Love like Jackson

**While I was writing this piece, I placed my itunes on shuffle with Michael’s music. The []s are the songs which came up during this writing process.**

Trying to write about an aspect of Michael Jackson in 1000 words is like trying to describe what the ocean and all of its vastness in a ten page thick, cardboard, kids story book, with big pictures and a sentence per page- aka- impossible. Jackson’s embodiment of love is something which translated in all he ever did and touched, even his interactions with the members of his band on stage. There was one seen within the first five minutes where Michael corrected one of the licks in “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’”, [Rock With You] he ends this correction with “It’s all in Love, all in Love.” Every exchange was very similar to this, even when Michael is corrected and or asked by Kenny Oretega to hold off for a second with the music for “Beat It” from the band [Remember the Time] instead of taking the typically expected Artist interactive stance, Michael politely says okay. Michael’s music, his actions, even his life, embodied Love. Within the film, Michael has a few significant moments where he chooses to lift others up as opposed to himself. At the very end of the film we see Michael, say “I Love you” during the [Smooth Criminal] Jackson 5 segment. Michael chooses to cut across the grass, and as he said in his 1982 hit “That Girl is Mine” when he was talking to Paul McCartney, “I’m a Lover, not a fighter”.

Michael’s love, which translated to all things, played on screen in the segment about the earth; we see the little girl frantically try to stop the bulldozer from killing the last living green [Lovely One] plant in the beautiful rain forest. Michael’s love for the earth, for people and for all things became the forefront of his “Final curtain call.” In all honesty Michael’s decision to return to the stage, to forgive his past, to look into people and to realize people are more complex- and compassionate- than what they made him out to be, was again all in Love. Michael’s [Satisfy You] knack to essentially make the idea of Love popular, to essentially hegemonize Love, was one which had been tried before by many artist prior, the only difference was Michael’s sincerity. Michael genuinely desired to see peace where there was war, hope where there was heartbreak, and a desire to still push on and push through in areas where there were decades of oppression. This is one of the reasons upon his death, the world watch the our pouring of a recreation of any straws of Love Michael created; be it the thriller dance performed by the South Korean [Stranger In Moscow] prisoners, or the gatherings of random dancers outside Neverland Ranch, Apollo, and the hospital he died in. People longed for the recreation of that hand of Love which had been there, because the absence was too chilling much too quickly. Michael’s Love for the world had a similar effect of a fathers warm, loving hand on the back of his little baby daughter, reassuringly present [Sunset Driver (Demo)], but not over bearing.

We as the world are infantile, in our attempts to Love one another; we lacked the guidance and where withal to move towards a non-conrete feeling. We are very much wrapped up in how we appear to the world, Michael kicked aside the thoughts of, what does it look like and created a culture of what is, he became the other, so people would not be afraid to join it. His dancing, his singing, his caring [This Place Hotel]- to date, Michael Jackson was the highest giving to charity star to have walked on this planet, his clothing, all of this was unprecedented. Michael became the middle of the binary; he was the one, who realized the convention of destroying the structuralized hate. Michael’s Love was the thing, which made him overcome his fears and return to the [Trouble] stage after a decade of absence [You Can’t Win] from it. He loved making people happy, he loved making things “sizzle” for his fans, he wanted to give them exactly what they wanted, but he wanted to do it in a way which challenges all those involved. Just look at his concert in the broadest of possible senses, his purpose was to communicate what not loving the world enough, would drive us to. In that very last sequence in the film, when all of the dancers and singers and musicians are all in that circle, Michael takes the microphone and expresses his Love for the earth and the people in it. He tells us the meaning we are [What More Can I Give] to take away and although this is another topic entirely, this is one of the only times Michael tells us point blank, how we should receive his information. Michael ends what looked to be a prayer with “sprinkling” Love on everyone.

Michael’s embodying something we struggle so much with, something we are so driven away from, something which he as a child, did not receive, Michael was so determined to destroy his personal demons, that he destroyed many others and showed us there is a way not only to Love, but to become Love.

During edits: [Bad]

During posting: [Wanna be Startin’ Somethin’]

High on Heels, high heels that is...

