First up, Tammy Johnson of Colorlines (via Isak):
You could say he was just another celebrity, another pop star, the King of Pop, but Michael Jackson did have an impact on our society. For his time, he made it ok for white girls to scream at a black man, to say that they wanted him. He made it ok for white boys to do the moonwalk. But you know, it wasn't ok for Michael Jackson to be Michael Jackson. It was written all over his face -- or the face that he changed into. And that's a shame.
Adrienne Maree Brown on the responsibility of his fans:
When it became clear that the boy's face we had loved had become the face of a man who didn't love himself; we judged him. We tore at him and he fell apart. He was living proof of the impact of our rabid pop culture, an early sacrifice to the new mechanisms of fame which allow no privacy, no time to learn, no mistakes.
Still, he kept producing for us.
When the rumors and the truth were all too prevalent (the children, both his and others), and he wasn't getting the psychological support and accountability he needed, we turned from him and derided him. We made the distinction of loving the child, but ridiculing the man.
Toure at the Daily Beast on how Jackson broke the color barrier with his music:
I like Off the Wall and Dangerous better, but I can't help but think about Thriller's massive socio-cultural impact. Rev. Al Sharpton referred to Michael as a pre-Obama Obama-esque figure in that he's a black man who knows how to make millions of blacks and whites fall in love with him. He's an integrationist, a racial unifier. He made two pop songs as overtly about race as anyone's ever made: Ebony and Ivory with Paul McCartney and Black or White. He was a Motown guy, after all. But he left Berry Gordy's house and went to CBS/Epic, a big-time label, to forge an adult solo career. CBS pushed his record as hard as they did their huge white stars and Off the Wall was a huge crossover success: young Michael was established as not an artist for black fans but an artist for everyone at a time when that was rare. Four years later, when Thriller came out it broke the radio color barrier: black and white stations played its singles until MTV, which had not previously played videos by black artists, had to play Michael. For a while they played Thriller every hour at the top of the hour. Back then he was MTV's Jackie Robinson.
Jill Tubman at Jack and Jill Politics on Jackson's mixed legacy:
The true tragedy of Michael Jackson is that his genius died long before he did. He remains one of the most seminal artists of the late 20th century. But his innovations stopped as he retreated into a dark strange world of excess. He was an incredible philanthropist who also was sadly a pedophile. [...]For black people, he leaves a mixed legacy. His famous family's music is iconic yet their dysfunction was humiliating. He was at on
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Meaning of MJ.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14608
69 Comments
Leave a comment
As a mix raced little girl, Michael Jackson's "Black or White" and "Heal the World" period of songs really made me feel like yes, it was okay to be neither this nor that. That yes, it was admirable to want to change things for the better and that yes, it was possible to create harmony between peoples. It was the soundtrack to my early thoughts on peace and social justice, whether I knew it at the time or not.
I would like to share something, just as a way of communicating the different ways people saw Michael Jackson.
As I was reading the above comments and many other wonderful comments about the life and work of Michael Jackson, I realized that because I am so young and was not present for the height of MJ fame, I really never thought of him as black. I never thought of him as white, either. Mainly, I thought of him as a bit of a loose canon and generally a pretty strange person. I'm not saying anything negative about his life, work, or death. After having a conversation with some friends last night, I realized this might be a genuine perspective on how my generation sees Michael Jackson. Maybe that's what he wanted?
I can't stop crying I feel so hurt and sad right now...I think I'm good and then I hear a bit of a song or catch a glimpse and I'm gone again...I feel so so very sad...
right there with you.
i loved that man....and he was a man...but a gentle, soft spoken man who was fire on the mic and fire on the dance floor. and our culture didn't know what to do with this, and we tore him to shreds and broke his heart.
i hope he'll always be remembered the way i remember him - as an talent unprecedented who gave so much of himself to the world, and just wanted some loving understanding in return. i don't know if there is something after this life, but if there is, i hope he finds the peace that he was always looking for.
i'll leave you with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpTQCQEFhg
i'm crying too.
for his victims.
i refuse to diminish the fact that he was a pedophile because he was a celebrity.
flame away.
Thank you for that testimony from on high God, so while we're here tell me who really shot JFK?
seriously? gimme a break.
