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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think what Jermaine said in this interview by any means undermines what Michael said occurred. I think Jermaine is acknowledging that they have two different perspectives on what took place. So Joe used the belt. I am thinking that many members here are not black and/or did not grow up in a black household. In our families, if you got spanked with just a belt, consider yourself fortunate. Let me see, in my life, I have gotten spanked with a bottle open, extention cord, the new braches of a tree so that it will whip you and not break, floppy shoes, books, you name it, it has happened. My Mom used to line all of the kids up and go one by one giving us a spanking. We used to get a bunch of welt marks. After we stopped crying, we would compare who had the most/biggest welt marks. And, I don't think for one minute I was abused. My brothers and sisters laugh about it now. We laugh about how we got our butts torn up. When my sister spanks her children now, I don't say anything either. She disciplines her children as she sees fit. I don't think I will spank my children if I ever have any, at least not regularly and definitely not with an object, but I dare some nosey busy body to try to tell me I'm being abusive. People can say it is illegal all they want, but I guarantee you it is still a very common occurence and the people who do it do not consider it illegal or damaging.

I find it very interesting that people who acknowledge that something like beatings and calling names can cause emotional abuse to a child for decades, yet, they will not allow Janet that name calling from Michael could influence her just as much. The same reasoning, that everybody did it, is the same reasoning that people say to downplay Janet - that all kids make fun of each other. If you are going to call it out in one line it has to apply even if it is being done by your favorite.

I am sensitive to what Michael went through as a person and understand that in his eyes it was very traumatic. That is why as parents we have to know our children and their dispositions because one form of discipline may be a walk in the yard to one child but extremely damaging to another. I feel for Michael and all he went through and I appreciate him speaking out about his experience. It is experiences like this that make me think hesitantly about spanking any children I might have. He is the first person in my whole life who I ever heard of speaking of spankings as abuse. Almost universally to all people who I speak to that were spanked, we all joke about the experience and are even thankful for it. I appreciate Janet talking about sibling name calling and how it effected her. Since I was always the fatest one in my family (I'm even fatter than my mother and my grandparents. MY GRANDPARENTS!) and I was always teased for it by my family. People tell me I'm not that big, but when your mother after having 4 children and weighing 98 lbs at 5'6, being 5'4 and over 170 is considered Shamu. And, it hurts the most coming from the family member you are closest to even if other engage in it as well.

I appreciate that Jermaine has his own perspective and I appreciate that he acknowledges how it was for him. If he doesn't see it as abuse, then we have to be understanding of other people's perspective. No two people are exactly alike.

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.
Katherine's religion does not teach any of that at all. So, you can try to explain her actions based on the common religious teaching (especially since Katherine didn't become a JW til she was an adult) but I don't think we should try to lump it into JW teachings.
 
Does anyone knows what does he mean by "hypothetically in 2002"?
Thank God his appointment by blood at birth is not enough to run his brother's estate.

MJJC: What do you think about the individuals that Michael appointed to run his Estate? And are you happy with his choice? Why does it seem as if your family is forever going against the Estate, by initiating projects without Estate approval and making hostile remarks to the press about the people running the Estate?

Jermaine Jackson: No Jackson needs anyone's approval to initiate a project that celebrates or remembers our own brother. We were not appointed hypothetically in 2002. We were appointed by blood at birth.
MJJC: Why were you taken aback by Michael not naming his brothers, sisters and father in his Will? Was it because he took care of the family in life that you believed naturally he would do the same in case of death? Was this something Michael ever discussed with the family?

Jermaine Jackson: Who says I was taken aback? We didn't discuss Michael's death. Why would we? The rest of the family has had musical careers and we've got and always had our own money.

Michael did what a father should in a will - he took care of his kids, and he also named our mother. By including her, he included us. The lioness takes care of her cubs, and that philosophy has always been understood in our family.

I think this is shameful. He's implying that while he has his own money it is expected that he gets money from Michael through her mothers monthly share.

MJJC: To what extent, Michael owes his success to you and the rest of your family? Do you believe Michael's legacy is his own, and stands apart from the Jacksons or Jackson 5 legacy?

