michael, may you now be at peace: a reflection (no. 62)

i've been having quick bursts of both energy and tiredness... i expect that's from not getting much sleep before i had to go to work- i should be resting now, but my brain has been working overtime. my internal clock is having difficulty figuring out itself, as i run on a less consistent schedule these days... so used to beginning to rest at an hour where many are just waking up; i now have to be up at those hours as well, and because of this i have difficulty getting my body to calm itself.



all throughout this experience is the growing need to hold on to something, to someone... someone to share thoughts with. but everyone has gone to bed. and so i have an anxious mind. certainly i can talk to you in this way, but alas... there is the realization that you are not going to respond in kind, whether or not you are listening. it does make me feel uneasy talking to you in this way sometimes, because you are not able (or won't) respond in kind. my mind rushes with all of these thoughts- "OH! i have something to tell michael today... will it be information he didn't know? will it be something he's known the whole time and was TRYING to tell people, but they didn't listen?" i don't know, because we can't communicate in the same way.



so one of the things i KNOW i can do, is share your teachings with others... the teachings you presented to us whilst you were here on this plane.

as i was taking a little bicycle trip around the way (as it was a lovely night to do so) my mind was still racing, about communication and how we do it... how information is disseminated. i wondered if all the gnats that flew around each other actually KNEW each other; were they all family, or were they just becoming acquainted, by way of survival? the people who were sitting outside of their houses, do they talk to their neighbors?



and of course i thought about how information is disseminated by media. not just mainstream media, but independent as well... whether or not i or anyone else concurs, much of, if not all media is subjective. if a publication or news organization speaks of your 'genius' and all these great things you did with no semblance of critique; that organization is just as biased as any which speak of your oddities. in either case it's a limited range to where journalism can go. at the same time it's easy to resort to these limited capacities because it's compelling to do so. and just because it's compelling does not mean it's good.



always. question. your. teacher. i will repeat this as many times as i have to. this is one of the greatest lessons we can learn, if we are going to grow as students. we must always reserve criticism for those we agree with, and room to see the good points in those we don't.



and so of course i study vigorously. not because there's any groundbreaking news about you; but because as a student i must be knowledgeable about how information is disseminated.

in fact, there's no 'new' news about you at all right now... something you may be happy about, since there's a possibility you may now be at some sort of peace. but wait- the news in RELATION to you that is constantly being posted repeatedly (from many news sources) is that you have more facebook 'friends' than lady gaga. but she's getting up there.

on the surface this looks trivial. and it IS. however, the fact that this 'news factoid' has been appearing for what seems to be a week is intriguing. as lady gaga makes me physically ill i was actually not compelled to read anything about this 'news'. it took a number of days to look at this, because i really wanted to see how the narrative of 'michael jackson' (TM) fits into all of this.



celebrities are created, it's been said... they do not make themselves. i'd say that there was a given aspect of time where you portrayed the role of a 'celebrity'... granted, you had a determination to be where you eventually ended up, and you were a bird no one could cage. comparatively speaking, despite your marketing brilliance (as well as your ability to manipulate certain situations); there were forces at work which manipulated you equally, if not more. your struggles were pretty transparent, in particular, your relationship with the press.



in your adult life, media initially, essentially gave you a side eye at what they felt was your 'odd behavior'- carrying snakes with you, bringing your sisters along so you would not have to talk to journalists- but you were a 'MAJOR STAAAAAAAHHHR, DAHLING!' so they let it go. it sold lots of magazines.

when the struggle manifested itself in ways which could be characterized as depression, you no longer had 'quirks'. you were now 'wacko'. in this manifestation the facade of 'celebritydom' chipped away, and for an industry which thrives off of gratuitous distress there's no discussion of the dynamics which contribute to the letter you wrote in 1987 in japan; there's no room for context. it consistently perpetuates itself because when we see these public figures breaking down it makes US feel better. and someone makes money.

so you were just crazy. and of course, you were better when you were just singing 'billie jean' and doing the backslide.

we don't make our popular culture heroes. they are made for us. when you eventually were open with your intent to break free of the cage of a formation of 'blackness' regulated by an industry formulated overall by eurocentric standards, you were shut down. again, they let you slide for a while because you made them money. but when you decided to break free of social limitations in ways people did not expect, that was the point this country made the decision to ignore you. it made absolute sense that you stopped touring in this country.



our range of the 'black experience' is so limiting in this country. rather, it's difficult for us to grasp, due to our conditioning, that your experience (post- 'off the wall') is no less black than paul robeson's experiences. or la vern baker. or betty davis. or kwame ture.

or jack johnson. yes, another man who defied expectations of what 'blackness' represented. the major factor in his experiences though, was that when he fought, he WAS representing black america for many. 'pugilism' in many circles was banned, because white america could not see a black man winning. we travel to a more present day, and 'black america' has now 'dis-owned' you for the same thing jack johnson did: defy a narrow construction of 'blackness'.

we don't make our popular culture heroes. they are made for us.



as black people we either do not realize or acknowledge these constructions. nor do we acknowledge or realize how this range of experiences (on your part anyway) contributes to a connection with the ancestors. or it just simply shows how we are not a monolithic people. from the manu dibango-inspired chant within 'wanna be startin' somethin''; to the persistence in presenting egypt through an afrikan in america's eyes; to the re-interpretation of the edmund perry story- perry was a black youth who attended the phillips exeter academy and accepted into stanford university; he was shot by a plainclothes police officer. it was claimed that edmund and his brother tried to rob him.



...to the outright anger towards a government which "promised... free liberty". and of course... the event which to me, was the impetus for a lot of the censorship- you smashing up things. to some, it was seen as unbridled black anger (or, a possible response to the all-too recent beating of rodney king by the LAPD, and the subsequent 'riots'). but to others, you done lost your mind.

and oh, let's not forget the time you had the GALL to call out the industry for its racist actions. that was just called opportunistic; you were obviously kickin' up a diva-like ruckus because you weren't selling as many records as you wanted to. as i said before, even if that WERE the case, you could have cried about anything. but you brought up the racist music industry. for this, yet again, you were deemed racist. for bringing up something your inevitable contemporary- prince- has brought up. perhaps i haven't searched deep enough but i have not seen a racist label attached to him due to his comments.

i attribute this to the fact that, coming from the industry's perspective: they created you, and you were not supposed to deviate from their plan.

you were no longer a constructed hero.







don't think i forgot about the original point of this portion of the conversation... as i said i have so many thoughts whirling through my mind. there is so much i want to say to you, it just comes gushing out.

one of the theories is that the industry killed you (because you were no longer useful to them) so they created/indoctrinated the persona of 'lady gaga'. interestingly enough, there is footage of her performing, just as plain as can be. singing and playing the keys. somewhere along the line there was a deal made with the devil. i am not speaking of the mythical, robert johnson kind... there is some very evil energy running through this woman.

she does get comparisons to madonna. this may be the case; however, i don't think madonna was swayed as far, because like you, she was very determined. also like you, she was interested in marketing. both of you existed at a time where the artist did have some say in how their images were presented.



i suppose one could say the same thing about gaga... but there is something else i cannot put my finger on. the imagery she associates herself with is not only nihilistic; it's satanic.

these days, determination is so different due to our instantaneous society. the fact that gaga being seen as competition with you in terms of 'friends' on facebook is very telling. first, it shows just how much we value relationships by even using the word 'friend' in these circumstances. secondly, it shows how pervasive these images are. i mean, these images weren't exactly covert, but now, the same imagery many of us turned our noses up at when someone like anton la vey or death metal bands did this, are being propped up by gaga (and to a smaller extent, people like beyonce).

there are so many attempts to evict us because they say we are not paying THEIR utility. the thing is, it's pretty easy to see that the light is actually free.



i recognize the theory about the industry killing you (and i think it's a valid point, in relation to gaga) but as we can see, even when you're not physically here they make a lot of money off of you. it's fairly obvious that they recognize your teachings, but they bottle it up and call it 'pop music'. they create a template in which the consumer follows.

so they will reissue your teachings and release 'never before heard' (to them) tracks, and people will posthumously marvel at your 'talent' but may still never grasp the teachings. "there must be more to life than this", indeed.