Queer theory. Academically this is anything which is perverted, deviant, or out of the norm, but according to society, it’s anything which meets the criteria of homosexual. According to this same society, my love for high heels fits this definition. I guess I should clarify, I love them individually, but I really love to see them on my girlfriend. I realize this is a very odd love to have; this further blurs the line of what is gay or straight. I am a straight male who finds a high (pun intended) fascination with high heels. I have perfected what a perfect heel is. Much of it has to do with the person wearing them, but I believe your heels should say something about the person you are, the things you like, or where you are going. Heels should be a character of the person wearing them, not an accent; they should embody something about the wearer. Let’s pause for a moment. What social construct says, I, as a man, cannot tell you, the reader, what high heels are supposed to do? What piece of being a man limits my opinion on something deemed female? Why should I not give my perspective if I have one? We live in a world which has pre-established male and female roles; this includes things which are deemed socially acceptable. Just think for a second, why would my discussing a pair of Go Jane strappy, satin twist, black, peep toe, 4.5 inch heels, which comes in 3 other colors, be an odd topic of discussion around a dinner table at a Frat house on Franklin Street?

According to Gayatri Spivak, at the point I begin a discussion in which I am exceed a normative function for my short hand binary reference frames, I am now succumbing to strategic essentialism. This is the need for me as a male to assert a belief to ‘essentialize’, or better put, bring forward, my group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals (Glossary of Key Terms in the Work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak by Michael Kinburn). In this case, I would be furthering the ideology of males who have something to say about high heels. What’s interesting to me is seeing what a love for women shoes, on women, will do to a man. R&B performing artist, Ne-yo, was “caught” by paparazzi back in 2007 buying high heels for a woman in his life and when confronted about it with an ‘interview’- which really did not occur- with Essence magazine he “came out” to the world about being gay. Ne-yo’s response to this story showed us as his audience, how to engage with essentialism;

“Honestly, when I first heard that there were rumors out there about me being gay I thought, Wow someone must really hate me.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay, but I just couldn’t understand why someone would make up lies like that. I remember speaking to Jay-Z about it and he was like, ‘Look, man you haven’t made it until someone says you’re gay.”

Okay, so because I can respect a woman’s shoe game, and not to mention that I’ve bought a few pairs of shoes in the past for the women in my life, that makes me gay? That’s hilarious.”
(http://www.mediatakeout.com/2009/21245-ne-yo_to_essence_im_not_gay__i_just_love_shopping_for_womens_shoes.html)

Ne-yo’s approach to the subject was, while being deemed gay is not so much an issue, it is not the correct approach for when a male, does not fit the culturally expected, social normative. Ne-yo alludes to it being a cop-out to just write someone off as gay, just because he enjoys something which is not accepted of him to like. Ne-yo is cutting across the grass here; he is culturally choosing to engage his understanding of what he is doing, while not allowing himself to fit into a pre-determined societal checklist. I think this is what Spivak meant for Stategic Essentialist to do, to engage the hermeneutics of gender and instead of accepting something as a single function, gay or not gay, straight or not straight; to find where the blurred line exists and push the envelope; to be able to be your own individual instead of someone dictated by the beliefs of outsiders. So, in the world of men, unless you’re the artist formally known as princess, you don’t wear high heels on the regular as a straight male, but because of essentialism, I can have a love for high heels; I mean, honestly, what makes high heels an implicitly female function?

Will the Real Southerns Please, just talk?

Some years ago, I went to a law program at Yale University to take two classes in Constitutional Law. Upon arrival, we played several getting to know you, ice breaking type, games; one of which was “Where are you from, based on your accent?”. This game was exciting and filled with very interesting processes of elimination to get to where people we from; everything from accent to syntax and word choice was taken into account to get people out (once someone told you where you were from, you could only guess, but not be asked). I was the last person left. I had people guessing all 50 states, even though you were only allowed to guess two. I had people asking me how I said certain words, but my accent was so flat, so indistinct, it took someone to ask me about my grades and for me to say “I make good grades” before it was found out, I’m southern. I was instantly told; everything about me screamed it was a lie. I was born at Moses H. Cone hospital, in Greensboro, North Carolina at 1:11pm on December 27th, 1988, was my response to being told I was lying. But I cam to the realization that I’m not lying but, I did have some internal questions I needed to look at to better answer the question I was asking myself “Why can’t people know I’m from the South? “ Instead of this question let’s try, complicating the issue further and taking about “Why I feel I need to cover up my Southern heritage?” The saying goes. “I’m American by birth and Southern by the Grace of God.” But in my personal experience, society’s negative response to the South has made it the last thing you want to represent.

