Now that we’re seeing the horrific accusations against MJ, should he be scrubbed from history or not?
What he did is a helluva lot worse than anything Roseann Barr was accused of, and she was not only fired but reruns her show were pulled from the air. Her groundbreaking hit show has effectively been wiped from history.
Should the same thing happen to Michael Jackson?
Some are already going ahead with it.
Radio stations in Australia, Canada and New Zealand have become the latest to ban Michael Jackson from the air after horrific abuse claims.
Sydney’s Nova Entertainment on Thursday became the latest radio group to announce they are taking the late ‘King of Pop’ off the air in response to public opinion.
Wade Robson and James Safechuck claim in HBO’s Leaving Neverland that Jackson abused them aged seven and ten respectively.
‘In light of what is happening at the moment, SmoothFM is not currently playing any Michael Jackson songs,’ local media quoted Nova’s programme director Paul Jackson as saying.
It would absolutely make sense for society to turn their backs on a twisted monster who had a parade of children in his locked bedroom where children’s fingerprints were later found on his porn stash.
The voluntary abandoning of him in disgust makes absolute sense. The fact that he’s dead and gone now that we’re getting this level of detail means he can’t personally pay a price for his actions. (Eternity will be a bitch, but that’s another story.)
We’ve joked (ok, we were mostly joking) about exhuming his corpse and venting our wrath on it like they sometimes did in the middle ages, but obviously that wouldn’t really accomplish anything.
What are we supposed to do now?
Should Jackson’s MUSIC be scrubbed from history? Removed from all radio rotations? Pulled from Apple Music?
Or should he just be PERSONALLY tagged as a disgusting POS who happened to be a best-selling musician who drove an art form in a new direction?
He certainly wouldn’t be the first artist with a horrible history. At least one artist in history just might have qualified as a serial killer:
The great Renaissance sculptor and goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, creator of Perseus With the Head of Medusa, was a murderer and a rapist. He killed at least two men and was accused by a model of sexually assaulting her. This does not stop me from looking with great amazement and curiosity at the naked and sexual Perseus With the Head of the Medusa. The knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violent man. I assume that all art is made by people who are pretty bad in one way or another and that I am going to see the world through the prism of their own particular badness. I assume that any good art will be in part about badness.
And I will eagerly look at the work of any tyrant, rapist or murderer for the same reason. If Kim Jong-un wrote a novel I would be first in line for a copy.
Nor is my absorption of these things a question of compartmentalizing, of ignoring or suspending my disgust with an artist’s personal behaviour so as to concentrate on the art. I’m watching and reading because I expect art to be about moral dangers in a way that is less didactic than essays are. I expect art to be troubling because I expect people to be troubling. I am prepared to like and dislike something in every work. I can also appreciate the aesthetic genius of a moral monster without feeling that I am becoming inured to monstrosity. Just as I can read Heidegger without becoming a Nazi, I can look at one of Adolf Hitler’s juvenile watercolour paintings and appreciate a bit of pink in the sky there, and understand it as a painting of its era and one by a tyrant at the same time. And if I do this and am judged immoral for it, is it because it is bad for just me or bad for society at large?
—Russel Smith, Globe And Mail
Do we keep “Man in the Mirror”, “Black and White”, “Billy Jean” and all the others around as art? Or do we take a razor blade and cut him out of music history for being such a loathsome human being?
Isn’t that the same question that’s driving the statue-destroyers who want to rename Columbus Day and rename the John Wayne airport?
To be consistent in wiping out the memory of a slug like Michael, does that justify the historical revisionists who want to wipe out history’s heroes who don’t pass the ‘righteous’ standards of the New Left?
And if the Left calls for Michael Jacksons music to stay around, wouldn’t that mean they need to STFU with the destruction of monuments?
Sometimes the easy answers lead to new questions, don’t they?
Have fun in the comments!
Get Doug Giles’ new book:
Rules For Radical Christians is not a survival devotional designed to help the young Christian adult limp through life. Rather, it is a road-tested, dominion blueprint that will equip the young adult with leadership skills and sufficient motivation to rise to a place of influence in an overtly non-Christian culture. Rules For Radical Christians gives the reader the keys to become strategically equipped to move into an anti-theistic environment and effectively influence it for the glory of God.