of COURSE there is. but one must seek it out. one must never assume the information is out there, just waiting... one must never assume ANY sort of media has the seed to the tree of knowledge. it is through our search for truth where WE grow.



there will only be news about you when they decide to present it... as many issues that are going on with your so-called 'estate', the contractual deals with various media outlets, the court cases, the family drama... lady gaga is a distraction from larger issues at play. it's imperative to examine artist rights' issues; fiscal responsibility (and how 'black wealth' is perceived), the long-standing issue of how black artists' legacies are maintained... and the variances in an ideal of a family structure. what exactly does a 'family' entail? and because we are 'born' into one, does that guarantee that we must remain loyal, even if our experiences are traumatic?



and who runs this empire in the information being disseminated about you?

TMZ, of course. very time i turn around some so-called 'reputable' news source sites TMZ for 'breaking news'. and who runs TMZ? warner bros.

there is a bit of a connection, as AEG live has merged with themeSTAR, a producer of large-scale shows, which "will build upon both companies' established business networks to become the preeminent global entertainment presenter in its genre, developing and securing intellectual property rights to produce and present arena spectacles and family entertainment worldwide."

also on their website: "The AEG ThemeSTAR team is recognized for its entrepreneurial innovation and its operational effectiveness working with major brands including Warner Bros., Nickelodeon, HIT Entertainment, Mattel, Universal Studios, Disney, Viacom, Cirque Du Soleil, Sesame Street, Ringling Bros.,FIFA, Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the NFL and more."

is there a connection? i'd be surprised if there were not.

is any significant information about michael 'secured' so that a 'spectacle' is bound to occur at the correct hour? thus, more money is transacted. i certainly don't know, but so much of it makes sense to me.

it's curious to see that, the one thing your father may be on to- that AEG is the key to this whole conrad murray issue- he was on AEG's payroll- he does not appear to be respectable because he's always after money. thus, he is framed as looking 'crazy'. other members of the family say 'murray didn't work alone', but joe has been very specific in who he thinks is responsible. just like i said for you; it may be attention-grabbing but to say something that specific, i think his suspicions are worth listening to here.

it's been said that in a potion of the contract you signed to do the series of shows at the O2, a stipulation was that your catalog would be up for grabs if you did not commit to the shows. i read the contract, and huge chunks of it were blocked out. reading the portions i did, it certainly appeared as if you signed your life away. on a contract which appeared far less binding on AEG's part, because it was so self-regulating. it was an AEG contract, dealing with AEG people. so it's pretty easy to sign off and say you had an extensive exam and passed, if the 'doctors' were on the payroll. the word which kept coming up with AEG employees during interviews around the time of promotion for 'this is it' was 'insurance'.

i do not know in what context you signed the contract... were you forced? was there a price on your head- AEG's involvement in preventing neverland from going on the market? the stake you own in ATV? were you heavy on painkillers? all i know is that i read it, and something did not sit right with me. especially the self-contained nature of it.

and when i saw the speech you did- "these are my final show... performances..." again, i was very upset with you. 'WHAT ARE YOU DOING??!!' i exclaimed. i saw echoes of dodger stadium in '84, where you caught everyone off guard and mentioned that you were not touring with your brothers anymore, as if it were an extension of yourself... looking back, what i saw was simultaneous fear and relief. i believe i mentioned that to you as well. for someone to openly profess hating touring over the years, something (namely fear) had to be driving the idea to agree to doingh a series of concerts.



i won't repeat all this again right now (i'm pretty tired as it is). there's so much i want to say to you, and also so much i want to sift through, in terms of information. there's so much of it, i want to make sure things are misleading as little as possible. to not at all. i'm still learning about the whole process.



well, i am about to drift off (and i must be up in a few hours again). i shall have to continue tomorrow, this conversation with you about this gift of information we have so much access to, and yet we take advantage of it.

we take advantage of our teachers.

before i leave for now, i want to share this with you. it may have even been the catalyst for one of your many creative endeavors... sometimes you may not have gone to places you wanted to be, but this was the path you chose to accept: "remember man, to get ahead in this world you must control your own destiny. so don't allow someone to trick you into going against your will. your feelings will guide you right, and even though you may not be able to explain your feelings to another person, you always understand after a little thinking to yourself. always know what you feel and who you are..."