Leg or neck?
i'm laughing so hard i cant even comment on how ansurdly childish your comment was.
but cool, keep it up!
I'm guessing you mean "absurdly."
you guessed right!
No you're not but I'm laughing that I even bothered replying to a troll like you to begin with. You're dismissed.
thats all ya got!?! you STILL have nothing to add to this discussion, instead just chasing my coat around? AND I'M THE TROLL??? lol....
I'll respond with what Marc said in regards to your elementary troll comment:
"So, anyone who disagrees with you is either a troll or someone seeking attention? The poster made a legitimate point, and should be welcomed to make those points. Just because you feel something doesn't make it true.
Feministing.com isn't meant to be an echo chamber - it's a forum for discussion, and this poster was doing exactly just that."
wait, are you the troll?
oh and um, yea...if you stopped obssessing over me for just a second and read ANYONE else's post, such as the one below this---you'll see someone bashing you as an idiot for that ridiculous comparison you made about MJ and JFK...come on already, just add sometihng,
anything, to the discussion already.
but why would you care right? i mean, you've got enough business being a troll. Oh, i'm sorry, following teh troll. Here's what he said:
"Anyone who compares MJ to JFK is just an idiot.
Crying? Rioting? Hurting? Sometimes, people just need to get a life and stop living vicariously through celebrities."
I am with you.
Anyone who compares MJ to JFK is just an idiot.
Crying? Rioting? Hurting? Sometimes, people just need to get a life and stop living vicariously through celebrities.
Poverty needs our attention. Sexism, lack of education, health benefits, hunger, homelessness and a host of other issues need our attention - yet we're crying and hurting over this guy?
Korea just promised to blow us up. Political unrest in Iran. Iraq and America are carrying out the security agreement to move US troops out of major Iraqi cities by June 30 - and we're doing the moonwalk on the streets, placing flowers at the wrong MJ star, crying and stuff?
God, and people wonder why the world is going to hell in a hand basket. If the personal is political, and these people show a lack of interest in the political, then they must not give a shit about their personal lives.
Marc:
you see how the commenter keeps chasing me around though and flaming but yet has absolutely nothing to add to my opinion on a serious subject that is usually jumped on around here?
and then actually asked me to choose a neck or a leg? THATS WHAT I GET BACK AS A RETORT?
i seriously had to show everyone i know the comment they left about JFK though...
One of my (least) favorite derailing arguments!
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/
All those things you mentioned are really important. But this post isn't about them. If you object to its existence, why bother commenting at all? Is it really that important that everyone who has some interest in this topic know that in *your* opinion it's incredibly trivial? If you want to see the issues you mentioned addressed on this blog and feel that they are not, why not make some community posts about them?
"If the personal is political, and these people show a lack of interest in the political, then they must not give a shit about their personal lives."
That's a pretty big generalization. And rather convoluted. Because people care that Michael Jackson died that means they don't care about politics, and thus don't care about themselves? I'm not sure you understand what "the personal is political" actually means, and would recommend you read this: http://mindthegapuk.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/the-personal-is-political.
i have an opinion on the matter. it is within my right to voice it. just as you did.
based on your advice to me, if you object to the existence of mine...why bother commenting back?
its as simple as you stated it.
i will keep saying what i believe to be an injustice to his victims. by defending and idolizing this man, you are stating that you believe his victims, those children, are liars.
this site supposedly prides itself on trying to educate people on the dangers of perpetuating the myth that victims are liars.
are you attempting to silence me too for pointing out this hypocrisy?
I'm not attempting to silence you about anything. Your opinion seems to be limited to "you're all idiots for caring about this." My objection isn't in replying to something you disagree with, it's in replying (repeatedly) to something you feel is insignificant, simply by telling people, you're wrong for caring about this. What's the purpose there?
I haven't defended or idolized anyone, so I'm guessing that "you" is a general one, and not specific to me.
Actually, the kid in the 1993 trial lied. He confessed he lied. I'm not sure about the kid in the more recent trial, but all others implicated always denied that anything had happened.
"you're all idiots for caring about this."
i never said that. please own your own perceptions.
