Latest on MJJC

MJJC Exclusive Q&A with Jermaine Jackson - Read Jermaine's answers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kingofdisco As nasty and unnecessary as ur post is it wouldn't surprise me if u were one of the ones who make fun of MJJC and it's members!
 
kindofdisco said:
....Are we SERIOUSLY sitting here and judging events that happened a good 40 YEARS AGO to people that we DO NOT EVEN KNOW.

We do NOT know the fine details of the Jacksons lives. We know what they have said to the media, have written in books and have spoken about in public. That is NOT the full picture, it's merely a slice of their lives.

I am actually sickened by anyone here that is saying that Katherine should be blamed for what Michael went through as a kid. I am sickened by anyone who is judging and speaking on a situation you had NOTHING TO DO WITH.

I am appalled by the fans here. Absolutely appalled. And FYI, the conversation going on in this thread in regards to both Jermaine and the issue above is not going un noticed by the rest of the fan community. The rest of us are disgusted and appalled by it. MJJC may count itself as the "official" fansite but you do NOT represent what a lot of us feel.
Click to expand...



kindofdisco said:
^LMFAO.

You do realise that MJJC is the laughing stock of the MJ community? Go on any other forum and you'll find people who post quotes from here and just laugh. Nobody can take this place seriously - and when they do, they have similar reactions to my own.

This place is seriously messed up. Something happened to you guys when Michael passed, I don't know what it is but it set a few screws rolling out of those brains up there.

I come here every once and a while to check things out, and most of the time I have to leave in disgust. I honestly don't know why I come back; because you're right, none of this fits in with my "beliefs" which happened to fall in line with NOT judging people and their situations.

But hey, you carry on blaming Katherine and victim-shaming. That's cool. I'm a survivor of abuse myself and I actually was reduced to tears by some of these posts. But hey, that's fine! Totally cool to blame the woman.

A-OKAY.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that badge to your left must really irritate you every time you log on.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion thread in which we are free to discuss, swap opinions and information and we do this with the information that has been provided to us.

For me personally, I don't judge I try to understand, but to find that understanding sometimes takes open and frank discussion.

Several members here have shared some very painful memories and I think for you to say that MJJC is being ridiculed is very spiteful, whilst I understand that you were not saying that these particular posts were being laughed at by other forums the inference is still there that they could be.

Perhaps you should educate us as to which other forums find us so funny. It says a lot for the members of those forums and also about the owners of said forums.
 
kindofdisco said:
1) You do realise that MJJC is the laughing stock of the MJ community? Go on any other forum and you'll find people who post quotes from here and just laugh. Nobody can take this place seriously - and when they do, they have similar reactions to my own.

2) I come here every once and a while to check things out, and most of the time I have to leave in disgust. I honestly don't know why I come back; because you're right, none of this fits in with my "beliefs" which happened to fall in line with NOT judging people and their situations.
Click to expand...


1) Why? Because it's a place where you can have a decent conversation with people who dont necessarily share your opinions? Because you want meet people with different backgrounds, different cultures, different sensitivities, who can show you things from a different angle? Because any fan, whether they've been a 30 year or a 3 year fan, is welcome? Because no one cares whether you had the opportunity to see Michael or not? Because there's a respect for other forums? Because the forum is not a personal platform for the owner?
If you were honest, you would acknowledge the fact that there's not one official opinion here. There are as many as there are members.

2) Not judging... funny, because you seem not to respect your own beliefs. It's exactly what you do.
 
Diplomate said:
So who is lying? Jermaine or Taj? About phones lol
Click to expand...

LOL....

Maybe neither, perhaps Michael never shared the fact he had a phone with Jermaine or maybe Taj thinks the phone that he communicated with Michael on was his. To be fair Jermaine stated that as far as he knew (or words to that effect) Michael didn't have a phone, so maybe he didn't actually lie as such.
 
LastTear said:
LOL....

Maybe neither, perhaps Michael never shared the fact he had a phone with Jermaine or maybe Taj thinks the phone that he communicated with Michael on was his. To be fair Jermaine stated that as far as he knew (or words to that effect) Michael didn't have a phone, so maybe he didn't actually lie as such.
Click to expand...

So if Jermaine really thinks that, it's a proof that he didn't have contact at all with his brother. You can see some pictures of Mike in 2009 speaking on a mobile phone in a shop in LA. And some followers can testify that Mike had phones when he lived in Vegas, when he was in London after 2005.

Jermaine, one more time is lying. It will be interesting to send this comment of Jermaine saying Mike never had phones, to Taj or to send the tweets of Taj with the texts that Mike sent him in 2008 to Jermaine on their twitter.