edmund perry said that.

love,
jamilah

michael, may you now be at peace: a reflection (no. 61)

"visions come to me in my sleep/i closed my eyes to see what GOD is showing me..."

sometimes we only go as far as we allow our vision(s) (or dreams) to take us... and sometimes that is not very far. we awaken due to a disruption (the buzz of an alarm clock, the call of a full bladder). much of the time it can be attributed to our fears: of rejection, of failure.

"nothing comes but sleep to a dreamer..."





i woke up from a dream where you appeared. it was set approximately in 1980 or 1981. you made a surprise appearance at a diana ross concert. as she was singing a leon sylvers-inspired tune you jumped in, ad libbing and playing off of her rhythms. the crowd went crazy; they clamored for more but in a flash you were gone. i didn't even see you leave... all i saw was a queue of men (most likely your security) all dressed in black, running behind you. the next thing i saw was a shot of the crowd in a state of pandemonium as the orchestra (which you could not see, as they were behind a bunch of rafters) played on.



and then i woke up.

"and when you wake up, the dream has gone away."

even though it was not a continuation of the same literal dream; when i woke up i wondered if they had the same connotation- you know, the one dream i had that one time (when you were still physically here) where diana ross was there too... it was at a huge arena, and i, my sister and a friend sat so far up top everything on the stage looked like ants. after the show ms. ross led me backstage (the friend and my sister had left, then came back), where you were. you were just serenely sitting at a table, all by yourself. you were dressed in your blue sequined costume (the one you wore to the grammys and when you went to see the reagans). i didn't want to disturb your moment of serenity but you helped me along by giving me a warm hello. at the time of the dream i was in the midst of heavily writing the book so inevitably i carried a lot of anxiety. because you were the umbrella through which the book was written you had the opportunity to be the recipient of a non-stop barrage of disjointedness. you gently stopped me, took my hand in yours and held it in a parental gesture. "you know what to do" was your response.

and then i woke up.



but you've heard this all before... maybe i'm just reading too much into a possible connection, but i see one, between the two dreams. because a lesson is involved in both.


there are two different issues which have been eating at me in different ways: children and technology. and yesterday i had to confront both in ways i really did not want to.

the older i get my desire to be a mother grows. at work i see so many children- babies born just days and weeks prior, toddlers who have found the joys of exploration- and i feel this immense emptiness inside my soul. i am driven by this fear that i'll never get to experience that because... i have absolutely no desire to give birth. i know, i know, it's extremely contradictory. i recall you stating in an interview something similar in the early 1980s, how you yearned to be a father but didn't really want to be a part of the birthing process. when i saw that i thought, SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS...

again, seeing that many may think this has to do with you not wanting to continue your gene pool (and further, after the birth of the children you eventually did have, that you didn't want black children). i cannot make assumptions about why you said what you did; all i know is that when i saw your comment i felt as if i wasn't alone. i know for me, it has nothing to do with either one... i just never really had a desire to give birth. as beautiful as the process is, to see a life growing inside someone and after this long gestational period anticipating the result; i personally just don't want any part of it.





and i get a lot of grief for this. "well, you don't want a child bad enough then" they say. but i do... I DO! it kills me so much that i cry at night sometimes. i want to watch a child grow, say the first words, learn to walk, form lasting friendships, become independent... the older i get the nurturing side of me grows. i live with a lovely cat (who, if anything were to happen to her it would devastate me to no end) but frankly it's not the same. it's like, as much as you loved bubbles (or muscles or louis or rosie or mr. tibbs, etc.), the role bubbles played could not compare to the first time you saw your first born son. i mean, it was so much that you even allowed the press into your life, to document the event of his existence.



looking at images of you over the years; it amazes me how much you lit up when you were around children, as if they were your one link to life. even when you performed on stage (which you felt safety from, and where the microphone was sort of an umbilical cord) there always seemed to be tinges of anger or resentment. the 'angry dancer' description astaire gave to you rang true. but when you were around children it was the only time i can say that sadness departed from your eyes.