Jermaine Jackson: To the same extent that Paul McCartney owes his success to The Beatles. Michael's platform was the Jackson 5. Everyone comes from somewhere.

Michael's legacy is his own and he stands in his own remarkable light, and we feel proud as brothers to have shared in his early days because the Jackson 5 days are part of the Michael Jackson success story. History can't separate them.

It's nice to know that he realizes that Michael's legacy is only Michael's.
 
I don't think what Jermaine said in this interview by any means undermines what Michael said occurred. I think Jermaine is acknowledging that they have two different perspectives on what took place. So Joe used the belt. I am thinking that many members here are not black and/or did not grow up in a black household. In our families, if you got spanked with just a belt, consider yourself fortunate. Let me see, in my life, I have gotten spanked with a bottle open, extention cord, the new braches of a tree so that it will whip you and not break, floppy shoes, books, you name it, it has happened. My Mom used to line all of the kids up and go one by one giving us a spanking. We used to get a bunch of welt marks. After we stopped crying, we would compare who had the most/biggest welt marks. And, I don't think for one minute I was abused. My brothers and sisters laugh about it now. We laugh about how we got our butts torn up. When my sister spanks her children now, I don't say anything either. She disciplines her children as she sees fit. I don't think I will spank my children if I ever have any, at least not regularly and definitely not with an object, but I dare some nosey busy body to try to tell me I'm being abusive. People can say it is illegal all they want, but I guarantee you it is still a very common occurence and the people who do it do not consider it illegal or damaging.

I find it very interesting that people who acknowledge that something like beatings and calling names can cause emotional abuse to a child for decades, yet, they will not allow Janet that name calling from Michael could influence her just as much. The same reasoning, that everybody did it, is the same reasoning that people say to downplay Janet - that all kids make fun of each other. If you are going to call it out in one line it has to apply even if it is being done by your favorite.

I am sensitive to what Michael went through as a person and understand that in his eyes it was very traumatic. That is why as parents we have to know our children and their dispositions because one form of discipline may be a walk in the yard to one child but extremely damaging to another. I feel for Michael and all he went through and I appreciate him speaking out about his experience. It is experiences like this that make me think hesitantly about spanking any children I might have. He is the first person in my whole life who I ever heard of speaking of spankings as abuse. Almost universally to all people who I speak to that were spanked, we all joke about the experience and are even thankful for it. I appreciate Janet talking about sibling name calling and how it effected her. Since I was always the fatest one in my family (I'm even fatter than my mother and my grandparents. MY GRANDPARENTS!) and I was always teased for it by my family. People tell me I'm not that big, but when your mother after having 4 children and weighing 98 lbs at 5'6, being 5'4 and over 170 is considered Shamu. And, it hurts the most coming from the family member you are closest to even if other engage in it as well.

I appreciate that Jermaine has his own perspective and I appreciate that he acknowledges how it was for him. If he doesn't see it as abuse, then we have to be understanding of other people's perspective. No two people are exactly alike.


Katherine's religion does not teach any of that at all. So, you can try to explain her actions based on the common religious teaching (especially since Katherine didn't become a JW til she was an adult) but I don't think we should try to lump it into JW teachings.

When I said religion, I wasn't talking strictly of JWs. I was talking about how most religions in those days thought that the men ruled the house and you don't questioned husband. It was also against many religions to leave your husband, not matter how much a terror he was. That is what I meant. It wasn't just JWs who did this.

I also specially said 'Katherine grew up in'. I know she wasn't born in the JW church and I never even mentioned them.
 