It will be funny to read their pathetic answer.
 
Diplomate said:
So if Jermaine really thinks that, it's a proof that he didn't have contact at all with his brother. You can see some pictures of Mike in 2009 speaking on a mobile phone in a shop in LA. And some followers can testify that Mike had phones when he lived in Vegas, when he was in London after 2005.

Jermaine, one more time is lying. It will be interesting to send this comment of Jermaine saying Mike never had phones, to Taj or to send the tweets of Taj with the texts that Mike sent him in 2008 to Jermaine on their twitter.

It will be funny to read their pathetic answer.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think Michael had that much contact with any of his family. This is Jermaine quote re the mobile:

Jermaine Jackson: Folk's interpretation of a photo doesn't mean that Michael owned his own cell just because he was pictured with one. To the best of my knowledge, there was no cell you could call Michael direct on unless it was someone else's.
Click to expand...

Given Jermaine's response to the question I think it's a little hard to call him out as a liar, clearly jermaine did not know that Michael had a phone and we can make of that what we like.

I will just repeat that I am not a fan of J's, however I do believe in balance and fairness, to me Jermaine has been invited here as a guest and as such I think we should show some respect to both Jermaine and MJJC and not to just blanket sweep everything as a lie but to try our best to be objective where we can.

If you want to tweet Taj Jermaine's answer then thats fine but I still don't think it would prove J as a liar.
 
If you don't like MJJC then simply stop coming to MJJC. You can hang at the website that makes fun of MJJC and we can not give a damn about it.

This is the only and final warning, you can be ensured that we will not let people badmouth MJJC on our own forums.
 
at first I was really interested in his answers, but after nearly 3 months of waiting, I'm just not interested in his lousy excuses anymore, nonetheless, I appreciate Ivy's hard work in putting this together.
 
Jermaine is using a very political term for the phone in the Q&A. In his book, he said in no uncertain terms that Michael didn't have a phone, which is why the family couldn't reach him. I think the save face, he's now trying to walk back by saying, 'to the best of my knowledge'.

From reading his Q&A here against his book, Jermaine is much more honest here. I couldn't even finish reading his book because of the lies he kept telling about Michael being cut off and no one could reach him and it was all he fault of Michael's handlers. Not to mention how he excuse asking Michael all the time to tour by saying, 'it's for family', 'we needed to do it one more time for the fans', and 'he loved the Victory Tour'.

All and all, Jermaine is like a politician. He curves his message to fit whoever he is talking to. I do think this is as honest as we'll going to get with him since he knows fans won't just shallow the lines he gives the public. It is what it is.

One last note about the abuse. I wrote a long time ago that everyone has different experience when it comes to the dynamic of abuse, just like Ivy had stated. I can also understand why Mrs. Jackson stead despite the abuse to herself and her kids. Since everyone was nice enough to share their stories here, let me share one:

My grandmother grew up with an abusive alcoholic father. He kept spending the money he earned to by alcohol and even stole the money that my great-grandmom earned, she was a seamstress. It got so bad he actually took money out of my grandmom's college fund to the point that she had to dropped out her second year. He treated his kids like trash and was violent towards my great-grandma. My grandmom once told me one time he actually put a loaded gun to her mother's head and threaten to blow her brains out while their kids were looking. Now, I really don't know if he crossed the line to physical abuse since she rarely talks about him and some of these stories were told to me by my mother.

Long story short, by all accounts my grandmother should had left. She never did and stood with my great-grandfather until the day he died. Why didn't she leave and take the kids with her if he was dangerous enough to most likely kill her or the kids? Because back in those days, you didn't do stuff like that. My great-grandmom may of earned her own money, but a woman simply couldn't live alone in those days. Especially women with kids in the south. It was overall a different time and we much always take this into account when discussion abuse back before the 70s and 80s.

Even my experience with spanking are different from my brother. I once told you all that I got spank for bed-wetting and I found it boarder on abuse for me. My brother got spanked many more times than me and he looks back at the experience with humor. He laughs about how he used to get in trouble and even how he thought he earned spanking for things that didn't seem like a big deal. He even thanked my dad for spanking and keeping him in line. Is he lying or undermining my experience by saying the spanking were no big deal or even helpful, while I found them unnecessary, embarrassing, and better methods could have been use? No, we just have different experiences.