what upsets me is that there's a degree on how much i desire to have children in my life... i don't know if i were a man who wanted a child, if people would be critiquing me because i didn't want to father one 'naturally'. is giving birth such a symbol of my womanhood that the only way to test my being a competent mother is if i gave birth? i don't think that's what people are saying but at times it feels that way.

what they ARE saying is that there aren't too many options i have, if i really want to be a mother; as i don't want to produce a child 'naturally', and i don't have the money 'required' to adopt a child. i could, of course, be a nanny, but that's not the same as full on motherhood, as being a nanny does not guarantee watching the child grow for years on end.

a couple of friends commented that my lack of desire to give birth may stem from some sort of trauma; either in a past life (where i died stillborn), or in this one (where my childhood was so painful that i don't wanna see the gene pool continue). i would think that if life was so bad for me as a child i would WANT to give birth so that it would be proven that abuse does not run in our blood.

it's difficult for me to explain why i have never wanted to give birth. if it ever ends up happening it's not going to be the worst thing to ever happen in my life; but i really hope that's not something i even have to consider.



if anything i have a huge fear of, not the child being stillborn, but me not surviving the experience and never being able to see the child grow. i have a huge fear of suffering from depression during pregnancy, and after. i have thoughts of being really ill throughout the experience- more than the typical morning sickness, or cramps.

and if i actually did survive the pregnancy i'd be afraid that i'd reject the child. as beautiful as i think the experience of childbirth is, i also find it to be extremely violent. for a child to be born (pushed out!) into this world today is very cruel. and some of the things we subject the child to during that gestational period are cruel as well. they come into this world after all this time of peace, and we instantly place our aspirations, our fears, our assumptions onto them.

and with that, as much as it's killing me right now that i am not a mother, at the same time i hate the fact that i want to be one.



i also have an intense fear about being a mother right now, because i don't want to do it alone. i long for the 'traditional' life in many ways... a companion to raise a child with. but how many people do you meet who love children but also don't have the desire to do it 'naturally'? for men, there are more options.

but not really. because how many men who want to be fathers shy away from the idea of an 'heir' to continue their bloodline? i recognize the value in this with older agricultural or nomadic societies... but where exactly does this translate today? how much more value does a child which continues the bloodline have, as opposed to a child who is adopted? wouldn't both children be loved the same?

i know that i'm not ready to be a mother at this moment; i still have a lot of healing to do. the sentiments of "not getting any younger" tick away at my spirit as i begin to approach my mid-30s... people telling me "you'll make a good mother" does not help. it's not my womb which is feeling empty; it's the feeling that i'll never be a mother which dictates that emptiness.



and so we are onto the second issue i am having- the fear that i'm living in a world where everything is abbreviated, and rushed. that even these conversations i am writing here to you are too lengthy. the more we adapt to all these technological 'advances' the less time we have to spend with each other, and form lasting relationships.

you, being on another plane are able to sit and decipher where you want your energies to go... you have so much time to do this. we on this plane have been neglecting our abilities to do the same exact thing. more and more of our relationships appear to be based on what someone can do for us, as opposed to WITH us. or as a friend said yesterday, "the three-minute sell".

i am having so much trouble getting on in a world like this. it's difficult for me to be stimulated by all the sounds, all the instant pictures and flashing lights. it's been building up to this environment for years, but now the idea that computers can become a substitute for relationships of living beings has become a reality for some.



and with that i reluctantly signed up with these 'social networking' sites, in order for me to find people i lost connection with (some of this did happen), or to discuss important socio-political issues (this has happened as well). overall, the experience has left me unsatisfied, because there's only so many places in these connections/communications people are willing to go.

you see, i don't like small talk (i'm sure you could tell). and this is what to me, much of this 'social networking' amounts to. it's as if any critical thought ruins the party. again, i totally grasp why you were a man of few words.

and i personally don't like talking too much, but i love writing. and so much of this 'social networking' culture is an extension of 'talking' culture... it a method of formulating ways on how to win people over... and that's not necessarily easy to do when you are involved in intense dialog. in many ways 'talking' requires taking sides, as opposed to seeing many sides of a situation. these days so much of the 'taking sides' is due to lack of information. because we receive so much information at accelerated rates (via links) there becomes less and less time to study or focus on one or two things. it's as if diligence is no longer a part of our interactions and cultures. study, and "to thine own self be true..."

diligence is the only way to truth. again, part of this truth is questioning the lessons, and the teacher who grants the lessons.



and so, in my diligence i continue to make attempts to navigate and use these networking tools to spread your teachings, in the hope that others are learning as well.