Ginvd, your points are well taken. However, one thing I want to be REALLY clear on is the difference between "spanking" and abuse. FACT: Michael said that his father threw him against WALLS. And, that his mother said to Joseph, "STOP! You're killing him." The reality is, being thrown against a wall could, indeed, kill a small child. I'm not talking right here about beating with a belt (or ironing cord, shoe, etc.), but the kind of abuse that is life-threatening. A few posts back, I posted about a mother in my region who will spend the next forty YEARS in a prison because she failed to stop the abuse of her toddler son by her boyfriend. The boyfriend eventually killed the child, and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

My understanding of that is a "spanking" is done with the flat of the hand (if done at ALL, which child-behavior experts now think is a very bad idea, in general), and striking with an OBJECT. That can really mess up a child, and as Ginvd and others have said, not all children react the same to "spanking." But THROWING AGAINST A WALL is an entirely different level of abuse. This is not ABOUT whether or not there was corporal punishment in the family, but that it crossed the line into SERIOUS abuse. It is that abuse that Jermaine still will not acknowledge.

I don't think this is a "perception" or "semantics" problem at ALL. This is a failure of Jermaine to validate Michael's very genuine experience, for the sake of continuing to receive MONEY from his mother. It's pretty transparent, actually.

Also, Michael's abuse as a child -- if you believe him -- and I do -- occurred in a total context where there was a lack of love from his father, and there was FEAR. Michael said that he was so afraid of "Joseph" that he threw up, and sometimes fainted and had to be supported by his body guards. That is not a "perception" question. SOMETHING surely happened to cause such an extreme reaction. I doubt if a child who was "spanked" faints as an adult, at sight of that parent. That was something entirely different.
 
so if Michael had no cell (iphone) whose Iphone case did Rebbie steal to auction it off?

Either rebbie found the iphone & thought it was michael's & decided to sell it off or he knows full well that was michaels phone & is denying it
 
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.

Amen!
 
Yes Jermaine has a right to have his perseption of what happened between HIMSELF and Joe. But, he has no right in trying to change Michael's perception of what happen between himself and Joe as he tries to do always in public. MJ defines it as abuse and when people tell Jermaine this in interviews he does downplay it and say it was not abuse. That is my issue with him. If he would say "that's how MJ see's it but, I don't" then I would be okay with that but, he never does.

Only now in this Q and A did he ever do that cause my question to him made sure to tell him that MJ does have that right whether he likes it or not. So he had to address it! And at first he agrees but, quickly goes in circles still trying to explain that it wasn't abuse TO HIM. SMH But, should I be surprised to read and here him say time and time again that kind of discipline isn't abuse? No, because he also did similair things to his own children and it's a no brainer that he would then defend Joe and be so defensive, cause in that defense he is also defending himself.

To say Joe is wrong he would have to say he was too! So IMO he is not qualified to even comment on what MJ feelings were with his relationship with Joe. That's MJ say and no one elses! Something he still doesn't get and many others I see. He also stated in an interview that MJ being younger would see things differently, that MJ didn't understand. Another great example of downplaying the ish out of what MJ said what happen to him WAS abuse.
 
Last edited:
so if Michael had no cell (iphone) whose Iphone case did Rebbie steal to auction it off?

Either rebbie found the iphone & thought it was michael's & decided to sell it off or he knows full well that was michaels phone & is denying it

Why would Jermaine deny it? Doesn't it make more sense that perhaps Jermaine did not know that Michael had a phone?

@Aquarius
Does anyone knows what does he mean by "hypothetically in 2002"?
Thank God his appointment by blood at birth is not enough to run his brother's estate.

I don't know if 2002 is significant or if he just pulled a date out of the air. 100% agree with your last sentence.
 
As an African American I am incredibly proud of Michael for speaking out and sharing the ABUSE he suffered at the hands of his father. The whipping of our children is a part of the culture and as Ginvid said many make fun of the experience and say they appreciate their parents discipline as an expression of love and concern. I don’t agree with this opinion at all and I feel that whenever scars, welts and injuries are inflicted the word SPANKED can no longer be used. That is abuse and it should not be happening to any child because it is not necessary and can do emotional damage. I watched my younger brother get thrown into a bathtub and beaten naked with an ironing cord and the whipping went on for what seemed like hours as I listened to his screams. I watched my parents hold his hand over an open flame on the stove to teach him not to play with matches. I was hit in the face with a can which cut my eyebrow and caused bleeding. My older brother was beaten with a high heel shoe until he was unable to walk for a day. I’m not telling you everything that happened in my childhood and you can be sure that Michael didn’t either. Some things are just too painful to voice period and from what Michael did share I can imagine what he must have endured.
 