Let’s look at some of societies positive thoughts on the south; The food is really good, everyone is extremely polite- better known as southern hospitality, a southern belle or a southern gentleman, is the way to go for a significant other, the weather is great and college football, lives here. Aside from these things, which many of them, themselves are highly questionable and enter the realm of objectification and it’s moral constructs with gender roles of southern men and woman and understanding southern culture, aside from all these things though, the for the most part has a very negative connotation with it. These are the things I for which I did not want to be associated; southern are slow, because they are so nice you can take advantage of them and they are pushovers, and also for the personal affect, my parents are both from up north and on a trip to visit my mom’s family in Connecticut, I was made fun of for my use of the world “draw-L-ing” instead of “drawing”. This moment in my life has stayed with me and slightly tainted my conversations with people since, but it still is another reason I do not embrace my “southern jargon”. It is hard enough to be a non- stereotypical black guy, in my mind, I could not even start to try to beat the odds if I was automatically written off, thus I discarded my southern robe, only dawning it when I need to seek refuge among like minded people- more southern.

Thus my continual forgery of identity; forgive me, but I'm gonna borrow this grouping again...

Mcgod like??

Small, Medium, Large, or Supersized; and do you want a side order of two for a dollar apple pies with that? This is the voice of god, at least for some people, other people call it the cashier at McDonalds; and honestly with all the transfat and hype, the lines become so blurred you cannot tell a difference. I think it is funny how we, as a country sing praises, of “Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun” and worship Mc-everything, at the entrance to this heaven, otherwise known as the “Golden Arches”. Build it and they will come, from every corner, every crevice, every nook, and every cranny, people from all over, they will come and bow at it’s tables, giving their tithes and offerings, brining sacrifices of health to the alter of Ray Kroc. We’ll offer you toys in exchange for child’s allegiance to be lifelong Mcfollowers who build their every family moment around a yellow, white, and red striped flag. The only question is, when it’s all said and done, did we really enjoy it, or is that what we have been societally preprogrammed to believe?

The “Golden Arches” has its very own functional identity as an ontological being. If we are referring to McDonald’s it has so many different names it is called and often times is thought of to have the very same function as coke; call it McDonald’s even though you are referring to a different place and when you get to the place you are actually trying to go, you will know the difference. Similarly, the name invokes a hegemonic quality on road trips with family and friends. Someone chimes in saying they are hungry and someone else says, “Well we will just stop at the next McDonald’s available.” Society’s preconceived notion of fast food is McDonald’s.

McDonald’s has created for itself a common place usage, based solely off the active ploys of advertising; everything from overly catchy jingles, to team sponsorship. “Put a smile on, put a smile on, everybody come on, and put a smile on” to Ronald McDonald scholars, Mc D’s intention has been to ensure not only do you as the consumer always see there name, but you as the consumer also see their philanthropic endeavors. I would even go as far as to offer the argument that the Arches only give money to make money, not because they want to, but because they believe it works better inside their company’s business model. When you are god of the fast food industry, with 47 million customers served daily (AP press), you can change the rules of the game to suit your needs however you see fit. Giving does not have to follow the cultural expectation of giving for your fellow man because of his need, McDonald’s proves daily; giving can be another form of making money or just plain advertising.

McDonald’s takes the binary created by just being a hamburger joint or not being a hamburger joint and spins it on its head, making it focus on the fact that as a hamburger joint it can sell frappuccinos , espressos, creating an atmosphere of posh and intellect, while still being just as greasy as is expected for McDonald’s or any burger joint to be. This switch undertaken my McDonald’s was again, not driven by the desire to include many different types of people in the McDonald’s eating experience, it was a successful attempt at creating a market, which would be more focused on getting a just-as-good –as-Starbucks caffeine fix, for the cheaper-than-Starbucks price. But again, when you are god, you can change the dynamic of a culture solely by lowering the price.