"visions come to me in my sleep..."

i gather that you have appeared in my dreams again, briefly, as i am in a mode of self-confrontation to let me know, as you once lovingly told me, that i "know what to do."

love,
jamilah

michael, may you now be at peace: a reflection (no. 60)

every day i write something, another thought transpires... your beauty just makes me so sad. the possibility that we could all fall victim to never being able to see our own beauty just makes me sad.



for some reason i was thinking about the interview you did with oprah winfrey in 1993. "you know, let's put it this way. if all the people in hollywood who have had plastic surgery; if they went on vacation there wouldn't be a person left in town." i don't follow popular culture too much, so i cannot tell you who does and does not get scrutinized for any sort of physical alterations. i do know that you, being a prominent figure who 'happened to be black', you received a lot of accusations of self-hatred. because the alterations appeared so drastic- from the hair to the features. being that popular culture seems to thrive on the facade and not much beyond this, i understand the accusations. it doesn't make it right but i understand.

the thing i thought about more from the interview though, was your statement on vitiligo, without specificity.



because of the nature of the hippocratic oath (as if some doctors actually FOLLOW this) i doubt if anyone at the time was going to divulge any information about your condition. also, due to the fact that vitiligo was not a word uttered by most people (except those who had to deal with it, and those close to them), it was also inevitable that people were gonna accuse you of self-hatred in that form as well.

it was uncomfortable to see that part of the interview, as i saw you squirming in your seat, getting ready to cry in anticipation of having to explain your situation- a situation i might add, which had been developing for years. because there was no notification of it on your end, people just saw the 'end result'.

because we are societally conditioned to reject empathy, the way you answered winfrey's question gave you an appearance of not being credible, unfortunately. i don't think it was your place to tell anyone anything, but you also had to expect that you WOULD be asked about your skin tone.



looking at comparative photographs it's pretty easy to see that for much of your adult life you had a relatively heavy makeup job. sometimes you'd look really dark and other times (in the same period) you'd look much lighter. i'd see those photos and ask myself, with all that makeup you're wearing how does it not end up all over your clothes? and then i'd see a photo where the makeup actually DID end up all over your clothes... and you'd see these patches of discoloration.



i used to see people in the street with vitiligo when i was a child, and i always thought they were burn victims. it was always black people i saw; i was not aware that people could lose pigmentation at the time. it gave me a quick relief to know that these 'burn victims' went outside with no shame, and that i saw no one openly making fun of them. i did see people staring once in a while, but i never saw open comments. i thought that maybe the world knew more about this growing number of burn victims than i did.

but of course i did not know what they had to go through with emotionally, every day of their lives. i was not there to see their initial reactions when one day they just suddenly lost pigment.

this is what i saw in that interview- the frustration in having to explain it. i can't say WHY you chose not to discuss any of this prior to the interview, but you made the ultimate decision in going public with it in your own way.





what i was thinking about before i decided to write this to you was, how much it wouldn't matter to people WHAT you said... you can't win either way. and because you've been a man of little word by the time of that interview, it must have been really difficult for you to articulate what you really wanted to say. things have been so formulaic for so much of your life; that as simple as it would have been to say "i have vitiligo, look it up", you scrambled as to what to say. the world was watching you, it was your moment.

with that, there was eventually an official release from a doctor, explaining your condition.

you could have said, "if you read my book you can see a photograph of the makeup i am using... you can see all the makeup caked on my face over the years to deal with this issue." you could have even aligned yourself with others going through the same thing, and discussed the varying ways people deal with vitiligo. it seems like, with subsequent comments on your skin condition you were a bit more impatient, understandably. as for the 1993 interview you appeared to be off guard.