"My objection isn't in replying to something you disagree with, it's in replying (repeatedly) to something you feel is insignificant, simply by telling people, you're wrong for caring about this."
its called having an opinion, and a passionate one at that. i'm allowed to have it. you dont have to agree with me...just as i dont with the fact that you seem to only care about MY opinion on this. you say you're not defending him...then what are you doing? i am pointing out some hypocritical things on this site...did it hit a nerve? if it is pointless to you, why do you care? seriously?
and if you are citing the link below about the boy...it appears fake. who was this interview with? who confirmed it? why hasnt it been in the news? was anyone else there? its pretty convenient for this to begin circulating.
but even so...many victims recant, its quite typical. so...i dont know.
Thank you.
Thanks for posting our video, Ann.
Momus reposted an old piece of his about MJ ( imomus.livejournal.com ), written during the trial, that casts it as the world of Either-Or trying a citizen of And-Both. MJ was both black and white, Momus says; both male and female, both gay and straight, both rich and broke, both inspired and skilled, both a father and virginal.
I like the idea of MJ as a hero of the post-binary movement... but I also think Momus's take on it is stunted, because it doesn't take into account just how MJ got to that point, and how he felt about it. Can anyone really say that Michael Jackson was happy in his life? I mean, maybe he was, but how can anyone claim to be inside the mindset of Michael Jackson?
The question I want to ask is, given the choice, would MJ have chosen being happy and normal over being interesting and separated. But it's a dead-end question. Not only is there no way to ask him, or for him to know, but... it's a binary too. And I find some comfort in thinking that it's a false binary, that a person can find happiness in life if they fit in, AND if they don't.
I wonder too if it would be easier if he had come along today, a little boy with such an artistic and feminine side? I'd like to think so but I don't know.
I think the really tragic thing about his death is that it's hard to say if the world today is a friendlier place for a 'Michael Jackson type' -- well, it definitely is, but it could be better.
you should edit Jill Tubman's statement on MJ. she didn't say he was a podophile, but rather was accused to being a pedophile.
so..were this anyone else, people would not be so vehemently defending him.
there are "accused" pedophiles talked about on this site almost daily and yet i see no one standing up for them, screaming cries of "but, but, he's just accused, no one really knows".
please. 99% of the commenters jump on the bashing train with everyone else. its simple: this is Michael Jackson. therefor, a free pass. a look the other way.
LAME.
you cant have it both ways.
again..flame away. its interesting who i remember from one post to the next and how different their esponses are from an unknown, non-celebrity "accused" pedophile to how that same commenter responds to "accused" Michael Jakcson.
Again, thank you.
wow, dude, you're really looking for attention huh? Didn't get it the 1st time so you decided to try again? You probably didn't catch the headline but he was acquitted. Just fyi.
wow dude, so me having an opinion is looking for attention?
um, ok. moving on.
you probably didn't catch the headline but OJ was acquitted. Just fyi.
your devoted support of the justice system is not only comical, it is completely naive.
you are actually making the case that money and fame have nothing to do with jury voting?
right.
It's the "Perez syndrome".
did you just make that up?
keep your day job.
So, anyone who disagrees with you is either a troll or someone seeking attention? The poster made a legitimate point, and should be welcomed to make those points. Just because you feel something doesn't make it true.
Feministing.com isn't meant to be an echo chamber - it's a forum for discussion, and this poster was doing exactly just that.
exactly, Marc. debate. i thought thats what i was engaging in. well, until the whole neck and leg thing.
but these devotees are making it easy for me.
they are actually proving my point for me.
they just cant admit that their first reaction was to idolize this man.
is this feministing?
is this the same site where all these people *say* we need to fight against the myth that victims are liars?
by defending him you are saying you believe those children are liars. congratulations!
way to completely prove my point that people are blinded by his name.
again, were this someone else, i doubt anyone would be sitting here defending the "supposed" perp when they paid millions to shut the survivor up.
hypocrites.
Michael Jackson being acquitted doesn't mean he wasn't a pedophile. It means the prosecution failed to prove this individual case.
So he had a crummy childhood. Yippee. Gave him a free ticket to pass it on?
Likewise.
If "less" famous or popular men and women are defined by the offenses they commit or are accused of committing, as when questioning why a rapist or accused rapist is entitled to burial with military honors, equating it to honoring a rapist, I fail to see why Michael Jackson deserves what amounts to a pass. Yes, as some news stories hare reported, he was a "tainted" star. Tainted because of his acknowledged inappropriate behavior with young boys. If you do not see a problem with taking young unsupervised overnight house guests into your home or bedroom, or taking them on vacation as a problem, however innocent intentions may be, then you are the one with the problem. You couldn't pay me to let adults with questionable intentions near my small children, and I would feel the urge to assault an adult who suggested having a pajama party with them.