The way I see it Jermaine is not lying or purposely undermining Michael, but just given how he feels about the entire thing. I also once wrote the reason why the family would never admit about the extent of the abuse is because they may see it as something that is none of our business. I know stories of rape, abuse, and incest within my own family that has never left the walls of our homes. This is very common. For most families, abuse is something you don't tell the public. If you need to talk about, go to a professional, but keep it private. It could be possible that the family resents Michael for talking about his abusive past because even if it was true, he shouldn't had told the public. I know people in my family that said that Michael should had kept his mouth shut about Joe and got professional help instead since talking about it to people like Oprah and Bashir didn't change anything except give them ratings.

Which is why I said, abuse is complicated.
 
LastTear said:
Personally I don't think Michael had that much contact with any of his family. This is Jermaine quote re the mobile:
Jermaine Jackson: Folk's interpretation of a photo doesn't mean that Michael owned his own cell just because he was pictured with one. To the best of my knowledge, there was no cell you could call Michael direct on unless it was someone else's.
Click to expand...



Given Jermaine's response to the question I think it's a little hard to call him out as a liar, clearly jermaine did not know that Michael had a phone and we can make of that what we like.

I will just repeat that I am not a fan of J's, however I do believe in balance and fairness, to me Jermaine has been invited here as a guest and as such I think we should show some respect to both Jermaine and MJJC and not to just blanket sweep everything as a lie but to try our best to be objective where we can.

If you want to tweet Taj Jermaine's answer then thats fine but I still don't think it would prove J as a liar.
Click to expand...

Seriously, do you think Michael would send private texts, to his nephew, with a phone that it's not his?

You can resume in 1 word, all the answers of Jermaine, blablablabla. He doesn't know nothing about his brother, but he needs to speak about him to earn money, so he will say anything for money.
 
ivy said:
If you don't like MJJC then simply stop coming to MJJC. You can hang at the website that makes fun of MJJC and we can not give a damn about it.

This is the only and final warning, you can be ensured that we will not let people badmouth MJJC on our own forums.
Click to expand...

Who got a final warning?
 
Diplomate said:
Seriously, do you think Michael would send private texts, to his nephew, with a phone that it's not his?

You can resume in 1 word, all the answers of Jermaine, blablablabla. He doesn't know nothing about his brother, but he needs to speak about him to earn money, so he will say anything for money.
Click to expand...

He could if it were somebody very close to him. I just don't think it is fair to call him out as a liar on so many answers, some, IMO, could have explanations as to why Jermaine said what he did. If we call somebody out as a liar on every point then it takes away from the more questionable answers ie word to the badd.


@Ramona, thank you for sharing your story with us and as your quite rightly said child abuse is a very complex issue.
 
There were a few comments about how hard it would have been for Katherine to be single parent with bunch of kids if she left Joe. Katherine did try to divorce Joe twice because of his womanising ways not because of his abuse. Obviously she didn't think Joe's beatings were too much, but she thought his philandering ways were.
I think now that Michael is gone, some of them are trying to gloss over or downplay Joe's gruel parenting methods.
What ever Jermaine thinks about those beatings, its his opinion, but he cannot speak how Michael felt it.
For Michael's the pain and abuse was real, which he carried with him rest of his life.
 
Bubs said:
There were a few comments about how hard it would have been for Katherine to be single parent with bunch of kids if she left Joe. Katherine did try to divorce Joe twice because of his womanising ways not because of his abuse. Obviously she didn't think Joe's beatings were too much, but she thought his philandering ways were.
I think now that Michael is gone, some of them are trying to gloss over or downplay Joe's gruel parenting methods.
What ever Jermaine thinks about those beatings, its his opinion, but he cannot speak how Michael felt it.
For Michael's the pain and abuse was real, which he carried with him rest of his life.
Click to expand...

The thing is, she tried to divorce him twice after her kids were grown, most had moved out of the house, and they had a bunch of money. There was really nothing at stake if she left Joe at that time and we're talking about the early 80s when women had more options to go places. I'm specially talking about when they were in Gary and starting their early success.

Also from a religious angle, philandering is a worst sin than beating your child back in those days and Katherine would of had the right to divorce Joe within her church, something she couldn't do if she just said Joe was abusive.

Also, the family glossed over the abuse even before Michael died.
 
My thoughts, I doubt Joseph would've abandoned the family if Katherine had been firmer about the beatings or fought for her kids. Joseph saw the children, Michael particularly, as a way out of Gary to a better life. They, Michael was his meal ticket. No way, he'd leave them if Katherine had been firmer and done more to prevent the beatings.

