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 Com mis sion 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, Beyoncé's and Madonna's--to name just a few--by
music executives. This 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.
Reprinted from the Feb. 19, 2004, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page