the embrace the black community has given to MJ after his death is sort of strange - he was a beloved boy & young adult but the dude has been trying to become white for years - any discussion of racism in Michael's case should start with his internal racial issues that caused him to F*ck up his face & complexion
Even when he was bleachin himself, dude still repped the Black Exp.
Maybe, but I'm skeptical of any argument, including Reed's, that's predicated in any substantial way on the idea that White America truly considers Michael Jackson an exponent of Black America. Not to be reductive, but dude was so
very famous and so very rich and so very fucked up, within and without, to such an extent that even the most prejudiced white people I know--and I know a lot of prejudiced white people--don't consider Michael to be representative of anything beyond his own sui generis famous, rich, fucked-up alien self. I mean, I come into regular contact with people who manage to shoehorn casual racism into pretty much any topic ("Well, of course LeBron had to hire a yard crew--black people don't know how to take care of their lawns"), and whenever Michael Jackson comes up (which--even pre-death--is more often than you might think), they might blame his troubles on the moral turpitude brought on by the money or the fame or his "obvious" homosexuality ("Though I'm sure some liberal would tell you that it's because he--heaven forbid!--got spanked by his parents"), but I've never even once heard them attribute anything to his race. And they would certainly be the ones to do it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I really question whether greater White America has the acute sense of Michael Jackson's blackness that these arguments require.
Even when he was bleachin himself, dude still repped the Black Exp.
Maybe, but I'm skeptical of any argument, including Reed's, that's predicated in any substantial way on the idea that White America truly considers Michael Jackson an exponent of Black America. Not to be reductive, but dude was so
very famous and so very rich and so very fucked up, within and without, to such an extent that even the most prejudiced white people I know--and I know a lot of prejudiced white people--don't consider Michael to be representative of anything beyond his own sui generis famous, rich, fucked-up alien self. I mean, I come into regular contact with people who manage to shoehorn casual racism into pretty much any topic ("Well, of course LeBron had to hire a yard crew--black people don't know how to take care of their lawns"), and whenever Michael Jackson comes up (which--even pre-death--is more often than you might think), they might blame his troubles on the moral turpitude brought on by the money or the fame or his "obvious" homosexuality ("Though I'm sure some liberal would tell you that it's because he--heaven forbid!--got spanked by his parents"), but I've never even once heard them attribute anything to his race. And they would certainly be the ones to do it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I really question whether greater White America has the acute sense of Michael Jackson's blackness that these arguments require.
I didn't get too far into the article I was stunned by this
Then we got some footage that implied that blacks as a group were homophobes even though Charles Blow, a statistician for The New York Times, recently published a chart showing that gays have the least to fear from blacks.[/b]
I mean, proving that "blacks as a group are homophobes," is neither here nor there. There doesn't seem to be much sense in assembling a hierarchy of homophobia. But what the hell are they implying with "gays have the least to fear?" Should gay people be living in fear? And further, what mish mosh of statistic criteria do you possibly put together that allows you to make this statement? Shit, it's not like it's something quantitative that you can measure from blood samples.
I didn't get too far into the article I was stunned by this
Then we got some footage that implied that blacks as a group were homophobes even though Charles Blow, a statistician for The New York Times, recently published a chart showing that gays have the least to fear from blacks.[/b]
I mean, proving that "blacks as a group are homophobes," is neither here nor there. There doesn't seem to be much sense in assembling a hierarchy of homophobia. But what the hell are they implying with "gays have the least to fear?" Should gay people be living in fear? And further, what mish mosh of statistic criteria do you possibly put together that allows you to make this statement? Shit, it's not like it's something quantitative that you can measure from blood samples.
He's referring to the fact that in California there was a lot putting the blame for the passing of Prop. 8 on blacks. He's trying to say that blacks do not hold the power in CA or the U.S. so gays shouldn't fear or demonize them.
Comments
you sound white
Check out Stormfront's threads on the subject.
keep your friends close
keep your enemies closer
I mean, proving that "blacks as a group are homophobes," is neither here nor there. There doesn't seem to be much sense in assembling a hierarchy of homophobia. But what the hell are they implying with "gays have the least to fear?" Should gay people be living in fear? And further, what mish mosh of statistic criteria do you possibly put together that allows you to make this statement? Shit, it's not like it's something quantitative that you can measure from blood samples.
He's referring to the fact that in California there was a lot putting the blame for the passing of Prop. 8 on blacks. He's trying to say that blacks do not hold the power in CA or the U.S. so gays shouldn't fear or demonize them.