye (he says that they used to say that Courtney Love used to be on drug whilst pregnant with Frances).
2) I want to agree with my mother and my brother, but then, I see plenty of good people like you and David Ehrenstein who will believe the contrary, and it is your right and his.
I would never be a rape apologist. But at the same time, I’d just rather have undeniable proof that Jackson had ever raped any kids. If he had done anything to anybody, let them come out and say things now or in the next ten or twenty years, and let them provide undeniable proof, instead of some loud court cases that hardly anyone took seriously even during the time they had occurred. (After all, if there are more victims of his, then it’s only a matter of time. Otherwise, this suggests that somehow people are less afraid than a 2000+-year-old worldwide institution like the Catholic Church than of a 50-year-old man and his many fans. I find that really hard to believe.) I would be more than willing to believe them from their own mouths, but I can’t trust the media, anymore. This same media that gossiped about Jackson buying the Elephant Man’s bones or keeping a chimp as a pet, or wanting to be white, based on little else than superficial speculation, and also enabled George W. Bush in ruining Iraq and botching Afghanistan, is not a media to be trusted with objective, substantiated information about somebody. It’s not a media I can trust to not give their own spin to suit their corporate masters or not misrepresent facts to put up an agenda. It’s not a media I can trust with political news, or about a few other things, beyond the most technical. Michael Jackson may have been a pedophile, which is unimportant to me unless he has actually acted on it, downloaded child pornography, and/or raped anyone. It might be a hateful thing to say, but I don’t believe in vilifying people that seriously disturbed and in needing of outside help (and I’m not saying anyone here is doing that, either), but I’d much rather pity them and condemn their actions, even apparently unrepentant ones like MJ. I dare say quite a few of them don’t actually want to be what they are and do want to change, quite similar to those who don’t want to be homosexual, even though one is inflicted with a paraphilia, and the other simply has a certain true sexuality that harms no one. (This sounds downright Christian of me, and I’m an atheist! Yikes, Michael Jackson’s death’s threatening to make me religious again!) But I can’t trust a media who wants to pretend that Michael Jackson never did anything after Off the Wall and Thriller; I can’t trust the same media that wants to pretend that his musical accomplishments are overhyped and overrated, and that, he had no true effect on our culture, and whom they spent most of the ’90s and the earlier part of this decade mocking than actually doing their jobs.
I want the truth to come out about who Michael Jackson really was. I’m tired of the speculation and rumors; I want facts. I want journalists to do their jobs, and proffer up FACTS. Until then, I’ll stay on the sidelines, and let people believe whatever they want to believe.
Posted 05 Jul 2009 at 2:24 am ¶
amy wrote:
I appreciate your article. I’ve been having some issues with Michael Jackson’s death. Prior to his death I was convinced he was a pedophile. When I found out he had died, I felt so much shock. I never thought his death would have such an impact on me. I cried after the shock wore off. I didn’t want to believe he was a pedophile anymore. All the sudden I did not want to believe anything horrible about him and was defending him. I was also a victim of sexual abuse. I am really confused as to why I am having this reaction to his death. I’ve been borderline obsessed with this. It’s weird. I feel like your article woke me up a bit.
Posted 12 Jul 2009 at 2:54 am ¶