Twenty years ago in 1983, the year I was born, Michael Jackson was undoubtedly the coolest man on the planet. On the 23rd of May 1983, MJ teamed with his brothers in the Jackson 5, with their puffball Afros and billowing flares, became world famous on a program called ‘Motown 25: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow’. After performing with his brothers, MJ performed “Billie Jean”, a song from his second solo album on his new record label Epic; and the performance was EPIC. MJ performed state-of-the-art dance moves borrowed from street/break dance styles but adapted to his own unique style. The icing on the already rich cake was the ‘moonwalk’, moving backwards while seeming to move forwards. The audience in the hall erupted and the reaction from home viewers was just as energized.
By the time Earth Song was released MJ seemed to be acting like a self-proclaimed Jesus figure. This pomposity led Jarvis Cocker to do his own ‘moonwalk’; He walked onto the stage and mooned. This action was cheered by many and really indicated how MJ’s popularity had been affected by his various bizarre antics.
Above is MJ’s official police mug shot taken this year when he had to answer charges of child molestation… again. The ‘face’ looks… well, scary quite frankly. He has no friends, no nose, and his last album (before The Greatest Hits) was appalling for his track record. He is now definitely no longer the coolest man on the planet (unless coolness has to be redefined). The problem is not so much that he doesn’t look black anymore, but that he barely looks human; it looks like “a disguise Martians would design to enable themselves to mingle with humans undetected,”* or possibly a badly designed CG character. A question often asked is why would he change himself from a handsome young African-American performer, to a ghost. I mean not even white people are that white. I have seen many black people with ‘vitaligo’, which he claims to have, but not one of them have grey skin and malformed cheeks, nose, and chin. Still, that argument is really neither here nor there because "it doesn't matter if you're black or white"; whatever skin colour he has doesn't give him more or less talent, and moreover he has every right to disfigure his own face. The real problem is his track record with children.
Michael Mr. Jackson has three children: 6-year-old Prince Michael I, 5-year-old Paris and a baby, Prince Michael II. The mother of the youngest child, has not been identified. Prince Michael I and Paris were born during his marriage to nurse Debbie Rowe, which ended in 1999. Earlier this year he was filmed hanging Prince Michael II (affectionately, but disterbingly also-known-as 'Blanket') out of a Berlin hotel window. When asked about this folly, he replied “I got caught up in the excitement of the moment. I would never intentionally endanger the lives of my children”. Many people will defend MJ to the death claiming that MJ merely wanted to show the baby off to the crowds; well tell me something, how can the crowd see the baby with a cloth tied around his face? Others defend him saying that MJ had a firm hold on the child and that he wasn’t in any real danger of falling. Answer this, would you hang your baby out of a window, even if you had a firm grip? If you would, then I very much question your ability to be a parent, let alone to be anywhere within 100 metres of a child.
MJ self-admittedly makes a habit of sleeping (albeit non-sexually) with ‘minor’ children. Those die-hard MJ defenders might excuse his actions by saying that he didn’t have much of a childhood and he relates to children through this means. Get real I say. If a 45-year-old man slept with your children, would you be so lenient? Again, if you would, then… well, you get my drift.
I have nothing personal against MJ himself, his music is WICKED!!!, but surely there must be something wrong in sharing a bed with a child who is not your own. I can’t see why people seem to be taking this so lightly. Even if the Bashir interview was heavily doctored, I don’t see how the fact that he ‘sleeps’ with children can be seen in a good light in any context. In one interview, Jackson commented: "When you say 'bed' you're thinking sexual. It's not sexual, we're going to sleep. I tuck them in ... It's very charming, it's very sweet." Mmmmm... more like very nauseating
Ten years ago, MJ handed Jordy Chandler a 13-year-old boy, a multi-million pound out-of-court settlement. This time, the family of the 12-year-old boy at the centre of the new sex abuse claims DO NOT want a pay-off. They seem more interested in justice rather than money. Does this alone prove MJ’s guilt?
It seems to me that there is an amazingly large number of people who actually buy Jackson's I'm-just-a-child-trapped-in-an-adult's-body Peter Pan routine. Nevertheless, many have gone to the other extreme and described Mj’s ‘Neverland’ ranch as a ‘paedophiles’ paradise’, but does the mere presence of objects that attract children make MJ a child molester. I don’t think so. But I also highly doubt that MJ is really as innocent as he claims. I do not know whether MJ is guilty of these claims of abuse or not, but what I believe is that MJ may not realise that even sleeping (ZZZZZ) with children, which he admits doing, although not illegal, is highly questionable.
*The Independent Arts&BooksReview 12 Dec 2003
Essay Submitted 16 December 2003
Written by Dorayakii