sometimes you just can't win...



right now i wonder, if you were asked about your skin condition today, what the response would be. would it be one of the same frustration, or would you be upset?

again, how we view self-hatred is so limiting to me. yes i know that we are conditioned to see things myopically but still... there is something extremely destructive in how black people in particular view self-esteem. because it's not always we take into account the family structure. 'society' is regularly a point of contention, but how often is how we are treated at home up for discussion?

winfrey, like martin bashir treated your childhood at the hands of your father as a ratings ploy, as opposed to exploring real issues relating to the tradition of abuse in our families. it's real easy to call it and to describe it ("so... what ELSE did he do to you?") but rarely do we look to solutions and modes of healing. the speech you did at oxford concerning the cycles of abuse and how to end them (and even looking into your OWN modes of healing) was a wonderful counterpoint to the media spectacle that is 'the interview'.



i actually DID grow up with bleaching cream put on me because certain parts of me were 'too dark'. i did indeed grow up hearing that my hair was atrocious, my nose was ugly... i did grow up hearing that i was stupid and worthless. there may have been a subconscious feeling that i was worthless because i was black (as a black woman who raised me told me these things) but growing up i didn't take it as that- i just hated myself.



but we've been through this already. i don't need to repeat it to you again. my point is (and i will say it over and over if i have to) is that the changes you made to yourself, just from hearing what you had to say, i don't attribute that all to racial self-hatred. this is why i say you can't win. in fact, i don't think ANY of us as black people who have had to deal with abuse of that caliber are able to win. because we are always told that we either hate our ethnicity, or we don't. there can never be any gradations. there can never be any context of the experience.

and the abuse is excused as being 'just words'. and we are told to just get over it.



i have to say (again) that you were quite helpful in my process of healing with that. i didn't really know how to articulate my feelings in a way which would be conducive to healing. it's that sort of thing where they say, you have to want to heal yourself; no one can make you do it. but it was not until i saw you discussing your experiences... it was not until i saw the open struggle you were dealing with in trying to find ways to heal, that i even considered looking within myself a possibility. no, you were not the cause, but you were the catalyst.

as many 'abused' people as i have known throughout my life, somehow you resonated with me the most. i suppose it's because of seeing so much of you in myself i got scared. writing the book i became so depressed. there were points it got so low... i will not finish the sentence. but really, i don't know what it was, what words or actions you took specifically, but there was a signal which was the impetus for me to examine the relationships with myself, and others. i was determined to find modes of healing.

i still struggle every day of my life. but i do know that somewhere there is a space where true peace and forgiveness will show itself.



so yes... it does make me sad that you were never able to see your own beauty in full... that you could never articulate your pain fully... that someone could exploit your pain and catch you off guard... and it does make me sad that others were not able to see the potential (and evidence) for that space of peace within you. but because i have seen that light within you, it does bring a smile to my face, knowing that if I have seen it others have seen it as well.

love,
jamilah

michael, may you now be at peace: a reflection (no. 59)

michael... michael... michael...

again i have been hearing your name being called out with more frequency... and again it's always in the same places; if i am at work or in my room. perhaps that part of my brain which hears you is again being utilized, as i write these blog entries to you with more consistency as of late. there's just so much on my mind i want to say to you. i know that i could simply write all of my thoughts to you in a booklet, symbolizing a more concrete passage of time... i know that the way i am writing to you holds a bit less value, due to the lack of intimacy on the internet; the push of a key will never be the same a the stroke of a pen. however, in this technological method which makes things much more minute there is a possibility that someone may innocuously share their musings.

i don't write all these things down for attention; i doubt if many people read these postings. i do write for the hope of connection- that someone out there feels the same passion for your teachings. the only way to know if this is the case is to try... to put it all out there. i could never keep this all to myself. your gifts are far too numerous for that.



as i was waking up before i went to work a thought popped up in my head, in relation to how your teachings appear. some time before i went to bed i heard a conversation on the radio about the chris brown performance. a portion of his breaking down during 'man in the mirror' was played. listening to this clip, i actually have less of a desire to see it (or hear the full performance). as you know i don't like chris brown as a performer. i don't like his style- how he sings, how he moves. despite having you as a major influence i don't see him connecting with the spirits. i see him simply performing for the time. when people emphasize how much he dances like you again, i see technique, but not the spirit.

