So last nignt on the MTV Video Music Awards, Madonna opened the show with a long speech about Michael Jackson. The full text of this speech can be found here . Everyone seems to be talking about how heartfelt it was, what a beautiful tribute, etc etc etc. But frankly, I was shocked, and kind of appalled by the direction she chose to take with it. Because she didn't just talk about what an amazing artist the man was; she didn't just share fond personal memories of him. She stood up there and made a speech that basically proclaimed him innocent of the crimes he was never proved to have or have not committed. And as if that in and of itself isn't inappropriate enough for the event, she did it by justifying his--perhaps legal, but definitely questionable--behavior with children. She begins:
Michael Jackson was born in August 1958. So was I. Michael Jackson grew up in the suburbs of the Midwest. So did I. Michael Jackson had eight brothers and sisters. So do I. When Michael Jackson was six, he became a superstar, and was perhaps the world’s most beloved child. When I was six, my mother died. I think he got the shorter end of the stick. I never had a mother, but he never had a childhood. And when you never get to have something, you become obsessed by it.
She goes on to call Jackson a "hero," and refers to the "witchhunt" and "lynchmob" that plagued him.
Now, I don't know, obviously, if Michael Jackson ever molested any children. But neither does Madonna. We all know that he engaged in some objectively inappropriate behavior with young people (I don't care how pure your intentions are, having sleepovers with adolescents is not acceptable to me). And yes, that behavior was probably prompted by a traumatizing childhood that left him emotionally damaged. But does that merit a speech justifying a man's questionable behavior with children who are too young to understand intent or boundaries? Simply put: did she HAVE to go there?
I don't have a problem with people memorializing and praising Jackson the artist, and reflecting on what a profound impact he had on their lives and the music industry. But I can't help but imagine a survivor of childhood sexual abuse watching Madonna up on that screen talking about witchhunts and thinking "is that what people will think if I tell?"
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Was I the Only One Offended By Madonna's MJ Speech?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15988
Amen to that. I hate the way people will take something like this and simply because they like the person - be it Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson or MJ - proclaim them totally innocent and call their victims liars. We all know that a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean anything, and statistically there's much more likelihood that a guilty person will be found innocent than vice versa. But particularly with celebrities where the trial is so public, it does not send a good message to children who have been abused to imply 'this poor man was accused by some wicked children'. Nobody knows the truth, and the guy's dead now, so it seems irresponsible to keep mentioning it just so that the myth that the majority of molestation claims are false can be perpetuated.
"We all know that a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean anything"
No "we" don't know any such thing!
To me, a verdict of not guilty means that a person was found not guilty by a jury of their peers - in a country where 92% of indicted defendants are found guilty.
In other words, generally speaking, folks who are found not guilty against all those odds are innocent of all charges
In fact, America's jails are filled with innocent folks who pled guilty to a crime they did not commit, because they and their lawyers know how hard it is to beat the odds and get justice in the face of the power of the American prison industrial complex - not to mention all of the wrongfully convicted folks in prison in this country.
92% of indicted people are found guilty OR PLEAD GUILTY, but only 5%(ish) go to trial at all. mostly, our justice system is a big game of let's make a deal. were it not, it would cease to function. yes, people plead to things they didn't do.
not guilty =/= innocent. innocent is a moral judgement, and it means that the person is utterly without blame and, yes, without sin. not guilty means that there was a reasonable doubt. has no bearing on whether or not the person actually did it. it just means that no one could really prove he/she did. that's why you are never, ever declared innocent.
I didn't have quite the same take on it. When she talks about him being obsessed with childhood because he didn't have one I took that to mean the never never land and other childish things he was interested in, not to be a comment about him liking kids. I do find her calling him a "magnificent creature" and the "witch hunt" comment to be problematic about someone who was accused of what Michael Jackson was accused of though Madonna seems to be coming from the point of view that he was innocent. However, I also think the tone of the speech which is that Michael was treated unfairly and sort of persecuted has to do with more than the child molestation accusations and is also referring to the way Michael was the butt of jokes and made fun of constantly in the media for the way he dressed, his unusual interests, some of his bizarre behavior and the surgeries and way he looked. I don't think Madonna would call the children who brought the accusations against Jackson the "lynchmob" or that she would call the law that. I think (and as a celebrity she can emphasize) that what she is referring to is the way the media really gloried in and exploited these accusations and the fall and self destruction of a popular star.
I'm more uncomfortable with the way she seemed to refer everything back to herself, as though she was the sole authority anyone should refer to when forming their own opinion.
I really don't think the speech had much to do with Michael Jackson and had everything to do with Madonna projecting her own self-righteousness onto his own struggles. A truly balanced speech would have acknowledged that there are shades of light as well are dark in every life and Michael Jackson's certain fit that category.
Did he molest those boys? I don't know. I wasn't there. Two juries apparently felt he didn't and as strong a societal taboo and intrinsic evil as child molestation is, I have a tendency to believe that peoples' desire to prosecute a sex offender to the fullest would have even pushed past a high powered team of lawyers hired to prove Jackson's innocence. But I don't know for sure.
actually it was one jury. the other matter was never criminally prosecuted. and when do we decide one is innocent. you mean to tell me even when a jury says he is innocent, we still get offended when others call him innocent?
"you mean to tell me even when a jury says he is innocent, we still get offended when others call him innocent?"
