Michael Jackson: Should he be revered?

Remove all ads!

A bit of an argument has popped up in the Michael Jackson RIP thread about whether or not Michael Jackson should be remembered positively after his death. Do his improprieties with children in his later years wash away the positive contributions he made to music, his extensive charitable work and the adoration of his fans? Should he be remembered positively at all?

Any and all aspects of Michael Jackson's life, career and controversy can be discussed here (even arguing the merits of the charges against him, or the impact and significance of his music).

EDIT: Probably should have made this a poll...mods?

[Well, I don't know about Tal and BTA, but I can't see how to convert this to a poll. Not sure it should be either, because you are probably going to get a lot of "yes, but . . . " and "no, but . . . " type answers - dmc]

 

That's my take essentially, as well. On the one hand I wonder what may have come to pass had he gotten decent therapy early on and tackled his demons; I think he could have surpassed or repeated the success of Thriller (Bad came close, but no cigar). But on the other had, maybe it was his weirdness that made him so intriguing in the first place. I tend to think a large portion of interest in him was derived from people watching him to wonder "what he'll do next." That doesn't explain album sales, however.

 

IMHO, no amount of good music can compensate for deliberate, premeditated child molestation. No amount of charity work can either.

I remember we had a similar discussion regarding the film "Powder" in a University class. This was a long time ago, but the long and short of it was that the director of said film had molested a young boy many years before. I was of the opinion that the crime was disgusting and heinous, and on the basis of said crime I would never, ever see the film. Not one red cent of money that I have stewardship over was going to go into the pockets of a known, convicted child molester. Others in the class talked about forgiveness. I said that forgiveness was great, and I wasn't going out of my way to harass, intimidate or otherwise hurt the perp, but I ALSO wasn't going to go out of my way to put money into his pockets. I also opined that his 5 year sentence was, IMHO, far too light, and that my boycott was my legal way of expressing my displeasure with the man.

But many people are going from emotion. They are remembering the good things and not thinking about the bad. They are remembering their childhoods spent listening to his music and trying to do some of his dance moves. I don't think that makes them bad people. Certainly when I die I want people to remember the good stuff about me and forget about my bad stuff.

But I'm not a child molester, either. I think that I can expect people to overlook my little foibles, but pedophilia is a pretty big thing to overlook.

 

Very well said LKD.

 

Not really. The argument was about whether he should be ONLY remembered positively and that ONLY very nice things should be about a person after his passing. Which is a crock since the totality of person's accomplishments are what is remembered, for better or worse.

I personally don't see the need for another thread. The RIP thread was working quite well at bringing up the issues... in spite of the crying.

 

The point is, a "Rest in Peace" thread in the Sensorium is not the place for bringing up and discussing controversial issues. It is intended to be a memorial for those wishing to pay respects, as was made abundantly clear by several people in that thread. And I wasn't referring to you in the sentence you quoted.

I'd prefer MJ controversy be discussed in the forum we have for controversy, and his memory discussed in the thread dedicated to his memory. I'm sure that's in keeping with the spirit of the BoM, too.

 

Michael Jackson rocked. I have no other evidence to present than the music.

 

DR: That was your belief and the belief of a few others. Obviously just as many disagreed with you. You seem to want to limit what people can say and where they can say it. I don't agree with you on this.

That Michael Jackson died doesn't matter one bit to me. I'll be happy when this whole autopsy thing dies down and all the idiotic tribute hours stop on the radio. I thought he was an okay song writer and decent singer. He was ahead of his time understanding the impact of music videos and turned his mediocre songs into great, but stupid, videos. He changed the music industry (which could be good or bad depending on your point of view).

The guy was seriously out of touch with life as we know it.

 

T2, refraining from speaking ill of the dead being in poor taste is not my belief, it is common courtesy. People tried (in vain) to remind you of that, and ask that negative comments and the re-hashing of his legal troubles (which you have every right to make) be taken to a more appropriate forum, so that people wishing to grieve could do so in a thread titled "Rest in Peace." You told them to go post somewhere else and stop "crying." I'm sorry you can't seem to handle getting called out, but again, that wasn't the place for it - which is why I started this thread. You continuing to bicker about your right to say whatever you want here is not what this thread is for.

If you think I'm out of order, report my post. Or if you want to keep telling me how full of it I am, please send me a PM. But I'd like to stick to this topic now, since I'm interested in people's opinions about MJ, good and bad.

 

... DR, you obviously missed my last two paragraphs while composing your rant.

 

Something LKD posted earlier piqued my interest, that I wanted to discuss in more depth.

Emphais mine. When I hear people say this, it always gives me pause.

I realize many people who've formed an opinion about Michael Jackson simply accept this as fact. He is (was) a child molester. I could probably count myself as one of them at varying points over the years. But at the same time, is he definitely? I'm probably going to get flamed for saying that, but I see a lot of gray area in the MJ case. He was charged, but he has never been convicted. Several complaints have been thrown out due to lack of evidence. It's not nearly as clear-cut, for me, as the OJ case, for example. I find direct OJ/Michael Jackson comparisons to be lacking, personally. I have no doubt OJ did exactly what he was accused of, and was acquitted by way of money and prosecutorial incompetence, not innocence. It's easy to say the same of MJ considering his immense wealth and stature, but I have my doubts.

What I think MJ was absolutely guilty of is impropriety with kids. While not a crime (since the parents gave permission), sleeping in the same room with them, let alone the same bed, is absolutely unacceptable. His lawyers insist he always slept on the floor, but I doubt that (as do most people). Yes, this made him a sick, delusional man - but it also made him a very easy target. He has more money than God and paints a huge target on his back with every child he invites to his home. I have no problem with his inviting large groups of kids to his home (which made up the vast majority of his "visits") since they were well-supervised, but the sleepovers were not cool at all. I guess I'm just saying it's possible that MJ didn't go farther than non-sexual physical affection, as he claims. It's also possible that this is wishful thinking on my part, and if there is any specific evidence to the contrary, please let me know - I'm open to being convinced otherwise. But as I said, there's a ton of gray area and I'm very hesitant to see the MJ case as a black and white issue, as I realize many already do.

Hope that didn't ramble too much...

EDIT: @T2,

No, I didn't miss them. The funny part is, I agree with much of what you said in those paragraphs. I look forward to more responses in this thread from you, but I understand if you're now officially in MJ-burnout (partly my fault). No hard feelings, I hope.

 

The irony of that statement is hilarious. I'm very hesitant to see MJ as a black and white issue. His repeated plastic surgeries to get a Belinda Carlisle nose and all the skin bleachings were just plain strange. He lived in another world.

 

Okay, that kills me. That didn't even occur to me for a second. Awesome.

Ok, I meant his 100% guilt or innocence isn't as clear to me as it is to some.

There...no foot in mouth that time?

 

This statement could not be more true, and I think it raises questions about just what direction he went.

Looking at his background and the actual accusations and facts brought up in trial, I can't help but wonder if maybe he was just trying to revert to a child himself, to recapture a childhood he never really had. I mean, a 45-year-old frollicking with a bunch of 6-year-olds, as if he were one of them, would raise a lot of questions of impropriety in anyone's minds, but it doesn't necessarily mean there were any. Hell, even sleeping with them, so long as all that happened was sleep, would make sense from that perspective. Kids have sleepovers all the time.

IFF all he did was sleep, IFF there was no actual sexual contact, IFF the children suffered more from what their parents made out of it than the actual encounter with MJ, then I don't even think there was anything morally wrong about it. Strange, yes. Worrying from a psychological standpoint, sure. But not wrong.

On the other hand, IFF he actually did do something, then I agree with much that T2 has said.

 

Some psychologist or psychologists analyzed him or something during the last court case concerning his potential kiddy fiddling, and they/he found Michael to be a regressed 10 year old boy...unsurprising if his father really did to him all the things that are claimed to have been done. Read that one night his father jumped in through the window wearing a mask and scared the **** out of Michael, just because he didnt want him to sleep with his window open, and Michael had severe nightmares about that even as an adult. He had his demons, and they twisted him into a bizzare man-child, but I doubt he was sexually involved with the boys.

 

MJ never really had a childhood to speak of; he spent it learning to be a performer. His father would beat him with a belt if he missed a step dancing, or if he hit a wrong note. The guy was just brutal and he spent his time brutalizing his kids. Something like that can leave deep mental scars. I'm sure MJ's father felt all the harsh training and lessons "paid off."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson

The novelist, Pat Conroy, wrote extensively in his fiction about his abusive father and the scars it left on the entire family. His novels, _The Great Santini_ and _The Prince of Tides_, were two of the most important novels of the 1980's and both were made into popular films. Conroy confronted his abuse through his work and his lectures, even with his father in attendance. His father was said to have once quipped, "If it weren't for me beating you, you would never have been such a good writer." To which Conroy replied, "Dad, if you beat me anymore, I would have been Shakespeare."

Conroy also wrote _The Lords of Discipline_, which was also made into a film in the 1980s. The reason I brought Conroy into the discussion is because of how his work made me understand how an abusive father can leave such deep emotional and mental scars, which can last long into adulthood. Both the novels and the films are powerful and riveting. I recommend them to anyone who is not familiar with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Conroy

 

NOG -- you gave a negative rep after agreeing with me? WTF?

Grow up.

 

In the best case, latter-day MJ had towering psychological issues. In the worst case, he was a child molester. In either case, or any in between, I don't think that's the sort of person it's wise to revere. Not that reverence is usually a product of rationality...

For myself, my reaction to hearing of his death was along the lines of good riddance; he won't be able to harm anymore kids now. But then, I've never really listened to his music and all he's ever been to me is that weird guy who's sometimes on the TV who had weird surgery and maybe molests kids or something. Someone old people care about, basically.