But if it was Prince who was going through this shit then you'd be defending him just the same.

Cloudbuster said:

no child-molester is worthy of my support/defense! Let's not forget: MJ pulled this shit upon himself! No pity...

I'm reading my local newspaper right now and there is an article titled "JACKSON CASE MAY BE FALTERING".It talks about how the prosecutors have a shaky case against Michael,not enough solid evidence and that's why the charges haven't been filed yet.They also say that a tip line has come up dry,with no new evidence they can use.When I have time later,I'll print the entire article.

That might also be true, but still you know for sure that when you go see a live-show by Prince, you will see a man very much in touch with his music, his passion.
I've see MJ-footage, 'performing' live, and all you see pathetic creature that lip-synchs and does some very well studied dance-moves. No improvisation whatsoever.

DavidEye said:

abierman said:

But Michael isn't a musician. He's an entertainer. There's a difference. But that doesn't mean Michael isn't in touch with his work. And if you had heard some of his demos you would realise that MJ has far more to do with his music than most people give him credit for.

I'm still not convinced that he has bleached his skin. If that was the case surely ten years ago he'd have said "Okay, that's enough". He just gets paler and paler, like people with vitiligo do.

...Paris Hilton's...Tommy & Pamela...Woody Allen...Courtney Love...Phill Spector...Slim Shady's shit "gangsta"...

Harlepolis said:

that is exactly my point! white media absolutely focuses more on sensationalistic black exposes. now, that's not saying they don't sensationalise white stories (look at the scott peterson case) but, let's face it, blacks an whites are represented in far different ways in american media. i am well aware of 2pac, his work and his mind. i am also aware of how HE used his image. someone mentioned several things he's done (strutting into the courtroom, thug life tattoo, etc.) and he needs to be held accountable for that. most blacks and whites are aware that there is a double standard when it comes to the representation of the races. but knowing this is power. rather than allow the system to manipulate us, we can use what we know to manipulate the system. these tv shows that are like minstrel shows; these cds that get released and portray black men as violent, stupid gangsters; the women looking like whores (lil' kim, anyone?); this stuff continues to be made because people continue to make it an buy it. when will black americans stop aiding in the stereotyping. by contributing (either money or creation) to these supposed 'art forms', black americans help to perpetuate the myths. it is not fair, this double standard. but it does exist, so behaving like it doesn't is counterproductive. unfortunately, there is a lot of work to be done. fortunately, money talks and black americans make up at least 15% the population. that's a big bargaining chip!

in one aspect, yes, black stars are victims of a racist society. in the sense that limited doors are open and a kind of 'typecasting' is clearly present. but then, on the other hand, the artists must take responsibility for their actions. they must put change before the dollar. and i don't wanna hear about starving kids at home. my mother was poor. my father was dead. she ever resorted to anything short of respectful. when i see busta ryhmes in a mountain dew ad, swinging on a vine from a tree and charicatured with a bottom lip as big as my fist just adding to his bank account...man, i wanna choke him! that is the shit i'm talking about. greed. putting greed before responsibility.

blaming white media is only half of the story. black artists are participating in the making of music and films and tv shows that degrade and stereotype black people. black americans are buying and supporting that crap and then saying it is indicative of black culture. no, its not. it is indicative of black americans accepting the status quo. it is an embracement of a lie. and everyone has to accept the blame for that.
[This message was edited Thu Dec 4 9:56:13 PST 2003 by imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty]

The good is ALWAYS there(once ppl open their eyes/ears anyway) but the bad is ALWAYS under microscope which is the sad thing of it all.

Harlepolis said:

absolutely. but since we know that, why don't we change it? we know the bad will be focused on so why include it at all. represent in a different, more positive way. if its not there, they can't focus on it.

Factor all these things together,and it looks like MJ really did have his skin bleached.He's obviously way too obsessed about his appearance,and did everything he could to alter his looks.It's sad and very tragic.

Michael Jackson is not denying the fact that he has bleached his skin. In many interviews he has said he bleached because of the vitiligo, which makes patches of the skin become albino-like over time. In his interview with Oprah, she asked him why he didn't just try to cover up with makeup that was his *old* skin tone. His reply was that it wouldn't blend...

Just to clarify... topical skin bleaching is not illegal. However, many dermatologists, including my own, believe that MJ was using an oral bleach which is no longer legal in the US.

HotThang said:

That is a blatant lie. I have the Oprah interview on tape and MJ said the uses MAKEUP to even out the skin tone. He has ALWAYS denied skin bleaching and NEVER played down his Black heritage.

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I know its full ofignorant opinions and few facts, so I'll pass for now(lol). But no matter what you think of Black celebrities who create contorversey, the fact is that race plays some type of role in everything. This is America, a country founded in prejudice and built on the backs of non-whites.

Cloudbuster said:

I don't really understand what you require as "proof". Videotapes of the assaults? Michael's DNA on the children? The testimony of the children is usually all they have to go on in cases such as these...there is rarely physical evidence after-the-fact, especially since the child is usually so traumatized that s/he doesn't come forward for some time after the incident. It comes down to whether or not the jury believes the kid. And personally, I would tend to believe the kid over an insane clown. Besides, Michael provides his own self-incrimination when he admits he invites children home to bed, that he's obessed with them, etc.

Prince is "eccentric". Michael is fucked up.

BTW...Prince seems 2 b a little paler these days...no one is calling that into question ...

twink69 said:

It's called MAX FACTOR INFINITY