OJ?
the typical, and expected response. yes OJ too was innocent. folks can speculate all they want, but he was found not guilty and none of us were there to at the scene of the crime. it seem the standard is to believe what we want about innocence of guilty, and disregard the system we have put in place to deal with such issues
Yeah, bad on me for using a cultural reference that everyone knows and understands. Substitute Zuma for OJ, then.
Oh come on now...the system is incredibly flawed in both letting the guilty go free and the innocent suffer in prison, for a start. Arguing that we can't judge beyond that because its what the system decided is like saying we cannot complain about what the government is doing because the country voted it into office.
He wrote a book titled "If I Did It," for Christ's sake.
All the OJ cased proved was that, in America, only a millionaire can get a fair trial - because he had the resources to properly defend himself in the face of the power and money that the State of California's prison industrial complex brought down against him.
And I think that most of the "moral outrage" about the OJ verdict was racial - White America was mad because a Black man accused of a crime against White womanhood got acquitted. They didn't give a damn about Nicole Brown as a human being - just that an African American defied White power and lived to tell the tale.
So we can't possibly look at it through a lens of domestic violence?
So anybody who was concerned that a man murdered a woman and got away with it is racist?
So we can't acknowledge that there are race AND gender issues afoot in the OJ case?
Sorry for the derail, but just like the conversation about Taylor Swift, it really frustrates me when folks try to shut down conversations about sexism by talking about racism and vice versa. In a lot of situations, both factors are at play, and it's worthwhile to try to understand their interplay rather than write off one or the other and accuse folks who emphasize the opposite of being racist or sexist.
I was offended by it mainly because Madonna used her speech to babble on about herself and her (admittedly) rough childhood, when Michael freaking DIED. Though I do agree that a lot of the memorial stuff surrounding Michael's death seems to completely disregard the fact that he allegedly molested children and WAS VIDEOTAPED dangling his own child off a balcony.
So, every positive thing Michael Jackson did in his life should be held suspect just because somebody accused him of something?
An accusation that did not hold up in court.
Sorry, but Michael Jackson was a great musician and a great human being - no matter what all of the haters have to say.
And, quite frankly, if Michael Jackson was a White man, we wouldn't be hearing any of this nonsense - he'd have his face on a stamp, just like Elvis Presley.
"She stood up there and made a speech that basically proclaimed him innocent of the crimes he was never proved to have or have not committed."
Well, the last time I checked, in America you are innocent until proven guilty
And, if I recall correctly, Michal Jackson was acquitted in one case - and the other one never came to trial.
By your standard, Jackson should be guilty until proven innocent - and I have a serious problem with that (especially in a country with a long history of framing African American men for nonexistent 'sex crimes' allegedly committed against Whites).
You're offended because someone who knew Michael Jackson doesn't think he committed a crime -- a belief shared by the jury that acquitted him.
I'm sure you know way more about the Michael Jackson case than anyone else, ever, including said jurors.
I don't fault people for thinking that he did it. I understand that wealth can make quite a difference. I also don't fault people for thinking that he's innocent, particularly since he was found not guilty.
Speculation is one thing. Don't get indignant because someone else speculates differently. Unless you have amazing proof of his guilt -- and then, where were you when the trial was going on? -- have some respect for his grieving friends.
You're offended because someone who knew Michael Jackson doesn't think he committed a crime -- a belief shared by the jury that acquitted him.
I'm sure you know way more about the Michael Jackson case than anyone else, ever, including said jurors.
I don't fault people for thinking that he did it. I understand that wealth can make quite a difference. I also don't fault people for thinking that he's innocent, particularly since he was found not guilty.
Speculation is one thing. Don't get indignant because someone else speculates differently. Unless you have amazing proof of his guilt -- and then, where were you when the trial was going on? -- have some respect for his grieving friends.
I don't think it's entirely fair to tell the OP that s/he's "offended because someone who knew Michael Jackson doesn't think he committed a crime." S/he didn't say s/he was offended at Madonna's beliefs/opinions per se -- the way I interpreted it, the OP seemed to be offended at the way Madonna worded her speech and the time at which she chose to bring these issues up. I also think that "don't get indignant because someone else speculates differently" was unfair as well, because you're implying that the OP is angry because Madonna has a different opinion than s/he does, when that's not at all what was said in the post.
What I got from the post was that the OP's main idea was, "I understand that Madonna feels this way, but I think it was inappropriate to bring it up during this speech." Not, "I'm so angry at Madonna for thinking differently than I."
"Fine, you can think it in the privacy of your own home, but don't go talking about it . . "
If she felt strongly that Jackson was wrongly accused, the speech would have been a good time to bring it up. Maybe not the least controversial time, but still.
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's point. I was just restating it because it seemed like you interpreted it in a way that was a lot different from what the OP really meant.
I disagree that it was inappropriate, and I disagree with the OP's conviction that Michael Jackson was absolutely positively unquestionably a child molester.
Are we done arguing semantics?
I disagree that it was inappropriate, and I disagree with the OP's conviction that Michael Jackson was absolutely positively unquestionably a child molester.
Are we done arguing semantics?
I don't understand why you're being short with me when I haven't done anything that insinuates that I disagree with your opinion on the OP's ideas. I disagreed with your interpretation, and called you on it respectfully. I didn't think we were arguing about anything. If you're angry at or disagree with the OP, take it out on her, not me.