Morrissey Accused of racism by the Guardian

[ManchesterConfidential]

This article was published on ManchesterConfidential.com 06/09/2010.

http://www.manchesterconfidential.c...il-Smith-Morrissey-and-Wayne-Rooney_12120.asp

 

[mozmic_dancer]

Thank you for this.

Interesting interpretation on the matter.

 

[starless]

That was quite a sober observation on the whole incident. I quite agree with it.

Nowadays everybody seems to get offended so easily. Anything comes across as being either racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic. At least Morrissey has the guts and wits to express his views - in his own sick way of course.

 

[Raphael Lambach]

It's absolutely idiot.
He's not racist, he just make a remarkable observation 'bout Chinese treatment of animals

 

[Amy]

It's absolutely idiot.
He's not racist, he just make a remarkable observation 'bout Chinese treatment of animals

I think that was the point ManchesterConfidential was making.

 

[Uncleskinny]

John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

John Harris spoke with some passion about Morrissey and The Smiths at the Manchester conference a few years ago. He talks some real sense about Morrissey in todays Guardian - read here.

P.

 

[Sphinx]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

John Harris spoke with some passion about Morrissey and The Smiths at the Manchester conference a few years ago. He talks some real sense about Morrissey in todays Guardian - read here.

P.

Now that is interesting - thanks

 

[Worm]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

John Harris spoke with some passion about Morrissey and The Smiths at the Manchester conference a few years ago. He talks some real sense about Morrissey in todays Guardian - read here.

P.

Harris is totally mistaken about the nature of whitebread indie in today's music scene. He bemoans the "white males limply strumming" to the same old tune, failing to "cross-pollinate" with the "diverse cultures" of the world, but he's forgetting two things: one, record collections can be diverse even if individual artists are not themselves hybrids, i.e., my "open mind" can be demonstrated by listening to both Arcade Fire and Jay-Z without wishing Arcade Fire to be like Jay-Z or vice versa; and two, he's overlooking the Vampire Weekend Conundrum, in which white males limply strum along to lots of African influences, among others, in a way that fools nobody about their highly insular pedigree.

And no, Morrissey would not have "gone down a storm". Morrissey sold 18 copies of "Years of Refusal". The opposite argument can be used: Morrissey is less popular than ever. Harris is completely out of touch, which isn't surprising since he's re-hashing the same argument indie-bashers trotted out in, what, 1986?

As to his comments about Morrissey in particular: complete and utter dreck. What Morrissey's concern for being "gentle and kind" really reveals is the problem of universalism: as we see with the "subspecies" kerfuffle, Morrissey is into grand statements and sweeping applications of morality and ethics. The problem is how one insists on one's own individualism while at the same time mobilizing and upholding a universal code of right and wrong. The paradox Harris misses is that while Morrissey's views seem "reactionary" and hopelessly outdated, his art in fact points the way toward an even more progressive, more obviously leftist space than does Harris' pale, cliched, gutless "multiculturalism".

Like everyone else, Harris quotes "I Know It's Over" as an example of Morrissey's big heart, but he forgets the "guts" part: it can be seen as a higher, tougher, stronger form of morality to show the guts to be gentle and kind toward animals and to insist on their unconditional protection no matter who gets offended in the process. But this wouldn't occur to Harris, whose great example of a society overcoming its problems is a bunch of knobs attending a Gorillaz concert. It's no wonder the other side is winning.

 

[joe frady]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

Harris is totally mistaken about the nature of whitebread indie in today's music scene. He bemoans the "white males limply strumming" to the same old tune, failing to "cross-pollinate" with the "diverse cultures" of the world, but he's forgetting two things: one, record collections can be diverse even if individual artists are not themselves hybrids, i.e., my "open mind" can be demonstrated by listening to both Arcade Fire and Jay-Z without wishing Arcade Fire to be like Jay-Z or vice versa; and two, he's overlooking the Vampire Weekend Conundrum, in which white males limply strum along to lots of African influences, among others, in a way that fools nobody about their highly insular pedigree.