Yes, he was "accused" twice, and when taken to trial, acquitted. He also paid one boy's family undisclosed millions to keep quiet, though I can't imagine why. I thought the standard line was as few as one in ten rapes are reported, and only 4% of rapists are convicted. Why should Michael Jackson receive a pass here, as well? Were his accusers simply lying to seek attention, or money, or to take a famous man down? I am sure supporters of other criminals and accused criminals have their own reasons, but their concerns are ignored.
I say this as someone who has followed Michael Jackson's career since the 1970s, and thoroughly enjoy his music and videos, in spite of all other aspects of his troubled life, and who is willing to take his troubled life from his humble and abusive childhood into account when looking for reasons behind his lifestyle and actions. I will never forget an interview I read with Jackson in full man-boy mode, shortly after his debut as a solo performer, and long before his Thriller or Bad days, which already demonstrated to me the problems he would have relating to average people who did not live with the stresses of an abusive childhood, or growing up with fame, with so many aspects of his life not under his own control.
No, I am not resentful or jealous of his hard earned (read about how he grew up and what it took for he and his siblings to become talented and famous) fame and fortune, nor do I hold his ethnicity or other personal quirks against him.
If people gave as much half of a shit about social justice issues as they would about an accused pedophile, the world would be a better place.
His accused actions aside, I will never get why people feel such a connection over celebrities. Really? These people who have never met him are crying and holding memorials? What impact did HE have on the world? How did he make the world a better place? I find it the funniest when they placed flowers at the wrong Michael Jackson's star in Hollywood.
People who are crying and mourning are the same ones who, while they can name all of his hit songs, have trouble naming four world leaders who we need to engage to make the world a better one. Prior to his death, when was the last time they thought of him? Our fascination with celebrities is just really strange to me.
This whole Michael Jackson thing is just pathetic.
Paul McCartney recorded Ebony and Ivory with Stevie Wonder, not Michael Jackson (unless there is a version with MJ floating around that I don't know about).
you're right.
i think Toure clearly remembers them recording together and accidentally thought it was that song.
Michael Jackson covered the original.
Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney recorded 'The Girl is Mine.' I think it's on Bad.
I'm getting pretty damn sick of the obsessive media coverage. Yeah, the guy was famous, but I've heard him called "greater than Mozart" and "the greatest entertainer ever" since he dropped dead. And "Obama before Obama"? The one who united black and white people? Come ON, the guy RAN from his blackness! Not to mention all the black artists who came before him, people. How long ago was Louis Armstrong given the designation of UN Goodwill Ambassador? Harry Belafonte, Scott Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Stevie Wonder--for that matter, the whole Motown roster--Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Arthur Mitchell (ballet dancer who left NY City Ballet after MLK got killed and founded Dance Theatre of Harlem), Alvin Ailey,Eubie Blake, Gregory Hines and soooo many more! Don't tell me there aren't people of every color who love these people, sing their songs, copy their dance moves, count them as an influence. And think some of them are sexy. Michael Jackson--I never got that from him. He never got a man's voice, for one thing. And then he started looking like a girl. Nat King Cole singing "Unforgetable" is alluring cause he sounds like he means it. When MJ sings "Billie Jean is not my lover", I just think, "Duh!" He never sounds like he really likes or really knows about heterosexual sex, either because he's too young (the Jackson 5 days) or because it's foreign and (I got the feeling) icky.
I was watching Stevie Wonder on PBS and thinking that HIS music will outlive him. It's already covered by other singers. Can you say that about Michael Jackson? I think that's a real test of a songwriter. I think MJ was in the right place @ the right time for M-TV. Humanitarian? Inconsistently. Weirdo? Definitely. Pedophile? I think it's likely. Repeated charges, pay-offs, some of the things he's said make it look like that to me. I don't get this media craze to talk to anyone and everyone who's ever been in the same rom with him. But I didn't get it about Princess Diana either.
