Michael Jackson's, 'This is it' - This is ShiteMark Brown, The Guardian.
Fitting? Yes indeed. A fitting vindication of the notion that humanity is fast devolving with the aid of, amongst others, the mutation of the netherregions of 'celebs' into a alters of worship.
What can we make of the timing for Michael Jackson’s posthumous global premiere of, ‘This is it’?
In the final analyses, it simply serves to further deify this bloke and what he represents as people are united throughout the globe at the same time, despite sleep-time, to honour the memory of crotch-swivelling and hoo ha-ing – a contemporary version2 upgrade of Edgar Rice Burrough’s ‘Tarzan’ – whilst further validating the significance of living vicariously through ‘celebs’.
Think about it. Even the ‘millennium’ wasn’t observed in such a fashion as people across the world woke up to the ‘new’ ‘millennium’ – which actually arrived in the year 2001 – in respect of their localised body-clocks as opposed to the local time in the Republic of Kiribati – which is supposed to be the first human-inhabited locale on the planet to see the ‘new millennium’ according to the Julian calendar….though I think that the fisherpersons plying their trade off its coast might have a first claim on that.
But in the case of Michael, people stayed up to pay simultaneous homage to what intelligent minds of previous epochs would discount as one requiring sectioning – just as everyone whom were accustomed to putting the day before the month started doing the inverse with the Americanised, ‘9/11’.
It doesn’t matter if most didn’t stay up for this event, what is of significance here is that most didn’t deem anything amiss along the lines discussed here. In that, our sense of the significance of time is monopolised by the two complementary and symbiotic stages of ‘work’ and ‘vicarious existence’. But when is global unity expressed on such a timescale as that witnessed with this show of misdirected juvenile vibrancy? – its ‘misdirected’ not because such vibrancy is a ‘bad thing’ in itself, but because it is not expressed in equal scale when it comes to intellectual and humanitarian proclivities. Were simultaneous protests launched throughout the world when America launched its onslaught on Iraq? Did simultaneous protests meet, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Madeline Allbright’s statement, that the deaths of close to half a million children in Iraq arising out of U.S. sponsored embargoes were ‘worth the price’? There seems to be two definitions of the word, ‘simultaneous’, here, and which might indicate that the global popular mindset is out of sync when it comes to issues that matter as opposed to celeb matter, posthumous or otherwise. Humanity isn't going to really be able to appreciate the generic idea of Equity and Empathy till it ceases to undermine the basis for its appreciation at every opportunity - such as this instance.
I suppose that is why I’ve yet to take the vows of atheism as humanity has argued little for its perspectives being the source of progress. I’d rather have Saints whom serve as a sharp contrast to sinners whilst coming across as achievable examples than ‘Celebs’ who thrive by maintaining the divide whilst turning sin into virtue.