The abuse continued even after they moved to California. Michael talked of being hit with a sock full of wet sand because Joseph didn't want the public, people at Motown to know what was going on. They were living off the children, Michael in particular, by this time. What was Katherine's excuse to remain with Joseph or not put her foot down then? She no longer had to worry about being abandoned with 9 kids, and no income. Joseph wasn't paying the bills anymore.

The only explanation I have for her behaviour is what I've stated throughout. Anybody's free to disagree, but the evidence is mounting.
 
Last edited:
Well let’s look at the facts here. The fact is that Michael is DEAD and his mother and family are alive and still capitalizing off his hard work and tremendous talent. The fact is that Michael said he was brutally abused and it’s clear when you hear him speak of it how deeply traumatized and hurt he was. I don’t think he ever fully recovered from what happened to him. The fact is that his mother witnessed the mistreatment and did nothing to end it and remove Michael from danger. The fact is that Michael was the bread winner for the family and it was apparently easier to turn a blind eye to the pain he was suffering rather than step in and do what a parent should to protect their children KJ chose to enjoy the wealth and comfort. That is what is appalling to me and it’s also extremely sickening to know what Michael had to endure while entertaining us as a child. When I see that bright eyed child smiling that beautiful smile now knowing he was going through HELL and fear at home it makes me cry. Michael didn’t hide what happened under the rug and neither should his fans.
 
@victory22 Is that honestly what you are reading here? That we are trying to brush Michael's abuse under the rug?
 
Rhilo said:
My thoughts, I doubt Joseph would've abandoned the family if Katherine had been firmer about the beatings or fought for her kids. Joseph saw the children, Michael particularly, as a way out of Gary to a better life. They, Michael was his meal ticket. No way, he'd leave them if Katherine had been firmer and done more to prevent beatings.
Click to expand...

I too doubted that he would had abandon his kids for the reasons you've stated, but I don't think Joe would had taken it well if his wife up and left and took the kids. Stuff like this has happened and some times they don't end well. We had a father here that was in endanger of losing his kids over abuse and he took a gun and killed all of them including himself. Now, I don't know if Joe would had done that, but we're dealing with a lot of 'could of' and 'what if'.

Michael was obvious damaged by the abuse, that's beyond a doubt and I do hold Katherine partly responsible for what had happened. A part of me will always think she could had done something more, but I can't fully blame her because I understand why she may have not done somethings. I also understand why the family may not want to talk about it publicly, so they deny it or sugarcoat it. In many ways, it is really none of our business and I do wish Michael would had gotten professional help over just telling the public about it. Maybe he did get help and still wanted to clear the air, I don't know.
 
^^I don't think he ever got help for it. Michael, I think, was very cautious about opening up to strangers, even if they were professionals designated to help. For the brief time he was in rehab, I read that he found it very hard to open up and confide. Presume that is the result of being tabloid fodder for years.
 
Rhilo said:
^^I don't think he ever got help for it. Michael, I think, was very cautious about opening up to strangers, even if they were professionals designated to help. For the brief time he was in rehab, I read that he found it very hard to open up and confide. Presume that is the result of being tabloid fodder for years.
Click to expand...

I thought as much, but I guess I secretly hoped that he did. I guess the only thing I could of hope for that he did find some peace before the end.
 
Rhilo;3606730 said:
^^I don't think he ever got help for it. Michael, I think, was very cautious about opening up to strangers, even if they were professionals designated to help. For the brief time he was in rehab, I read that he found it very hard to open up and confide. Presume that is the result of being tabloid fodder for years.
Click to expand...

It’s clear that Michael was incredibly trapped by his fame. When I learned his trusted physician was recording his private thoughts and the betrayal by Rabbi Scmuley Boteach it’s no wonder why Michael found it hard to open up about his feelings. I also heard he had a very hard time especially in group while he was in rehab. It’s so sad that he couldn’t even trust the house keepers in his home to clean his room.
 
For 99.9% of the people he met, some of his own relatives included, Michael was nothing but a walking wallet or a ticket to their 15 mn.
 
If a woman is being abused, she is never "responsible" for her abuse. The abuser is responsible, and the woman is the victim. If a woman's children are being abused -- by husband, boyfriend, or other -- and she fails to act to protect them, the abuser can be prosecuted, and so can the MOTHER. In the end, my opinion doesn't matter that much, nor anyone else's here. The law happens to be clear on this, in a factual sense.