Being the god type figure in question always begs the question of motivation and being McDonald’s always gives the answer of worship at the foot of the proverbial monetary ark. McDonald’s every movement, their every stride has been money driven sense inception, to the day Ray Kroc bought the McDonalds out of the business, and it’s all been about the almighty dollar. With this in mind, the question of are we really worshiping to the god of the “Golden Arches” or the Lord of the greenbacks, presided over by a plethora of old, dead white guys? Ultimately, this question becomes the only one; McDonald’s has so drastically continued to blur the lines further and further, eventually we might think our money is heading directly to one of the charities. The greatest difference right now, is when we step to the alter often called the cash register, we actually receive a Mc-something, give it a few more years and McDonalds might start being more than just a food fueling place, who knows with the way their business looks they might even launch a consulting group. But all in all when it’s all said and done, are you really, “bah da bah bah baah, loving it?”

Hey Hey it's offensive... Blackface on Saturday night!

In a land far, far away known as Adelaide, Australia, a small group of five comedians, known as the "Jackson Jive" resurrect an art form which they have been entertaining people with literally since, 1971. The only problem with this little show, the use of Blackface and Afro wigs in the presence of an American artist. Harry Connick Jr. was a guest judge on "Hey, Hey , It's Saturday," when the performance trope came out to perform. With a immediate and visible offense, Connick, rated the performance a zero. His reasoning for doing so was, "If they turned up looking like that in the United States... (at which you hear a low, ow)... It would be like Hey Hey, there's no more show." The rest of the judges went on to rate this a combine score of 8 (out of a possible 30). Blackface? Making fun of the newly deceased Michael Jackson? No pitch whatsoever? You tell me, what you'd rate it.

I think on of the biggest take aways from this performance is the focus on the "American Insult" of Blackface. Let's complicate the issue more; where did the insult of blackface first originate from? Blackface was originally put on by white individuals who were attempting to make fun of blacks,by donning charcoal on their face, and highlighting the features which were distinctly black, such as the lips, actors would then perform outrageous acts, typically with slurred speech and dumb movements to stir laughter from the crowd.

This is the very obvious difference between Australian, or not American audiences, and Harry Connick Jr., or the United States representative present, all of what was done was not necessarily a mockery of blacks as much as it was an attempt to be the Jackson family. In America it would have incited the same type of anger a burning cross does for blacks because there is a direct historical significance tied to this representation, where as in Australia, its something to do, but nothing which there are people who will be upset by this representation. I honestly believe there should be some level of reprieve for individuals with pure intent. I know there is no way to no what the intentions were but I feel like if there is something of significant destruction of aesthetic, especially when it changes from place to place and country to country, there should be some way to educate individuals without putting them down.

You Belong with Me?

In the land of fairies, princes and princesses, and knights in shining armor, there lives a musician by the name of Taylor Swift, who swiftly (pun intended), captures the hearts of ardent little girls, women, young and old, and little boys, whom are too young to know the difference, with her music of Love and Love lost, of boys, and of life; better yet, tales only true to fables. Taylor's approach to life is light, but hopeful, starry eyed, but earth bound, essentially it is willing to embrace the dreamer in all of us, but it constructs very rigid structures, who in their deconstruction, destroy the very fantasy she has created.

Miss Swift implies plenty about the roles of men and women in her music videos, often with males being the inferior of the two sexes. An example of this is in You Belong with Me, the gentleman, says [writes] at the beginning of the video, "I'm tired of Anna." This is his cheer-leading Captain, girlfriend who is apparently only with him because he is a status symbol for her. He continues to put up with her ridiculousness, up until the very end of the video where he finally realizes he loves Swift's character and they kiss and the rest is history. According to Taylor, men are not smart enough to realize when they are being abused. Another example of this is when, Anna is on the sideline at the game flirting with another one of the guys from the football team, the boyfriend walks up after catch the game winning pass- another subset of a fantasy- only to confront Anna about it then and she looks as though she snaps at him, he storms off the field. The most pronounced view is when the guy and Swift are sitting on the bench outside her house waiting for Anna to pull up, when Anna finally gets there he gets in the car and Anna makes out with him in front of Swift not to make out with him, but to send a message to Swift about talking to her ‘man’.