And no, Morrissey would not have "gone down a storm". Morrissey sold 18 copies of "Years of Refusal". The opposite argument can be used: Morrissey is less popular than ever. Harris is completely out of touch.

As to his comments about Morrissey in particular: complete and utter dreck. What Morrissey's concern for being "gentle and kind" really reveals is the problem of universalism: as we see with the "subspecies" kerfuffle, Morrissey is into grand statements and sweeping applications of morality and ethics. The problem is how one insists on one's own individualism while at the same time mobilizing and upholding a universal code of right and wrong. The paradox Harris misses is that while Morrissey's views seem "reactionary" and hopelessly outdated, his art in fact points the way toward an even more progressive, more obviously leftist space than does Harris' pale, cliched, gutless "multiculturalism".

Like everyone else, Harris quotes "I Know It's Over" as an example of Morrissey's big heart, but he forgets the "guts" part: it can be seen as a higher, tougher, stronger form of morality to show the guts to be gentle and kind toward animals and to insist on their unconditional protection no matter who gets offended in the process. But this wouldn't occur to Harris, whose great example of a society overcoming its problems is a bunch of nobs attending a Gorillaz concert. It's no wonder the other side is winning.

Thank You.
I was just about to post 'Harris is a tosser. With shit hair.'
But this was what I actually meant to say.
Thank You. Again

 

[Anaesthesine]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

John Harris spoke with some passion about Morrissey and The Smiths at the Manchester conference a few years ago. He talks some real sense about Morrissey in todays Guardian - read here.

P.

Interesting article, but the author conflates too many complex issues.

Rock n roll may have started out as a way to put a white face on black music, but it was essentially an integrated musical form born in an openly, viciously racist America. Early rock and roll was rightly considered a threat to white cultural hegemony - that is one of its greatest legacies.

Punk was the music of white disaffection. The fact that indie music is now defined as the voice of white bohemian whining is unfortunate, but I don't think that punk can be blamed for every wet-eyed coffee-house crooner who feels misunderstood by their parents. Rebellion has always had many faces.

As for complaining that "serious" music is more exclusionary than pop music, that goes for art and literature as well; the charge of cultural parochialism can be applied to many (if not all) art forms. Cultural cross-pollination can be powerfully, culturally transformative, but it is not always more artistically valid.

I think Morrissey's more provocative statements are shocking to some not because they violate any self-proclaimed liberal righteousness on Morrissey's part, but because he seemed to transcend his musical genre and appeal to a surprisingly diverse audience. His deeds speak louder than his words, in a weird way.

 

[Worm]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

Punk was the music of white disaffection. The fact that indie music is now defined as the voice of white bohemian whining is unfortunate, but I don't think that punk can be blamed for every wet-eyed coffee-house crooner who feels misunderstood by their parents. Rebellion has always had many faces.

You're right, but as you know there were lots of non-white elements in punk and post-punk, too, as Simon Reynolds catalogued in "Rip It Up And Start Again". If a Chuck D. can cite The Clash as a major influence on his music and worldview, I'm not exactly going to have a guilty conscience about the scene. The right messages were broadcast even if they weren't always heard.

I do think there was a "closing of the indie-rock mind" around the mid-80s-- unfortunately coinciding with the rise of The Smiths-- but I think there are just as many reasons for it outside the rock and roll scene as there are in it. To blame the turn toward "pure whitebread indie rock" on the music itself is to ignore the influence of Reagan and Thatcher, which predates the shift. The problem critics have to grapple with is this: the regimes of Reagan and Thatcher had crucial impacts on their respective nations, inasmuch as they brought back lots of what punk had abolished, but The Smiths stood against Reagan and Thatcher. As ever, Morrissey is a problem and a paradox, a wrench to stop every machine.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

You're right, but as you know there were lots of non-white elements in punk and post-punk, too, as Simon Reynolds catalogued in "Rip It Up And Start Again". If a Chuck D. can cite The Clash as a major influence on his music and worldview, I'm not exactly going to have a guilty conscience about the scene. The right messages were broadcast even if they weren't always heard.

