Morrissey's latest remarks

Comments

• Options

  [Deleted User] Posts: 777

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  06/09/10 - 12:20 #2

  What makes me laugh about this is the amount of people either trying to paraphrase what he said to make him look better or outright agreeing with him. It's especially ridiculous on sites where all the 'tolerant people' and hipsters collectively raged over John Mayer and Dr. Laura's idiotic comments on black people, yet nearly all of them appear to let Morrissey off the hook for saying a sixth of the world's entire population are all Untermensch.
  
  OP, the problem with this issue is that people are not going to want to believe Morrissey is racist. He is extraordinarily popular and a cult figure in left-wing circles so as usual there will be a collective denial aside from those who are enlightened enough to see what he said isn't acceptable regardless of the justification.

  0
• Options

  TCD1975 Posts: 3,039

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  06/09/10 - 14:24 #3

  It's a sentence taken out of context to drum up some attention for what is actually a fairly benign interview in the Observer Music supplement.
  
  In regards to that particular sentence, it's controversial use of the word "sub-species" admittedly, but I think the comments are a reflection of his anger about cruelty to animals rather than a dislike of the Chinese. Like many animal lovers I don't think he's that keen on human kind in general to be perfectly honest.
  
  Got me listening to my old Morrisey back catalogue again though.

  0
• Options

  elnombre Posts: 3,625

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  06/09/10 - 15:20 #4

  TCD1975 wrote: »

  It's a sentence taken out of context to drum up some attention for what is actually a fairly benign interview in the Observer Music supplement.
  
  In regards to that particular sentence, it's controversial use of the word "sub-species" admittedly, but I think the comments are a reflection of his anger about cruelty to animals rather than a dislike of the Chinese. Like many animal lovers I don't think he's that keen on human kind in general to be perfectly honest.

  
  It was in the Guardian according to the article, and I don't see how the comment has been taken out of context in the least. Even the DS article quotes the paragraph in full.
  
  Again, Morrissey is intelligent enough to say what he means. He didn't say 'Animal abusers are a sub-species', or even 'Chinese animal abusers are a sub-species'. He said 'The Chinese are a sub-species'.
  
  Unless he's deliberately trying to stir up controversy, it strikes me as pretty blatant racism, but as Xe2a2 points out, he'll always have his apologists who refuse to accept that their hero holds these views.

  0
• Options

  astounded Posts: 2,047

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  07/09/10 - 19:22 #5

  An interesting post from elsewhere:
  

  I would rather say that the rational amongst us will recall that Morrissey is normally passionate rather than sensible in his approach to wordly affairs, and the he is also prone to express his resulting opinions rather hyperbolically.
  
  Also, that it does not neccessarily make sense to expect a public discourse that shows a minute appreciation of the finer points of the impact of terminology upon liberal sensitivities from an artist who live in virtual isolation, and who has for 30 years shown a remarkable proclivity both for attacking difficult subjects from strange angles and for expressing his views with imagery abusive enough to occasionally trigger police investigation.
  
  Finally, that it's not neccessarily justified to jump to conclusions just because newspaper articles imply them.
  
  Do I think "sub-species" is an appropriate way of referring to the chinese as a nation? No, I don't. But then, I also don't think it's appropriate to describe anyone running a Manchester school as a ghoulish, spineless swine, to argue that DJs should be murdered because they play the wrong kind of music or that particularly obnoxious prime ministers should be guillotined. I or anyone else could translate those as a shocking, hurtful slander against educationalists as a group of people, as incitement to murder and as defence of capital punishment, with at least as much justification as that with which he is currently being labelled a racist. Not to forget that all us meat eaters are murderers (or at least accompplices to murder), that americans are fat, stupid, bigotted bastards, that all female police constables are **** of malicious intent, that annoying parents should be murdered, that stuck-up overly handsome and self-assured playboys should also be murdered, that amorous feelings require the backdrop of human bones, that all people who work lie and that short people look appalling no matter what they do. All of whom are broad, invalid and - if one chooses to take them that way - hugely insulting generalisations about whole classes of people.
  
  I could go on for a long time, even without getting into the even murkier water of things said from the "I" perspective of many of his lyrics. The point is that if you want the kind of writer capable of Meat is Murder or Margaret on the Guillotine, you'll probably have to live with this as well. His pointedness, immediacy and choice of imagery isn't always going to be to your liking.
  
  Unlike most, he doesn't give a considered opinion, he tells - literally, if you look at the interview - how it makes him feel. And how it makes him feel is that people who do or condone what that truly horrific footage shows are beyond....anything. Which I must say I find an entirely understandable and very moral emotional response. Most people talking to newspapers will translate that emotional response into a sensible observation containing the neccessary qualiifications, such as the distinction between acts of cruelty to animals being common in China and the general character of the Chinese as a collective entity. Morrissey, often and presumably deliberately, doesn't - in his statements and lyrics alike. Which I think is something that is very valuable and which is a large reason why he is always worth listening to. Glad though I am that this is not the way public discussion is generally conducted, and frequently though I do not share the sentiment as expressed, I would not have been without it. And God knows we need at least the occasional figure who can get away with speaking like that.
  
  Of course, Morrissey is not automatically excempted from anything just because he's Morrissey. But it is nothing if not irrational to insist on interpreting a single sentence he utters as if we knew nothing else about him, and as if it should be taken in a radically different way than we have for 25 years been taking other, equally provocative statements from the same man. MOrrissey "entering murky waters"? No, really? I thought that was a big chunk of the whole point. This is Morrissey being Morrissey. If that's objectionable mate, you should have found out a loooong while ago.

  0