Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2022 20:42:03 GMT
Are we meant to pretend this wasn't the case and just blindly shout "racist" like infatuated teenage morons to anybody who points this out?And who was doing that here? I'm discussing the points made but still feel the thread took a weird turn. The theme that Innuendo brought up reminds me of some blue tick comments around LN on social media that said "even if he didn't sexually abuse anyone he still emotionally abused those children because he befriended them then suddenly dropped them". So even if the sexual abuse part isn't true MJ is the guilty one somehow. Not the false accusers. I reject that. We should never forget that this whole narrative of him abruptly dropping children when they reach puberty comes from the one-sided LN and it's not true. Whenever there was a drifting away with a certain family (rarely - basically the Arvizos and Safechucks) he probably had a good reason for that, but regarding the Safechucks we will never get his side of the story and his reasons for gradually distancing himself. I imagine if we hadn't had MJ's side represented at the Arvizo trial there too it would have been easy to sell that story as MJ hurting children's emotional wellbeing by callously dropping them. I think Innuendo's point is that he shouldn't have befriended those families or children at all thus he could have avoided being accused. We have discussed that point many times and yes, MJ did make himself a sitting duck for such allegations. The part I take issues with is that MJ is somehow guilty
emotionally harming these kids. I'm sorry, but I won't feel sorry for Gavin's little broken heart for MJ not calling him back, when this "precious" little kid was someone who sat there on the stand and lied about MJ and would have had no problem sending him to jail for life and making his young kids paractically orphans. The fact he was able to do that tells you all you need to know about his moral character. I have zero sympathy for him. Same with Safechuck. The fact that he and his mother are able to participate in all this shows that maybe MJ was onto something regarding their moral character when he distanced himself. Of course, they are not going to tell you about the problems MJ might have experienced with them in their one-sided narrative.Also, IMO these people mainly saw the glamour and the megastar in MJ. When he distanced himself and they were falling out of favor, I don't think they were mourning the loss of a friend, rather they were mourning the benefits and potential opportunities that come with being his friend. These people saw him as a commodity, not as a human being. That's also the reason why they are able to falsely accuse him. That's all fine but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to question the impact of bringing a child along on a massive world tour for months on end. That's the equivalent to meeting Superman for a child. I know only too well that you've done a mountain of work and research on the allegations but we can't dismiss the possibility of there being any negative impact on any child. I'm not saying there would be, I'm saying there could be. Again it's his naivety was his downfall. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 21, 2022 2:50:03 GMT
And who was doing that here? I'm discussing the points made but still feel the thread took a weird turn. The theme that Innuendo brought up reminds me of some blue tick comments around LN on social media that said "even if he didn't sexually abuse anyone he still emotionally abused those children because he befriended them then suddenly dropped them". So even if the sexual abuse part isn't true MJ is the guilty one somehow. Not the false accusers. I reject that. We should never forget that this whole narrative of him abruptly dropping children when they reach puberty comes from the one-sided LN and it's not true. Whenever there was a drifting away with a certain family (rarely - basically the Arvizos and Safechucks) he probably had a good reason for that, but regarding the Safechucks we will never get his side of the story and his reasons for gradually distancing himself. I imagine if we hadn't had MJ's side represented at the Arvizo trial there too it would have been easy to sell that story as MJ hurting children's emotional wellbeing by callously dropping them. I think Innuendo's point is that he shouldn't have befriended those families or children at all thus he could have avoided being accused. We have discussed that point many times and yes, MJ did make himself a sitting duck for such allegations. The part I take issues with is that MJ is somehow guilty
