To me, this issue is "much ado about nothing."
Mr. Bowman's contract was developed through a public process. By all accounts (or by this article), the gentleman did his job. Even when his viewpoint was contrary to the majority's reason, Mr. Bowman supported the consensus with enthusiasm. We should be grateful for his independent thinking, wise judgment and tenacious loyalty.
Public relations is not banking. Sometimes, you have to spend a dollar to make two or three. In an age where the cult of personality reigns, Mr. Bowman's accomplish are especially exemplary because he promoted Durham without promoting himself.
Thank you, Mr. Bowman. Thank you for the work you have done. Thank you for willingness to assist your organization, long after you have exited the public stage. Especially, thank you for your continued support in making our community a place where people wish to visit and to live.
Luke 17.10: When you have done all you were told to do, you should say, "We are servants. We have not done a big thing. We have only done what we should do.
I appreciate that the Independent noticed local reaction to the passing of Michael Jackson. However, I object to the tone of this article.
As an individual, Mr. Jackson has been an economic stimulus, such as the modern world has ever known. Even in death, Mr. Jackson has spurred unprecedented spending, which will surely boost the economic forecasts of many an entertainment conglomerate. In addition, the national "punditocracy" has profited from airing the dirty laundry of this extraordinary -- even before his body was interred. So, in this story that is so focused on economics, where is the love? Can you calculate how much Mr. Lightner would have made (or loss), if the Jackson phenomenon had never happened? Can you imagine how many taxpayers would not be on the rolls, because their parents did not court while listening Mr. Jackson?
Did the Human Resources Managers of the Triangle pass a resolution that people could leave places of employment in the middle of the work day? I vaguely remember that it took many years to get national status for MLK day, while people continue to bray about the cost of a new holiday.
Where were the people? Have you noticed that we are in an unprecedented economic crisis? Specifically, a crisis that has affected African Americans in a disproportionate ratio to the general population?
And what of these "Middle class Black People"? Are we blaming these citizens who came to a public mourning ritual, for the lack of participation by working class folks, students and immigrants? Isn't significant that as a people, most African Americans claimed this complicated man and mourned him like a family member. Afterall, Michael Jackson did create the soundtrack to our lives....
My main objection is your tone. Why so negative? Media in the modern age is a separate topic for discussion. Just as the crowds in Los Angeles were respectful and mindful of the tone set by the family -- is too much to ask for the media to do so as well?
Please. Leave us alone to mourn. Please, hold your tongue -- not cut it off -- just a little while. Please be as human in writing as Michael was in life
I read your comments about the Varsity with great interest. Like most alums, I have my own memory of 1980s Chapel Hill which includes the Varsity and The Intimate (before the fire).
However, I was disappointed to read the snarky comments about Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett. I find it ironic that you write so beautifully about a local landmark, while making pot shots at national grief. So very inappropriate.
I wish you had seen Michael Eric Dyson and Cornell West eulogize Mr. Jackson on The Tavis Smiley Show (PBS). I wish that you could have born witness at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem.
Above all, I wish that you had more respect for the African American readers of this newspaper. Your remark about the "a soiled pop icon" indicate a belief that Michael Jackson was solely an consumable product made for a society quick to dispose of anything no longer in vogue. Your reader, both Black and White, deserve more empathy and understanding.
As an African American male, I grew up with this man and his music. The more that I contemplate the meaning of his life, my admiration and appreciations has grown. Michael Jackson changed the world with sincerity, passion, artistry and ingenuity. I would rather dwell on his narratives of peace and love rather than his personal foibles and eccentricities.
Janet Jackson said, "...to you, Michael is an icon. To us, Michael is family, and he will forever live in all of our hearts."
Your remarks were inappropriate, insensitive and demeaning. While you have the right to write what you wish, such remarks appear way too soon after the unfortunate demise of two famous human beings. Were it not for cultural producers such as Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett, who make meaning for common understanding, cultural critics such as yourself would have nothing to say.
Perhaps, you should have just said, "Sorry for your loss."
As the host of the Oscars, Rock made fun of Law by saying that he had been in "every movie I have seen in the last five years." He made a satirical comment about a Hollywood pretty boy and got lambasted for it. My point in bringing it up, was that the auditorium went silent when a black comic made fun of Hollywood. Hey. I saw MAMA MIA. It was "good clean fun." I just this film should have stayed a sketch on Saturday Night Live. AND I think that non-Blacks should leave black images alone. If a Black filmmaker had made a similar film mocking Jewish Culture (if not the religion itself), then I believe the word "antidefamation" would be used in several arguments. What Stiller has done is not fair. Just not cool.
I vaguely remember that Mr. Cheshire wrote a lukewarm review of Spike Lee's CROOKLYN some years ago. He did not get it. When I spoke with my Black friends and family, they got it. Spike wrote something about us and was speaking to us. It felt fantastic to be apart of the conversation.
TROPIC THUNDER is probably a great movie. I really like Robert Downey, Jr. I appreciate that he took the time to create a credible performance as a Black man.
I take issue with Stiller. In what world is it ok to an African American image as fodder for your personal satire? Whatever world, it is not the one that I am living in.
Remember when Chris Rock made jokes about Jude Law and nobody laughed at the Oscars?
Remember how the industry has currently dissed THE WIRE while having a self induced orgy over MAD MEN?
....and why did Dave Chappelle go to Africa to regain his sense of self?
Stiller has every right to make the movie. But, I think I will wait until cable. I really dont want to give him money for being insulting.
And Mr. Cheshire? Just so you know.... We are not there yet. In my America, being Black does not mean being comedy fodder for a non-African American.
I wont hold my breath. But it sure would be nice when "industry people" talk to me, rather than at me or just about me.
Oh, yeah. I get it. It never was about understanding a common notion.
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation