Over the past ten or so days, we all have been bombarded by the countless tributes on radio/tv and constant media coverage of MJ. However, I want to take this time to explore something that has been hinted but not much expressed much in all this coverage.
Someone said (I think it was Al Sharpton, but I could be wrong) that when the Jackson 5 first came out in 1969, it was the first time people came together (both black and white, and maybe hispanics and asians too) to see them in concert. (Remember this was shortly after the time of segregation and the death of MLK.) Through their music and entertaining qualities, the Jackson 5 were able to bring an inclusive audience which is something that was very innovative back in those times. Someone also said (I think it was Al Sharpton again) that because of this, MJ can be regarded as "the glue" to the civil rights movement in America. It made a wider audience feel comfortable about embracing future African American figures like Oprah, (possibly the other MJ I may add), Tiger, and Obama. In this sense, MJ really contributed in an indirect way (through his music) to advance civil rights in the United States. As another person said, he was truly a transcendent figure (much in a very similar way to Obama) in terms of race.
Now, let's get to the more controversial parts of this note. Jamie Foxx at the BET Awards mentioned that MJ was "one of ours" and said something along the lines of not letting the media distort or ridicule his legacy. Why the overprotective nature you ask? My theory has a lot to do with the sting of the OJ trial. OJ was another transcendent figure who was loved by many as a football player but also having an affable personality which was displayed in movies like the Naked Gun series, commercials like Hertz Rental Car, and as a football commentator in the early 90s for NBC. However, when he was accused of murder, people in the media turned on him fairly or unfairly and racial tensions start to boil. Both sides fanned the flames of these tensions and the innocence or guilt of OJ divided along racial lines.
So you ask what does the sting of OJ have to do with MJ? Well, MJ went through his own accusations and the media pounced on him too. Although what was different about MJ was that the division was not along racial lines but along those who were fanatics of MJ and those who thought he was just a bizarre man who had a problem of loving children too much. Also, it was only in America that he was ridiculed and torn down, and not so much around the world. I guess maybe the world knows something that people in America don't which is the whole issue of innocent before proven guilty. Of course people in America can't really grasp this concept of innocent before proven guilty particularly when it comes to African Americans and that is why I think Jaime Foxx said what he said.
As for the MJ haters (those I listened to on the Whiner Line on Sports Radio and Congressman Peter King of NY who said MJ was a pervert), they are quick to judge when it comes to people of a different background and skin color, but when it comes to their own people, they are more willing to withhold judgment, and willing to look at all the evidence. Of course this is a sweeping generalization, but it speaks to the idea that when it comes to race (I am talking in particular about Congressman King), if someone is different from you, it is okay for you to make these sweeping accusations and claims without evidence, but it's not okay for you to accuse and denounce a member of Congress (Sen. John Ensign from Nevada) who committed adultery or a governor (Mark Sanford from S.C.) who cheated on his wife and blatantly said to his wife if he could visit his mistress. Where's the outrage when it comes to your own people?
This nation is still %^$#^$ up when it comes to race relations even if Obama is president. There is still a lot of progress to be made and it is up to the next generation and not the previous generation to change the minds of people to promote tolerance and understanding of all. That is something that MJ would really like to see someday.
Someone said (I think it was Al Sharpton, but I could be wrong) that when the Jackson 5 first came out in 1969, it was the first time people came together (both black and white, and maybe hispanics and asians too) to see them in concert. (Remember this was shortly after the time of segregation and the death of MLK.) Through their music and entertaining qualities, the Jackson 5 were able to bring an inclusive audience which is something that was very innovative back in those times. Someone also said (I think it was Al Sharpton again) that because of this, MJ can be regarded as "the glue" to the civil rights movement in America. It made a wider audience feel comfortable about embracing future African American figures like Oprah, (possibly the other MJ I may add), Tiger, and Obama. In this sense, MJ really contributed in an indirect way (through his music) to advance civil rights in the United States. As another person said, he was truly a transcendent figure (much in a very similar way to Obama) in terms of race.
Now, let's get to the more controversial parts of this note. Jamie Foxx at the BET Awards mentioned that MJ was "one of ours" and said something along the lines of not letting the media distort or ridicule his legacy. Why the overprotective nature you ask? My theory has a lot to do with the sting of the OJ trial. OJ was another transcendent figure who was loved by many as a football player but also having an affable personality which was displayed in movies like the Naked Gun series, commercials like Hertz Rental Car, and as a football commentator in the early 90s for NBC. However, when he was accused of murder, people in the media turned on him fairly or unfairly and racial tensions start to boil. Both sides fanned the flames of these tensions and the innocence or guilt of OJ divided along racial lines.
So you ask what does the sting of OJ have to do with MJ? Well, MJ went through his own accusations and the media pounced on him too. Although what was different about MJ was that the division was not along racial lines but along those who were fanatics of MJ and those who thought he was just a bizarre man who had a problem of loving children too much. Also, it was only in America that he was ridiculed and torn down, and not so much around the world. I guess maybe the world knows something that people in America don't which is the whole issue of innocent before proven guilty. Of course people in America can't really grasp this concept of innocent before proven guilty particularly when it comes to African Americans and that is why I think Jaime Foxx said what he said.
As for the MJ haters (those I listened to on the Whiner Line on Sports Radio and Congressman Peter King of NY who said MJ was a pervert), they are quick to judge when it comes to people of a different background and skin color, but when it comes to their own people, they are more willing to withhold judgment, and willing to look at all the evidence. Of course this is a sweeping generalization, but it speaks to the idea that when it comes to race (I am talking in particular about Congressman King), if someone is different from you, it is okay for you to make these sweeping accusations and claims without evidence, but it's not okay for you to accuse and denounce a member of Congress (Sen. John Ensign from Nevada) who committed adultery or a governor (Mark Sanford from S.C.) who cheated on his wife and blatantly said to his wife if he could visit his mistress. Where's the outrage when it comes to your own people?
This nation is still %^$#^$ up when it comes to race relations even if Obama is president. There is still a lot of progress to be made and it is up to the next generation and not the previous generation to change the minds of people to promote tolerance and understanding of all. That is something that MJ would really like to see someday.
No comments:
Post a Comment