when i say this... when i see you move i see so many of those lines diminish. you fostered a balance between male and female, elder and child; peace and war, destruction and regeneration... you never wavered between the elements, but your movement narrated the fluidity and impermanence of life. knowing there could never be an equal balance between art and life, you worked to create an internal impression through your teachings.



and herein lie the thoughts which entered my brain as i woke from my rest. within seconds of hearing the clip of chris brown breaking down i could tell that his performance of the song was contrived and self- referential- i mean, he could have picked ANY other song out of your catalog to close his tribute out. the thing is, i don't agree with those who claim that his tears were just as contrived. granted, i can't say that any other song would have prompted such a breakdown. in light of his recent actions (being charged with a felony in beating his partner), he was also guilty in the court of public (and capitalistic) opinion, where his record sales and sponsorships suffered... 'man in the mirror' was a song he HAD to do, for public relations' sake. he may be human, but he is still, for all intents and purposes, famous. and someone that young is still concerned about and attached to his image.

but he is still human. and i believe that in the few seconds i heard of the clip there was a notion of sincerity. because as contrived as his choice was, there appeared to be a conscious effort to seek truth and light. and when the ultimate decision is made to do that, it's very painful to do.

"music is a teacher" indeed.



chris brown already had a large enough support network though. there is a chance he may never find the full impact of your teachings if he is encouraged to do what he's done in the past, in terms of his own work. after this infamous experience is he going to focus on reflection? i cannot say. i should only hope so.



for those of us who do not have a support network, there are many uncertainties.

i am writing this, still scrambling in terms of what i want to say. the right words never seem to come out. i write and write and write hoping that you'll hear me. it's no use in even asking 'what if...?' or imagining that i'd be the one to save you. this is not my intention because that would infer a lack of self-reflection. those things are not things i have asked of myself because frankly, i feel i need to move on from that.

i do know that when thinking about you, i go through major waves of happiness and sadness, all in one simultaneous moment. as i told you before it's got not much to do with you not physically being here. so much has to to do with how our worlds coalesce; how much you have infiltrated my inner self. how much you have stimulated an aspect of myself which was never aware there was light, for many years.

and because i see so much of you in myself i constantly feel a profound sadness; something in me will forever be unfulfilled. because i know these feelings will never be fully understood by others. because of the promise of commitment i made to you and your teachings i realize i am at full risk of isolation.



this is a predicament i cry about... when one is fully committed to study others may define the experience as one of austerity or 'obsession'. all of that lends to feelings of loneliness.

i identify and i empathize when (at work especially) i see so many children, so many babies around me; and i become devastated. because i can only imagine you talking about doing what you did for young people and for years not having a child in your immediate life. the desire to take on a nurturing role tortures you the older you get... the desire for true, solid companionships tortures you.

but you know at the same time that your goals and your work make so much of this unattainable. you do what you do, you make people smile and you go home at night and cry. because you don't have anybody to share your innermost fears with. or anybody to share your goals with, without reservation.

and i look at you and i just marvel at your beauty... i see you and i cannot grasp why people say you are ugly. i stare at images of you and i see a beam of light beneath those sad eyes, waiting to emerge. your beauty is not made of holiness or perfection; you don't get a pardon for altering your looks. the thing is though, as physically beautiful as you were with your original features and hair (i already told you this); the more you began chipping away at the externals the more developed your teachings became.

and still, i become so sad at your changes, because i see that fragility in myself. i know that as hard as i am fighting to eliminate all those messages in my head- the same ones your father told you my mother told me- they are still tucked away, waiting to appear at opportune moments.



perhaps this is the reason i am hearing your name at such a constant pace once again. perhaps the ancestors (perhaps you?) are reaching out to tell me that whatever happens, whatever we look like, our true nature lurks inside; we just have to access it. and the farther you focus on obtaining truth more of it will begin to lurk outside.

love,
jamilah