When I said religion, I wasn't talking strictly of JWs. I was talking about how most religions in those days thought that the men ruled the house and you don't questioned husband. It was also against many religions to leave your husband, not matter how much a terror he was. That is what I meant. It wasn't just JWs who did this.

I also specially said 'Katherine grew up in'. I know she wasn't born in the JW church and I never even mentioned them.

Thanks Ramona. From your context I thought you were speaking about the religion Kath was in while with Joe. I am sorry if I misunderstood the context.

Ginvd, your points are well taken. However, one thing I want to be REALLY clear on is the difference between "spanking" and abuse. FACT: Michael said that his father threw him against WALLS. And, that his mother said to Joseph, "STOP! You're killing him." The reality is, being thrown against a wall could, indeed, kill a small child. I'm not talking right here about beating with a belt (or ironing cord, shoe, etc.), but the kind of abuse that is life-threatening. A few posts back, I posted about a mother in my region who will spend the next forty YEARS in a prison because she failed to stop the abuse of her toddler son by her boyfriend. The boyfriend eventually killed the child, and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

My understanding of that is a "spanking" is done with the flat of the hand (if done at ALL, which child-behavior experts now think is a very bad idea, in general), and striking with an OBJECT. That can really mess up a child, and as Ginvd and others have said, not all children react the same to "spanking." But THROWING AGAINST A WALL is an entirely different level of abuse. This is not ABOUT whether or not there was corporal punishment in the family, but that it crossed the line into SERIOUS abuse. It is that abuse that Jermaine still will not acknowledge.

I don't think this is a "perception" or "semantics" problem at ALL. This is a failure of Jermaine to validate Michael's very genuine experience, for the sake of continuing to receive MONEY from his mother. It's pretty transparent, actually.

Also, Michael's abuse as a child -- if you believe him -- and I do -- occurred in a total context where there was a lack of love from his father, and there was FEAR. Michael said that he was so afraid of "Joseph" that he threw up, and sometimes fainted and had to be supported by his body guards. That is not a "perception" question. SOMETHING surely happened to cause such an extreme reaction. I doubt if a child who was "spanked" faints as an adult, at sight of that parent. That was something entirely different.

Thank you Autumn.

I don't think throwing a child against a wall is automatically abuse. The statement is very vague to me and I would want to know the particulars before I start casting stones at people. I think that is one of the problems I have. We have statements that don't tell a complete story. For some, knowing just a piece is enough for them to forever condemn a person. However, knowing what I know about how children were raised, it is not enough for, nor do I feel it is my place. The point of my posting is not to doubt that to Michael, he felt abused. But why some people are so hell bent on trying to make Jermaine see something that was just not there for him puzlles me. Why does Jermaine have to acknowledge or alter his experience just to please someone's definition of what they think abuse is? Jermaine does not have to validate Michael's experience. Only Michael can do that. Jermaine has to speak out about his own experience and that does not have to be the same as Michael's. If Michael said he fainted and threw up, I doubt that was from just beatings (but on that subject I will not even begin to discuss).

I think sometimes (even me) we have a very real problem of trying to project our experiences and beliefs upon people we do not know, living a lifetime away and then trying to judge those same people by our perceived imperfections. What you think is serious abuse does not matter. What you think is black and white does not necessarily translate for another person. We are not the final sayers of how someone else should view things. If Jermaine does not consider something abuse, why are we trying to make it otherwise? Just so we can say, "See Michael was right"? Well I don't agree. Michael is right whether anyone else agrees with him because that is how he saw it. That is how it effected him. Jermaine has the right to feel whichever way he wants about the way he was disciplined. To me, that is the bottom line.
 
Does anyone knows what does he mean by "hypothetically in 2002"?
Thank God his appointment by blood at birth is not enough to run his brother's estate.

I think he meant the year in Michael's will.
 
I don't think throwing a child against a wall is automatically abuse. The statement is very vague to me and I would want to know the particulars before I start casting stones at people.