Basically the gist of the fantasy is men don’t know when to walk away from a situation which clearly makes them not an equal. Essentially this entire video is a slam to the male perception of life. Swift, attempts to create a cute love story, but what she really is creating is a complicated construction of the male structure. Men, only pay attention to cheerleaders, who drive red sports cars, and are the most sought after in the school. And although initially Swift opts out of the social construct of blond headed women being the object of men’s fascinations, she throws it back in at the end when presenting herself as the end all catch. She also makes a heavy assumption with going to what looks to be prom that night. She assumes he wants out of current relationship, she assumes, he wants to be more than friends, and she assumes, he is not just trying to make Anna jealous.

Swift creates all of these fantasized, story book scenarios, but loosely backs them up and places them all on the head of men to be the scapegoat. Her basic message is men are stupid, or at least not smart enough to know when to leave, all they are looking for is an ego stoke, not a legitimate relationship, and that men bounce from girl to girl to girl, based off what they have been treated like previously. Swift’s simple story becomes extremely complex in its attempt to create all of these fantasies. She does not give the option for men to opt out of any of these binaries, to cut across the grass instead of staying on the socially acceptable, sidewalk.

So, for all those little ones who do not quite understand the opposite sex and are still in the run and hide stage of having a boyfriend or girlfriend, I hope they don’t use Taylor Swift as a guide to telling them what is or is not acceptable, because most little boys will grow up and be very independent men and most little girls, will not actually being pompous and arrogant, so the fantasy of having the dependent boy leave the bossy girl, may just not happen.

Serena Williams... what shall we do with you?

Yesterday, at the US Open, the world watched as Tennis extraordinaire, Serena Williams, not only played hard, but yelled hard too. For those of you unfamiliar with this story you can find it right here on youtube, or here on ESPN.

This little stunt told the public several things, one- I can't handle my emotions when I'm in potentially steamy situations, two- I need to understand the power of my passion before I handle the situation.

I am a firm believer in leaving it all on the field, the court, or whatever, but there is a line that has to be drawn at the point where my feelings begin to overpower me. I liken this situation to watching people who are dog walking, especially when the dogs are HUGE! Often times you wonder who is walking whom, the dog walking the person, or the person walking the dog. Although the dog may be very powerful, proper discipline can bring him inline and allow for his master to walk his dog-not the other way around. I feel these scenarios are very similar. If you are as passionate as Serena Williams or Lagarrette Blout (Oregon's now suspended former running back) about what you are playing for, I can understand fully that emotions will fly high; I wholly expect that to happen, but it's understanding the power and magnitude of your emotions that will humble you and keep you from having a display of ill-willed passion, which could lose you the game- Williams- or get you suspended for the season-Blout.
Now, both of these two athletes have come back and apologized accordingly for the misconduct they showed on the court and the field, but they have lost the respect of hundreds, or in Williams case, even thousands of fans, solely because of the response in the moment. This is something which occurs multiple times a week between peers and friends. You could be in physical Education at school in the third grade and go and punch a kid or (in the case of my girlfriend's summer camp) kick a kid in the nuts.

This is one of those binaries which we are taught from a younger age; that we should be as passionate about whatever and do whatever it takes to ensure that passion is seen through and through. We don't learn how to understand our emotions in a more sub-grouped fashion. We believe that if we're not gung-ho about everything we do to the point we're willing to fight for it, than we're not passionate, not really. This is where we are wrong. What if we flipped the script and change our societal position and said at the point where we need to fight about something, our passion, our emotions, our excitement is getting the best of us and we should probably step back and reassess. What if we looked at our emotions and instead of being completely distraught or crazy about something we're passionate about, what if we had a gray area, where we could be extremely passionate, but realize we need to stay grounded and not blow up if something doesn't go our way? Opting out of the binary of being all or nothing, might actually save more than just your career, it might actually save your life one day.

But the question lies in the hands of each person; are you a binary, only on or off, black or white; or are you better than that- do you have built-in gray? I challenge you to reassess.