-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 19, 2004
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
JANET JACKSON & CUBAN ARTISTS: THE COMMON THREAD
By Monica Moorehead
Who says that politics and mass culture don't mix? Consider two issues
tied to the Grammy awards that aired on Feb. 8 on CBS.
The prestigious Grammy awards for music are presented each year in a
television extravaganza. Millions of people watch this show here and
around the world to see if their favorite artists will win or perform.
In recent years the criteria for winning a Grammy have been mainly based
on record sales and the popularity of an artist, rather than the depth
of talent.
A performer overflowing with talent is Janet Jackson. She was scheduled
to pay tribute to ailing rhythm and blues singer Luther Vandross on the
Grammy show. She had to cancel her appearance because of what had
occurred during the half-time show at Super Bowl XXXVIII on Feb. 1.
Jackson opened up that show singing her "Rhythm Nation" hit, which
raises a number of social injustices, including racism.
During the finale, during a duet performance, Justin Timberlake ripped
her outfit, baring Jackson's right breast for a few seconds as they were
performing before tens of millions of viewers around the country.
Whether this was orchestrated or just an accident, the main issue is the
tidal wave of controversy that has evolved.
The Federal Communications Commission is opening up an "investigation"
after claiming to have received 200,000 calls and e-mails of complaint.
A lawyer in Tennessee is filing a class-action lawsuit against CBS and
Viacom, the Super Bowl promoters. She is basing her legal argument on
the claim that those who witnessed Jackson's breast were subjected to
"outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." (New York Times,
Feb. 8)
The entire half-time show, inspired by the youth-oriented network MTV,
was criticized by many as "lewd."
And while Timberlake was also criticized for his action--although not as
intensely as the criticisms bestowed on Jackson--he was still welcomed
to perform at the Gram mys, while Jackson was not.
A clear double standard is involved.
It is, however, important to put this particular incident into a broader
political context.
We live under a system where almost everything is bought and sold as a
commodity, all for making profits for big business. Tragically, women's
bodies are also viewed as commodities to be used and abused to sell
everything from cosmetics to alcohol to sex and everything in between.
Women's bodies are especially enriching the multi-billion dollar music
industry.
Janet Jackson's sexuality has been exploited, as has Mariah Carey's,
exploitative relationship has become the norm and not the exception.
Also consider the fact that the Super Bowl was virtually one big
"erectile dysfunction" commercial ad. The cameras lingered on scantily
outfitted women cheerleaders throughout the game. Television programming
itself--and not just cable shows--is all sexually explicit. Degrees of
nudity are everywhere in the movies, tabloid press and the Internet.
And what about the action of a white South ern male--Timberlake is from
Ten nes see--stripping an African Amer ican woman in public? Isn't it
reminiscent of centuries of brutal rape and sexual humiliation of Black
women on this continent?
So why is Janet Jackson being castigated and held up as responsible for
what happened to her during the half-time show? Why should she be
treated in such a demonized manner?
It was public knowledge that she was ordered to "quit or be fired" as a
presenter at the Grammys, unable to even show her face at the public
event. By the night of the event, the official statement was that
Jackson was not allowed to perform because she refused to publicly
apologize.
Timberlake, on the other hand, was awarded two Grammys within the first
hour of the program.
The real culprits are let off the hook: the capitalists who make profits
off of selling women's bodies as commodities, but who at the same time
preach and promote bourgeois morality.
ILLEGAL BAN OF CUBAN ARTISTS--WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
There's another issue associated with the Grammys that has received
qualitatively less press. Renowned Cuban artists invited to attend the
Grammys were once again denied visas to travel to the U.S. for political
reasons.
"Something as noble as music is being converted into a policy against
Cuba," said Abel Acosta, Cuban vice minister of culture and also
president of the Cuban Institute of Music. (Associated Press, Feb. 5)
Acosta stated further, "This policy is really hypocritical. It's the
most arbitrary in the world. They give visas to whom they want when they
want to."
The institute called the U.S. action a "new offense against Cuban
culture and people." (French Press Agency, Feb. 6)
The Cuban official and some of the aggrieved artists held a media
conference in Havana where they showed the letters of denial dated Feb.
4 from the U.S. Interests Section.
The letters cited Section 212f of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Law, which states that the U.S. president can deny entry to those whose
visit is deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Forty-five Cuban artists were reportedly denied visas. (New York Times,
Feb. 9)
Those who have been denied the right to come to the U.S. include the
Grammy winner Ibrahim Ferrer, guitarist Manuel Galvan, pianist Guillermo
Rubalcaba, percussionist Amadito Valdes, lute player Bar barito Torres
and singer Eugenio Rod ri guez. Ferrer, a multiple Grammy winner, is a
member of the Buena Vista Social Club, which gained worldwide fame and
popularity several years ago after the showing of an Oscar-nominated
documentary.
Cuban artists were also denied visas to attend the Latin Grammys held in
Miami last year.
These artists are the latest victims of the 43-year-old anti-communist
blockade of Cuba by the U.S. Despite this criminal U.S. foreign policy,
Cuban music has gained popularity here. Washington knows that Cuba, a
country with a population of 11 million people, poses no military threat
to the people of this country. In fact, it is the Bush administration
that is intensifying military threats against Cuba, which the people
there are taking very seriously.
The only "threat" that Cuba poses is as a beacon of awareness for the
U.S. population, showing the achievements of a socialist society like
free health care, free education and a rich culture free of capitalist
profit and exploitation.
The illegal travel ban imposed on Cuban artists and others, like the
Rev. Raul Suarez of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Havana, by the Bush
administration certainly merits a public outcry.
The common thread between Janet Jackson and the Cuban artists is that
they are all victims of U.S. imperialism, a racist, sexist, homophobic,
pro-war economic and political system that is causing so much poverty
and suffering worldwide.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews-
on@wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe wwnews-off@wwpublish.com. Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
|
|