What was done to Michael transcends "taking a child out behind the woodshed." Throwing a child against a wall is potentially life-threatening. The abuser can be prosecuted, and he should be. The witness to such an event -- in most cases, a mother -- may ALSO be prosecuted, if she tells no one and doesn't do anything to protect the child. That is not just my opinion; it is the LAW in many states. A Google search will find examples from the law about such a situation. Here is one of them. In this instance, a toddler was subjected to abuse by the mother's boyfriend. Eventually, the little boy died from the abuse. In addition to the boyfriend's prison sentence, the MOTHER is going to be sitting in prison for forty YEARS, for "failure to act."

Abuse of women can be horrific, and it's incredibly difficult for a woman to get out of such a situation. With the abuse of children, "failure to act" on the part of the non-abuser is not only damaging to the children, it's literally illegal.
@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1;*
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/303123
 
Jermaine used a belt on his own children, so what do we expect him to say? That both he and Joseph were abusive? Of course he's gonna say it's just discipline. It's like expecting Joseph to admit that he was some sick monster... true or not, he ain't gonna admit that...

Anyway, even though they might use different words like "spanking", "beating" or "abuse", the facts remain the same. At the end of the day, the stories remain the same. I don't care if they say "Joseph whipped them with a belt, it was horrible" or "Joseph whipped them with a belt so that they don't end up in jail or working in the steel mills."

See, the one part they can all agree on is that Joseph whipped them with a belt. And that's all I need. I don't need them to tell me whether that's right or wrong, I already have my own opinion on that...
 
etoile 37 said:
See, the one part they can all agree on is that Joseph whipped them with a belt. And that's all I need. I don't need them to tell me whether that's right or wrong
Click to expand...
To me, that's the best conclusion.
Depending on our stories, our backgrounds, our beliefs, our generation, we'll all see it in a different way. In the end, I think what is unbearable is that Jermaine doesnt just say "I know my dad did it for a good reason", but he's insinuating what Michael said all his life was basically just an exaggeration. It's more than unfair. To me, it's insulting to his brother and his feelings.
 
Rhilo said:
^^I don't think he ever got help for it. Michael, I think, was very cautious about opening up to strangers, even if they were professionals designated to help. For the brief time he was in rehab, I read that he found it very hard to open up and confide. Presume that is the result of being tabloid fodder for years.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point. He was trapped by his celebrity, in a lot of ways.

We really don't know if Michael intended for Schmuley to make public his private thoughts (relating to abuse as a child, and other things), but I've always questioned that. A rabbi or minister, priest, or other "spiritual adviser" is bound by confidentiality. So, not sure what happened (or went wrong?) in that regard? I can well imagine that Michael found it difficult to open up and confide, in general, for fear of seeing his private conversations as headline news.
 
Ben said:
To me, that's the best conclusion.
Depending on our stories, our backgrounds, our beliefs, our generation, we'll all see it in a different way. In the end, I think what is unbearable is that Jermaine doesnt just say "I know my dad did it for a good reason", but he's insinuating what Michael said all his life was basically just an exaggeration. It's more than unfair. To me, it's insulting to his brother and his feelings.
Click to expand...

If Jermaine was deliberately undermining Michaels account then this is very insulting. As we have discussed here that is possible along with various other explanations.
 
Ramona122003 said:
I think the thing we have to take in mind is the religious angle and the decade Katherine grew up in.

She came from a strict religion and a decade that dictated that males were the superior sex. A woman's job was to serve a man and bear his children. That man also ruled over the household, that includes the kids. So the man can do what he wants with his kids, including beating them. This was particular, and still is to an extent, particular bad in the black committees.

I can't properly explain it, but I suggest you all read or watch the Color Purple. It gives an insight of the relationship between black man and woman back in the day.

What I'm trying to say is that Katherine is a person of her time. In her day, women simply didn't stand up to their husband, even if they abuse their kids, even sexually in some cases. If you did undermine your husband, he could beat you and no one would say anything. You also couldn't leave the man because such acts were frowned upon, even if the woman had good reason to leave. Just look a Shirley Temple when she got a divorce.

This isn't defending or justifying her actions, but it does explain them.

As for why she tried to leave Joe once he had cheated on her. Since it was the 80s, divorce were seen as more okay. Joe also couldn't use her kids to emotional blackmail her. See, some women actually lost their kids if they tried to divorce. However, she still stood with the man for whatever reason.

Abuse is complicated, which is why it hides in the shadows. Truth is, we will never know the entire story of that family.
Click to expand...

Physical abuse didn't only happen in black families. Many families from different races and cultural background had gone through the same kind of abuse during those times and there were mothers with children less talented than the Jacksons that pull themselves apart from the abuser and made it through. About her religious belief, I know she's a JW but i don't know if she is a strict follower.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top