Here are the "particulars" about Michael being thrown against a wall as a child, in his own words. Plus, it's entirely clear from his emotions what his perceptions about that abuse really were. I think that this gives us enough information to be able to form judgments about how severe the abuse really was? Jermaine can talk about his own situation as much as he wants. That is his right. But in this case, we DO have Michael's words, for comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHn_NSY-TM4

He said that Joseph would throw him against the wall "as hard as he could." For a man to do that to a little child, is indeed, life-threating -- in terms of broken bones, or even head injures. On this point, Michael was not ambiguous, at ALL.
 
Last edited:
Here are the "particulars" about Michael being thrown against a wall as a child, in his own words. Plus, it's entirely clear from his emotions what his perceptions about that abuse really were. I think that this gives us enough information to be able to form judgments about how severe the abuse really was? Jermaine can talk about his own situation as much as he wants. That is his right. But in this case, we DO have Michael's words, for comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHn_NSY-TM4

He said that Joseph would throw him against the wall "as hard as he could." For a man to do that to a little child, is indeed, life-threating -- in terms of broken bones, or even head injures. On this point, Michael was not ambiguous, at ALL.

Thank you very much for the video.

I'll say it again, no one is doubting or trying to downplay how Michael saw it. It is very evident that it traumatised him. It does not give me any evidence to say anything was abuse without me having more information about the situation especially knowing what I know about how families were raised. It gives me enough evidence to say that it was abuse For Michael. For Jermaine, how he was treated was just discipline. MIchael felt abused. Jermaine felt disciplined. Two different people. Two different reactions.

That fact that Jermaine sees it as he does, does not lessen Michael's experience by any means.
 
How anyone can say that hitting a young child for a missed dance step is not abuse is beyond me...

For Jermaine, how he was treated was just discipline. MIchael felt abused. Jermaine felt disciplined. Two different people. Two different reactions.

But how do we know that this is really how Jermaine feels, and that he's not just saying that to defend his own actions? Notice how the only Jacksons saying that it's not abuse are the ones who whipped their own children with a belt. I would have loved to hear them talk about it BEFORE they had their own children and see if their answers would have been the same... Now it's like asking a rapist if what another rapist did was wrong...

It does not give me any evidence to say anything was abuse without me having more information about the situation especially knowing what I know about how families were raised.

How hard should Joe beat him for it to be considered abuse? Michael was spanked by his mother... According to La Toya, Michael was also spanked by his grandparents... Yet Michael sees his mother as an angel and we never heard him complain about any "spanking" from them. So clearly Michael was able to tell the difference between a "spanking" and "abuse", it's not just because he was more sensitive.
 
Why would Jermaine deny it? Doesn't it make more sense that perhaps Jermaine did not know that Michael had a phone?
.

im just stating my opinion on it but we all know how sometimes jermaine can be shiffty when it comes to explaining things sometimes
 
Last edited:
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.

I know that, but I was talking from my own history since I am black. Physical discipline is common in any race, religion, social background, ect. I've only address the black part of it because of my own history and the Jacksons' history. It has nothing to do with talent, because people are individuals. Some people come out of abuse stronger and better people for it, while others turned into abuser themselves.

As for religious belief, Katherine was rise as a baptist and converted in her later years. She talked about this in her book because her family used to celebrate Christmas and Jermaine even remembers this.
 
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.

Well said. Just caught up reading the last few pages, and thanks to all the posters who shared their experiences- abuse is such a sensitive subject.

I think jermaine's wording on this issue was clumsy - 'we were all treated the same. I was not abused.' He should have just said, 'i didn't feel it was abuse', if he was claiming it was down to perceptions.

While i think its worth discussing that in families there can be different perceptions, when it comes down to it in this particular case, i think it's moot as personally i can't trust jermaine and don't find him a reliable witness. He is very economical with the truth in lots of other issues, and he seems to be the self appointed family spokesman eager to portray a positive image. I tend to think if we are ever to learn more about what happened in the 60s and 70s, we will have to wait for joe and katherine to pass on.
 
