slug.com slug.com

7 3

The somewhat hysterical attempted erasure of Michael Jackson.

OK so he might have been guilty of the offences of which he has been accused. We'll never really know as he's not around to defend himself. But that's not my issue.

It has become fashionable among some, usually on the left, to find flaws in the character of historical figures and then use that as justification to erase any memory of them and any acts, good or bad, that they did. This trend seems to forget a fundamental truth that all humans are multi-faceted and have good and bad aspects to them. This is the essence of Shakespearean tragedy!

We celebrate certain historical figures for the good things that they did or achieved and should continue to do so. If we just rubbed out any recognition of the existence of people for their flaws, we could very well have nobody left! For example: Nelson Mandela was originally seen as a terrorist, Ghandi was a nationalist, Nancy Astor was a virulent anti-Semite! Should we erase them too? What if it was discovered that Alexander Fleming was a paedophile - would we demand not using penicillin anymore?

There was a call in the UK not long ago that the statue of Admiral Nelson in Trafalgar Square in London be taken down as he approved of slavery. But we don't remember and celebrate him for that!

These reactions, I believe, lack nuance and can only lead to an attempted rewriting of history to conform to a certain ideology - a dangerous precedent!

Anyway, what do you think?

Incajackson 6 Mar 11
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The real picture is being missed. The story of Michael Jackson came to light at the same time as the real time allegation in Hollywood of the same or worst crimes where coming out. This is a true attempt to distract from the real ugly of Hollywood is he Guilty I can not say, but I can say he was abused groomed and used by many in Hollywood then thrown out like a old broken toy. The biggest misconception is those who have been abused always go on to abuse not true. Some yes less then more. I believe Michael Jackson was trying to provide a safe haven away from the abuse he knew was going on and still goes on. It seemed sick and twisted because of his grooming into the excepting of the abuse, Symbols, handshakes, manirizams, become ingrained in the mind of the abused. So does the abuse as expected or not excepted behavior. I stopped watching supporting Hollywood 20+ year's ago the only way this will end is if we do not pay so they can abuse

0

Inca, there is something morally, fundamentally wrong with you. You want nuance about Michael Jackson. He f**ked young children in their asses. He forced 7 year olds to give him blow jobs. It that nuance enough for you. This was a sick, perverted, sexual predator and monster.

Since you are also an apologist for totalitarian Communism that starved, tortured and murdered 100+ million citizens in the 20th century, your sick comments are no surprise.

The system that you support took naked, pregnant Russian, Chinese and Cambodian women out into fields, in the dark of night, and shot them in the back of the head, in the name of equality and the collective. Nuance enough for you?

You want equality of results and equal distribution of wealth? Great. Why don't you start and set a good example for all of us greedy folks? It's good to know you stand with angels.

Aww shucks, don't beat around the bush - say what you really mean.

You make an awful number of assumptions! All completely wrong!

You clearly did not understand my OP, that is clear from your visceral reaction. As to being an apologist for totalitarian communism - well, I've no idea where you got that from.

I also didn't say I want equality or results and equal distribution of wealth.

You really need to read my posts more carefully. Then you won't end up making such erroneous attacks!

@Incajackson "....For the good of "the people" - "for the many not the few". Surely, state owned means of production, distribution and the forced redistribution of wealth is the only logical and morally correct thing to do. Surely, you must agree?..... Inca, set all of us straight on this post. You posted it right? You are asking if we agree? Agree with you? So, is this your opinion? Is it someone else's opinion? Is it nobody's opinion and just some trial balloon that you throw out there? What is it? I assume that you have an opinion, other than just being kind enough to start a discussion where you have no opinion. What is it?

@monteray98 Read my final comment on that thread!

@Incajackson Inca, I give up. Getting you to state your opinion, your opinion, is like trying to nail a turd to the wall. I repeat, you made the post about wealth distribution. You asked our opinions, yes. Was your statement your position? Can I be any clearer? What does "Surely you must agree?" mean. Agree with you? Agree with some fictitious human? Do you have a position on this subject? What is your position on wealth redidtribution and equity and state owned means of production?

2

Excellent points. Interestingly, some historical figures that are endearing to the left, remain so in spite of their character flaws. I don’t hear calls for removing statues of Karl Marx or Lenin. Not to mention the Che Guevara T-shirts being sported about. What’s alarming, is how the taboo label has a very fluid and inconsistent application.

The left applies the same principle to their definition of freedom of speech.

0

Many good points. I began listening to the Jackson 5 back in the 1970s on Soul Train. Such a sweet innocent time for many of us; but, not for the Jackson boys who were brutalized by an abusive father.
That doesn't give carte blanche to perform equally horrible acts. I am challenged to listen to his music and not think of his actions as an adult and the child he molested.

3

If Michael Jackson did the things he's being accused of, he was a horrible person but he's dead and can't defend himself, so...

You can't judge or change his music and the impact it had on generations. He was a fabulous/genius/amazing/(any other adjectives) ARTIST, who happens to be "accused" of being a pedophile, postmortem. (again, IF he did this, he was a horrible "person" )

I'm still over here waiting for them to wipe out the legacy of Harvey Weinstein and boycott his movies. Maybe they're waiting for him to die or maybe he's the Ghandi of Hollywood?

Selective hypocrisy... It's not just for parents talking to their kids about alcohol anymore. 😉

We've got to stop judging dead people. It's poor form...

1

I still enjoy the music and videos of this homosexual pedophile. It definitely detracts from the enjoyment though. If he were still alive I would avoid purchasing and promoting him and his behavior.

No, definitely do not rewrite history. As I understand it, HBO is doing a good job showing the darkness that can happen when we worship these icons. We need to remember this lesson.

Robert E Lee's statue at Gettysburg is a good opportunity to talk about why 3/4 million soldiers died and to understand that even a somewhat noble person can be enmeshed in the mechanisms of a failed power system. Black and white history is boring and wrong. There are a lot of grays.

1

I don't think it's a case of trying to erase him from history... Off The Wall still stands as a great work. BUT - can you still listen to 'Beat It' knowing that he made a 7-year-old beat him off and put his cock in a seven-year-old mouth?

Well, that's a matter for the individual to decide for themselves. My point is that it's surely not for other people to decide for us by implementing blanket bans?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:22224
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.