emotionally harming these kids. I'm sorry, but I won't feel sorry for Gavin's little broken heart for MJ not calling him back, when this "precious" little kid was someone who sat there on the stand and lied about MJ and would have had no problem sending him to jail for life and making his young kids paractically orphans. The fact he was able to do that tells you all you need to know about his moral character. I have zero sympathy for him. Same with Safechuck. The fact that he and his mother are able to participate in all this shows that maybe MJ was onto something regarding their moral character when he distanced himself. Of course, they are not going to tell you about the problems MJ might have experienced with them in their one-sided narrative.Also, IMO these people mainly saw the glamour and the megastar in MJ. When he distanced himself and they were falling out of favor, I don't think they were mourning the loss of a friend, rather they were mourning the benefits and potential opportunities that come with being his friend. These people saw him as a commodity, not as a human being. That's also the reason why they are able to falsely accuse him. That's all fine but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to question the impact of bringing a child along on a massive world tour for months on end. That's the equivalent to meeting Superman for a child. I know only too well that you've done a mountain of work and research on the allegations but we can't dismiss the possibility of there being any negative impact on any child. I'm not saying there would be, I'm saying there could be. Again it's his naivety was his downfall. The Safechucks were on tour with MJ for about two months in the summer break of 1988 and then again a couple of more weeks in the winter break the same year in December. That was it. At all times James' parents were there. Basically it was a vacation that MJ gave them (the whole family, not just James) in 1988 outside of school time. That's it. I don't think that obligated MJ to forever keep them around after they did things that disappointed him. If someone gives me an awesome vacation as a child but later I and my family become more and more exploitative of that person's generosity and as a result that person drifts away I don't see how this is that person's fault because he gave me an awesome vacation once. Nor do I see the vacation itself as the negative impact in this scenario. It is the family's exploitative behavior that has the negative impact, not the vacation. Other kids, like Brett were on tour with him a lot more and somehow that didn't negatively impact them or made them accuse him. Nor did it make him distance himself from them. I don't think the tour is the alpha or omega of anything here. It was a vacation. I'm sure it was awesome and glamorous for the Safechucks, but at the same time exactly because you are a kid it starts to become not so special any more and loses its magic, after you have spent some time on tour. And exactly the closeness to MJ makes him less a Superman and more a normal person after a while. Brett actually talked about that in his recent interview. I feel it's entitlement if a family feels that MJ giving them a gift (in this case a vacation on tour) obligated MJ to forever take care of them and never to distance himself from them no matter what they do. Not that I put that entitlement past the Safechucks. Entitlement is probably a huge part of these accusing families' behavior. But that they felt or feel entitled is not MJ's fault but their own character flaw. |
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jun 21, 2022 11:34:30 GMT
Theres a pattern with those who accused mj and a pattern of those who didnt and reminded friends with him for many years. Do the differences really need pointing out!? Entitlement, arrogance ,greed etc.then you look at someone like brett or the german family etc etc.
Yet the actions of the robson etc etc are somehow MJs fault. We keep going back to blaming the victim. It amazes me how some fans are taken in by press,prosecutors.. accusations in terms of trying to make mj out as the bad guy inorder to push the narrative. When the actions of the robsons and co show you everything you need to know about how they wanted to be treated how they acted and how they took umph later on.yet that's somehow MJ fault.the mind boogles.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 21, 2022 12:31:13 GMT
While I don't think the treatment of MJ was all about race but I don't agree with the race factor being completely dismissed and played down either. British tabloids IMO do have this racist vibe to them (still), and much more in the 80s, 90s. Hell, Kelvin Mackenzie who was the chief editor of the Sun in the 80s even said that out loud once that their target audience is the "right old fascist down the pub, who hates the wogs, hates the queers" etc. (paraphrasing but this was about what he said). Do you really believe race wouldn't play a factor in that kind of corporate culture of tabloids? This is where I will ask for appropriate evidence of this "racist vibe", especially since it looks more like you're basing it on what one editor of yesteryear is reported to have said. The British media is pretty diverse and the tabloids are also different to each other. We've had UK and ROI regional versions of several red tops for some years now too which illustrates difference. It seems to me the idea the British media is racist towards MJ is very heavily based on the myth that "Jacko" is a racist term. From there, many fans use circular reasoning to shore it up. As it stands, Kelvin MacKenzies' quote was only in reference to The Sun readership and what MacKenzie apparently believed them to be. Not a broadbrush example of the entirety of the British media or "the corporate culture of the tabloids" itself. That would be a Hasty Generalisation Fallacy. And his full quote is: "MacKenzie exploded at the idea. ‘You must be fucking joking!’ he screamed, poking Blake in the chest. ‘You don’t understand the readers, do you, eh?’ MacKenzie rapped out his picture of the Sun’s older reader. ‘He’s the bloke you see in the pub — a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he’s afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and weirdoes and drug dealers. He doesn’t want to hear about that stuff!’ he finally yelled, veins bulging. He gave the entire desk a bollocking on its duty to know the ‘olf fascist’ so well they could predict his every word. ‘When you can imagine that bloke saying, “‘ere I tried that marijuana last night — not bad,” then we’ll write about it. And not before!’ … Over at The Mirror, the tabloid sage Keith Waterhouse [would] later characterise The Sun reader as the ‘skinhead with a six-pack’." Right at the end, we see that the Mirror parodied the readership of The Sun based on this. The Mirror is not owned by Murdoch and a past owner was Robert Maxwell, the father of a certain woman currently in a US prison for trafficking. |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 21, 2022 13:30:17 GMT
Wacko Jacko is a racist thing to call someone. especially a black person. if everyone here never look up the term you will realize it is racist.
they were pretty calling Michael a monkey. a circus monkey.
i'm not here for a history lesson. but yes Wacko Jacko is racist. alot caucasian people saw black people as animals. aka mostly monkeys. they didn't see them as human beings. very very horrible and shameful. smh. 😔😔😔
|
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jun 21, 2022 14:05:13 GMT
In Australia in the 80's we had a famous white football player named Mark Jackson who was known to everyone as Mark "Jacko" Jackson. It's common in Australia to shorten names and put an A,E or O on the end as a nickname. McDonald becomes Macca, John becomes Johnno, Gary becomes Gazza, Jackson becomes Jacko, etc. There are no racist connotations to it here. Still, when the term was used in the press it usually wasn't used as a term of endearment for Michael.
|
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 21, 2022 14:23:59 GMT
I didn't know that. as someone who is an American. that wouldn't be a nice thing to call anyone. especially a black person. so this a warning if anyone planning to visit or live in America. 😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 21, 2022 15:20:54 GMT
Wacko Jacko is a racist thing to call someone. especially a black person. if everyone here never look up the term you will realize it is racist. they were pretty calling Michael a monkey. a circus monkey. i'm not here for a history lesson. but yes Wacko Jacko is racist. alot caucasian people saw black people as animals. aka mostly monkeys. they didn't see them as human beings. very very horrible and shameful. smh. 😔😔😔 I'm going to be blunt here.....whatever you assert without evidence CAN and WILL be dismissed without evidence. It's incredibly easy for anyone to claim something is true without a shred of evidence to prove it. On the other hand, it can be proven that "Jacko" has no racist history at all. This kind of nonsense reminds me of those who claimed that "picnic" had racist origins despite the fact it can be proved it came from the French "pique-nique". Pronounced "peek-neek". |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 21, 2022 15:22:21 GMT
I didn't know that. as someone who is an American. that wouldn't be a nice thing to call anyone. especially a black person. so this a warning if anyone planning to visit or live in America. 😂😂😂 No warning required for the United States as "Jacko" has zero racist history there too. Racist terms are well established in the US and "Jacko" is not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 21, 2022 15:28:25 GMT
In Australia in the 80's we had a famous white football player named Mark Jackson who was known to everyone as Mark "Jacko" Jackson. It's common in Australia to shorten names and put an A,E or O on the end as a nickname. McDonald becomes Macca, John becomes Johnno, Gary becomes Gazza, Jackson becomes Jacko, etc. There are no racist connotations to it here. Still, when the term was used in the press it usually wasn't used as a term of endearment for Michael. Yes, it's a shortening of names, but Jacko is also a first, middle and last name in its own right. People are seriously kidding themselves if they believe there aren't any black people called "Jacko". Including in the United States. With Michael, there is a clear distinction between the usage of "Wacko Jacko" and "Jacko". Used by itself, Jacko absolutely was used as a term of endearment. There was a debate on this in Archives years ago. For fun, I put in a headline only to find a few claiming it was racist. I then revealed it was a headline about General Mike Jackson - the irony was lost on them. And several where it was used in a positive way for MJ. Psychology shows people are more likely to remember the bad than the good which explains a lot of it. But crucial point is....it has precisely zero racist history. |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 21, 2022 15:29:56 GMT
Race did have to do with the media treating Michael awful. BUT also Michael behavior did too.