Last edited:
I know that, but I was talking from my own history since I am black. Physical discipline is common in any race, religion, social background, ect. I've only address the black part of it because of my own history and the Jacksons' history. It has nothing to do with talent, because people are individuals. Some people come out of abuse stronger and better people for it, while others turned into abuser themselves.

As for religious belief, Katherine was rise as a baptist and converted in her later years. She talked about this in her book because her family used to celebrate Christmas and Jermaine even remembers this.

That is true, but in regards to physical abuse, the poorer and less "educated" a family is, the more predominant it seems to be, so it's not a racial thing (but I get what you're saying re: giving us insight from your experience). I know that's certainly true of my family, and physical abuse as a form of discipline seems to be the favoured form of child-rearing in poorer/less "educated" parts of the country/world.

I don't think religion plays a major part in why people physically abuse their children, despite the whole "spare the rod spoil the child" thing. I think it's definitely a cultural and socioeconomic/education circumstances things, as well as family history. A long history of family abuse handed down the generations obviously makes the pattern much harder to break than just one isolated occurrence throughout many generations.

It's a complicated thing, really, and Jermaine downplaying it is fairly typical of children who undergo said experiences. It's normalizing the abnormal, so to speak, so in their reality, the abuse is a normal part of life and is somehow justified. The psyche does not want to believe it is living in an abnormal reality, it seeks stability even in volatile circumstances, and adapting to the abnormal and normalizing it is a mechanism for survival.

Of course, later on, some realise what they went through was very obviously not normal in the macrocosm that is the outside world, and that is when the anger and resentment against the abusing parent comes in. You feel robbed of "normality," and of course you feel hurt and betrayed, since the very people who are supposed to protect you from harm are inflicting harm. It's a mindf--k, in other words, and I think that is what Michael realised and why he adamantly stands against child abuse of any form.

In that regard, I do pity Jermaine and I don't exactly hold the fact he downplays Joe's abuse against him...but he is very obviously wrong. Joe hurt Michael, and he hurt Jermaine, and the others. What he did was neither normal nor right, and Michael is within every right to speak out against it and be a living example of how much child abuse can mark a child, the damage of the events lasting even in his adult years.
 
Thank you very much for the video.

I'll say it again, no one is doubting or trying to downplay how Michael saw it. It is very evident that it traumatised him. It does not give me any evidence to say anything was abuse without me having more information about the situation especially knowing what I know about how families were raised. It gives me enough evidence to say that it was abuse For Michael. For Jermaine, how he was treated was just discipline. MIchael felt abused. Jermaine felt disciplined. Two different people. Two different reactions.

That fact that Jermaine sees it as he does, does not lessen Michael's experience by any means.


Well, if Jermain beats his own kids the way his father did to them, then it is logic that he wouldn't say that his father abused them, since he is doing the same to his own kids. He can't say his father was an abuser because then, he would have to say that he himself is an abuser.
 
Here are the "particulars" about Michael being thrown against a wall as a child, in his own words. Plus, it's entirely clear from his emotions what his perceptions about that abuse really were. I think that this gives us enough information to be able to form judgments about how severe the abuse really was? Jermaine can talk about his own situation as much as he wants. That is his right. But in this case, we DO have Michael's words, for comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHn_NSY-TM4

He said that Joseph would throw him against the wall "as hard as he could." For a man to do that to a little child, is indeed, life-threating -- in terms of broken bones, or even head injures. On this point, Michael was not ambiguous, at ALL.

"When he would catch me oh my God it was bad. It was really bad". Michael Jackson
 
I don´t think a parent with more than one child can treat them the same way and if he/she could the children wouldn´t feel they were treated equal.

Spanking is forbidden here in Sweden and that´s how it should be.
It´s never good to spank a child, there are other ways to raise children.
 
^^^ Absolutely and thank goodness there are now laws in place to protect children from abuse, child labour and spousal abuse.
 
Joe makes me sick and Katherine makes me sick for allowing Joe to mistreat her kids.
 
Finally got around reading it. Yeah, it is interesting and I think Jermaine answered well. I don't agree with every single thing he said, but, like us, he is entitled to his own opinion and that should be respected. Our opinion is not more valid than his.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top