I really don't see how it is our place to judge whether or not a person deserves to be mourned when they die. Even IF he was wrongly acquitted, no person deserves the kind of disrespect Michael Jackson has gotten at their time of death. I swear, some of the chain texts that have been going around are just in horrible taste. I understand that some people hated the guy (though it is hard to have a valid opinion of someone, especially a CELEBRITY, who you don't even really know... but I digress). Regardless... bottom line, he is a person. And I'm sure his friends and family are hurting. The death of someone you know, whether they're a "good" or "bad" person, is hard to deal with. The least we can do as decent human beings is keep our feelings to ourselves for awhile.
It's true most rapes are never reported. Especially against kids. And you don't pay someone off when you're innocent. As a victim of childhood incest (by my brother) I feel icky about the accusations against Michael Jackson. Maybe he was abused as a child himself (that's the usual pattern). God knows he was a very charismatic child and when you see videos of him at age 11, he looks like a 25-year-old in the body of a child. That's usually a dead giveaway. But instead of insisting he was perfect, maybe it would have been more productive to seek out who might have turned him into what he apparently became.
"And you don't pay someone off when you're innocent."
I am sorry to hear what happened to you.
There are valid reasons for trying to cover something up, settling out of court or pleading guilty to lesser charges, even if one is innocent; such as believing that negative publicity and scandal are worse than trying to "prove" one's innocence in an public investigation and trial, or the process simply being too costly. This will hold true the MORE one has to lose.
no need for that kind of comment. you dont agree, thats fine. but be cool.
you may believe they are valid reasons but what if someone else does not? there is no diffinitive here. these are opinions.
I didn't see the comment as hostile or confrontational in the least. What gave you that impression?
yea, i was responding to the quote he chose to use from her post...which he responded to. it seemed like a dig, kinda laced with sarcasm but he must have meant her experience. i apologize.
but you seem to have an interest in my posts MK...are you my other fan from earlier who followed me around?
Correcting my grammar was...um, well...necessary to make a point of?....
I have never used another name and I don't understand how replying to more than one of a person's replies means you're "following them around."
It was spelling, not grammar. I just prefer clarity when possible.
well, it doesnt appear you are interested in any other post or comments...except mine. i'll take it as a compliment that i'm really that interesting.
also..again, thanks for the correction of my stating "grammar" when it should have said "spelling"....so, did that clarity clear the confusion over the word "ansurd"?
Oh my god. I don't want to read this shit in the comments. Everyone needs to calm down.
i know right?
especially sinc we had to listen to you say we shouldnt even have an opinion on this...until you deem apprpriate. "The least we can do as decent human beings is keep our feelings to ourselves for awhile."
wait, so why are you here then?
I never know what the fuck you're saying in your posts. But I know that it is meant to start fights, every time. Are you capable of saying anything that isn't offensive or incomprehensible?
Sorry, I really tried not to say anything about it. But you're getting on my nerve and just though you should know.
I never know what the fuck you're saying in your posts. But I know that it is meant to start fights, every time. Are you capable of saying anything that isn't offensive or incomprehensible?
Sorry, I really tried not to say anything about it. But you're getting on my nerve and just though you should know.
Sorry for the double post.
For those who still believe that he is a child molester, you probably want to read this. Apparently Jordan Chandler, the boy who in 1993 accused Michael Jackson of molesting him, has admitted that his accusations were lies.
http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/
I also read yesterday that the second boy who accused him of child molestation admitted a few years ago that it was a hoax. This probably won't matter to any of you because you're more comfortable harping on about his personal life instead of reflecting on his contributions to music and humanitarian efforts.
Again, Jackson receiving support that the average accused criminal would not receive, which was my entire point. If I wanted to call Michael Jackson a pedophile or child molester, I would. I'm not. I do not believe Jackson's interest in children was motivated by pedophilia.
Fine source, by the way.
Can you name some other examples of people calling accusers liars on this site? What happens to commenters who spring to the defense of the average accused criminal, such as college students or soldiers accused of rape; or those who question the integrity of accusers or accuracy and truthfulness of their statements? Any and every defense made of Michael Jackson, can be made for any other accused criminal, including the convicted. Where are articles and posts exonerating those accused criminals who have accusations retracted, charges dropped, or who are acquitted? Do articles and comments not instead attack the criminal justice system and integrity of law enforcement for not prosecuting, winning convictions, or punishing criminals?
Can you think of other reasons that accusers would say they were lying, or would drop allegations, particularly when they are boys near their adolescent years being publicly identified? My wife knows that I was sexually assaulted by a man at the age of 18 or 19, lured to his car under the pretext of asking street directions, because I told her, when she shared that she was a survivor of sexual assault. Care to imagine how many other people in my life I have shared this information with? Do you think I went to the police? If I were a teenager again, and it came out publicly or rumored amongst my male friends that a man sexually assaulted me, can you imagine what my reaction might be?
Try reflecting on that.
Part of the problem with this discussion and this site in particular is the concept of the "accused criminal". You are not a criminal until convicted. Just because other people are not so readily defended when accused doesn't make it right. If those releaed from jail after years of fAlse imprisonment doesn't tell you that I don't know what will.
For a site that's pretty self righteous on civil rights issues this areA is lacking.
"You are not a criminal until convicted."
So what do you call people who commit unreported or unsolved crimes? What do you call offenders who are wrongly never arrested or prosecuted, who are wrongly acquitted, or who are freed on technicalities? What do you call people who commit crimes which escape detection? You think every sexual assault is reported and results in conviction?
"Just because other people are not so readily defended when accused doesn't make it right."
You mean everyone including people who actually did it, should be defended as if they were Michael Jackson? No, the opposite. Even Michael Jackson and other rich, famous, powerful or popular people, should not get a pass and be treated like ordinary suspected criminals. And if convicted, sentenced like ordinary criminals to ordinary prisons.
"If those releaed from jail after years of fAlse imprisonment doesn't tell you that I don't know what will."
I am against false accusation, false arrest, and false imprisonment. I am also against the negative effects of such on the lives of the falsely accused. If "the Michael Jackson boy", living off Michael's millions, comes out on CNN or in US News & World Report admitting he committed a hoax, police, Jackson family attorneys, and creditors should take notice.
i call them innocent.....until proven guilty. whats so hard to understand about that. you're position gives too much power to accusations and allows an accusation to be the verdict, regardless of the actual outcome of a trial. what you call technicalities are usually due process rights and other rights afforded by the constitution.
so why even try people, why don't we, in all our might, accuse folks we feel did something evil and dispense with the process to determine if they have indeed committed a crime or not?
So what do you call a man who rapes you?
powerful, A male.
by her own words, if she never reports him...he is innocent, not a criminal. if she does and he is found innocent...then by her words...he IS?????
she says: "i call them innocent.....until proven guilty."
so he must be innocent of raping her.
ummm...seriously???? WOW.
people love to use "they were found innocent" when its convenient to prove a point but here we see that it is not always the case.
I'm not sure what position you are taking. This person seems to believe that someone who is not "found" guilty at trial is therefore innocent.
This person is relying on legal terms, which is disingenuous.
If e.g., a man rapes a woman, he is a rapist.
How can it be otherwise?
"This person seems to believe that someone who is not "found" guilty at trial is therefore innocent."
that was my point. a man rapes a woman, your example. he is found *not guilty* at trial.
is he innocent of rape? by her words; he is because he was not found guilty.
it changes nothing what i may call a man that rapes me. that's why I wouldn't be on the jury or be the judge. the system strives for objectivity and tho it seems hard for you to accept the "innocent until proven guilty' standard, it must be defended otherwise there will be chaos. fact is mj was acquitted. there is no such thing as an accused criminal.
This is an unreliable source (one which failed to even get the names right).
thank you about it being unreliable. that is what i was trying to say in another post. i mean, who confirmed it?
and even still. are people surprised on THIS site that a victim might recant? are we completely forgetting everything we know because of who he is?
i need to figure out a better way to reply to a post. its cutting off and getting crazy.
Does anyone remember Herbie Hancocks song Rocket? He wasn't "allowed" to appear in it because he was black. I never was a fan of Pop music,(Judas Priest yea!) but even I liked Thriller and Black and White. I never,ever thought he molested those kids. He never had a chance at a normal life. How sad.
I blame Michael Jackson's father for him not having a normal life later. Michael Jackson was a victim. I don't know why no one here is taking note of that either. Michael Jackson's life was not just his music and how good it made you feel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jackson