Commentaries by Mumia

by Mumia Abu-Jamal / July 2009

Michael Jackson — master entertainer

The shocking passing of megastar Michael Jackson has brought his music back to the minds of millions. Although his style of both dance and song may’ve been superseded by a whole new genre, there were few singers or dancers who didn’t borrow something from the artist known as the “king of pop.”

Among many of today’s prominent artists are bits and pieces of Michael, just as he borrowed from the irrepressible James Brown. In Usher, Omarion, NeYo, Ciara, Genuwine (just to name a few), are glimpses of Michael Jackson’s frenetic, almost robotic dancing style. As a commercial artist, he had no peer. His 1983 “Thriller” not only earned a Grammy award, but spawned a dozen hits. The album would go on to sell more than any single artist’s: 27 million copies.

Years ago, I told my wife I didn’t care for the artist; she told me to ignore all the criticism, the press -- all of it, and look at him as an entertainer, say, like Sinatra.

I did. She was right. He was a master entertainer, who moved millions not only with his distinctive vocals, but his dancing changed the art like Muhammad Ali changed the sport of boxing. I never failed to marvel at his sheer brilliance and artistry.

Recently, the prison station showed a video of Jackson’s concert in Bucharest, Romania. An outdoor concert, with more people than any of us would care to count, Jackson was in rare form, transfixing the immense throng with a show that was unlike anything they’d ever seen.

For those who feel his music was mere bubblegum pop, and thus devoid of serious social commentary, check out one of his post ‘Thriller’ songs; “They Don’t Care About Us.” Filmed in what appears to be a Brazilian favela, surrounded by thousands of dark skinned boys and girls, many drumming to the beat, the song is an anthem of how the rich world treats the poor of the world.

Michael Jackson was a master of his art. He may be gone; he certainly won’t be forgotten. – © MAJ 2009

The stateless “state” of Palestine

The presidential election of Barack Obama has so electrified the world that expectations have swept past reality into the realm of the silly.

Some of this is surely driven by the corporate media, which no longer covers the news but engages in what might be called “pre-news,” as it tends to predict what will (or may) happen, the better to not be scooped by competitors. And as news makes its hard turn to opinion, it sometimes builds up Obama as a world leader, in ways that are simply unreasonable.

This was seen in the run-up to the Iranian presidential elections, where news coverage all but predicted the election of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi and the fall of the irascible Mahoud Ahmadinejad. The result predicted, talking heads opined about the global influence of Obama over the elections. (As for stolen elections, did millions of Americans take to the streets to protest the stolen elections here—in 2000?)

Similarly, much news coverage centered on Obama’s hard-line on the Israelis, as in his Cairo address when he called for a freeze in settlements. So slanted is U.S. policy towards Israel that a halt in construction in illegal settlements is seen as somehow “hard-line.”

For their part, Israeli right-wingers, many supporters of newly elected president Binyamin Netanyahu, have postered Tel Aviv with images of Obama wearing an Arab headdress (known as a kaffiyeh), emblazoned with the words “Jew Hater” and “Anti-Semite” in English and Hebrew (an allusion to his Muslim name and family background).

To “freeze” a situation that is fundamentally unjust is to preserve the status quo—a state of affairs that leaves the Palestinian people in an unjust and untenable situation. On top of that, Netanyahu recently announced an essential rejection of Obama’s “freeze,” and an alleged support of the establishment of a Palestinian state—albeit a demilitarized one, with foreign affairs to be overseen by Israel. This is a state only in the sense that the old South African Bantustans were independent territories (that is to say, not at all).

The Palestinians have had their best lands seized and Swiss-cheesed by settlements, their parliament has been cast into prison, their water is rationed, and their homes have been bulldozed, all while Western leaders crow about a “peace process” that is, ultimately, a freeze in oppression.

Meanwhile, Israel, not only the most powerful military in the region, but an undeclared nuclear-armed state, accepts the idea of a Palestinian state, but only if demilitarized—and this is seen as progress!

– © MAJ 2009