like Matty said Michael making up stories was very very bad to do. i understand he was just trying to promote himself with captain eo etc.
BUT he shouldn't never did that.
Michael behavior was naive. he was naive guy. sometimes he didn't know right from wrong. he was stubborn, he was very intelligent BUT he was naive and stubborn.
i'm not sure whatever or not his mother told him how the world really is/was.
that's not to say the media making stories about him was right either.
like i said Michael was a stubborn, shy, naive, guy.
he had alot yes people around him and it's been said alot of times if you told Michael no he would make a way to get whatever he want it.
he was a sweet guy BUT stubborn.
i don't defend Michael for his wrong doings. that's anyone really. i think a real fan wouldn't be scare to say Michael was wrong sometimes and talk about his wrong doings.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 21, 2022 15:53:15 GMT
Wacko Jacko is a racist thing to call someone. especially a black person. if everyone here never look up the term you will realize it is racist. they were pretty calling Michael a monkey. a circus monkey. I must stress here that "Jacko" does NOT mean "monkey" or "ape". Long before Vogel's obscure fighting ape example, various animals were named "Jacko". This included donkeys and birds, to name two. It carried on long, long after the obscure ape too. And long before this same obscure ape, a long tailed monkey was called "Jacko" because he'd travelled to the UK with sailors. We traditionally call sailors "Jack Tar", so "Jacko" in that case was "Jack 'o The Tars". Suitably shortened in that case. It certainly didn't mean monkey at all. But it has a very long history as a name and spread from here to the USA and Australia. Faded over time in the US, but not in Australia. Humans have been named "Jacko" since....well, I researched as far back as 1540. So, no, Michael was NOT being likened to a monkey or an ape with it. Occams Razor - anyone with Jack in their name will usually be called Jacko. Jacklin, Jackman, Jackson, etc. The Scottish version would be "Jock". Hence, "Jacko's Jockos" when MJ met various children in Glasgow ahead of his 1992 concert. |
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,492 
|
Post by TonyR on Jun 21, 2022 15:56:17 GMT
Jacko is no more a racist term for Michael Jackson any more than calling David Beckham 'Becks' means we're calling him a German beer drinker.
|
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jun 21, 2022 16:58:57 GMT
In Australia in the 80's we had a famous white football player named Mark Jackson who was known to everyone as Mark "Jacko" Jackson. It's common in Australia to shorten names and put an A,E or O on the end as a nickname. McDonald becomes Macca, John becomes Johnno, Gary becomes Gazza, Jackson becomes Jacko, etc. There are no racist connotations to it here. Still, when the term was used in the press it usually wasn't used as a term of endearment for Michael. Same in the UK |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2022 17:48:17 GMT
Wacko Jacko was pretty much a term of endearment here in Ireland. Wacko, because he was doing some odd things. Jacko, because his surname was Jackson. MJ was a sensitive man, so he would obviously hate it.
If Frank Dileo had leaked those fake stories about any of my friends, and their second name happened to be Jackson, Wacko Jacko would be the perfect nickname. And they would accept it.
This whole "racist" thing that spread among fans was really stupid.
|
|