Of course - I experienced (post)punk as a somewhat multicultural scene that skewed very white. In reality there were a lot of complex cultural influences. For expedience (and this article was a bit reductive) you could say that it was the music of White Gripe - "White Riot" and all that.

There's no need for a guilty conscience - it was a very positive, fun, life-affirming good time. I think it kept me in the right kind of trouble.

 

[Qvist]

Re: John Harris talks sense in The Guardian today

I do believe it is fundamentally pointless to resort to the sort of racial/musical generalisation that Harris commits in this article. The antecedents of indie is loaded with black influences. Stuart Adamson played bass in Magazine. TV on the Radio exists. So does Eminem and the Beastie Boys. Of course, you could instead choose to focus on the fact most rap artists are black and most indie artists are white, just as you could see rock'n roll as pretending black music is white rather than as a hybrid of black and white musical traditions that hugely vitalised both, but why do so? If there's a problem with today's indie music, it hardly resides in its reluctance to cross-pollinate with Jay-Z or R'n B. And as Anaesthesine (and Simon Reynolds) point out, a conscious desire to melt together musical influences of diverse ethnical origins and characters does not neccessarily equal happy results - we had the whole eighties to show us that. And the god-awful Animal Collective to remind us. For every Gang of Four there were ten Drum Collectives. While it seems silly to pretend there is no such thing as musical traditions linked to ethnicity, it simply does no good to overfocus on it.

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

John Harris is focusing on ethnicity to fit Morrissey into the narrative. His argument:

Morrissey is the father of indie pop. Morrissey is culturally myopic. Indie pop is culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was white people appropriating black music. White people were culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was almost culturally myopic. Punk caused Rock n Roll to morph into indie pop, which then became hopelessly white and culturally myopic (but didn't know it). Arcade Fire is currently culturally myopic (and hopelessly white). Privileged white liberals think they are sophisticated, sensitive and inclusive, but they are still really culturally myopic. Non-white people are less culturally myopic. White liberal people like Morrissey's music more than they like non-white music, which just goes to show that they are hopelessly culturally myopic. Ecce homo, ergo elk.

Or something like that.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Today's letters page from the magazine.

P.

 

[Qvist]

John Harris is focusing on ethnicity to fit Morrissey into the narrative. His argument:

Morrissey is the father of indie pop. Morrissey is culturally myopic. Indie pop is culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was white people appropriating black music. White people were culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was almost culturally myopic. Punk caused Rock n Roll to morph into indie pop, which then became hopelessly white and culturally myopic (but didn't know it). Arcade Fire is currently culturally myopic (and hopelessly white). Privileged white liberals think they are sophisticated, sensitive and inclusive, but they are still really culturally myopic. Non-white people are less culturally myopic. White liberal people like Morrissey's music more than they like non-white music, which just goes to show that they are hopelessly culturally myopic. Ecce homo, ergo elk.

Or something like that.

Good old liberal guilt then? But where's the ambiguity? It's over there, in a box.

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

Yep, Morrissey has a liberal bleeding heart coupled with a conservative lack of guilt. Once again, he stymies friends and foes alike.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.

 

[CharethCutestory]

To say "The Chinese are a subspecies" because some Chinese people have treated animals badly is quite clearly, unmistakably and indefensibly racist. It suggests that ALL Chinese people are cruel to animals which is not the case. Nobody is denying the fact that some Chinese people are cruel to animals, but then again so are some people from every race and it is idiotic to apply a negative comment to an entire race based on the actions of a few.

It would be like saying "All black people love gun crime". The man is a f***ing moron.

That is all.

 

[Worm]

Regarding Fanta, people don't seem to realize that the fish gelatin used in the drinks is taken from the remains of fish that lived full lives and died of natural causes in their beds.

Now, to the scurrilous charge that some of us here are too biased to see the truth about Morrissey: patent balderdash!

 

[Worm]

John Harris is focusing on ethnicity to fit Morrissey into the narrative. His argument:

Morrissey is the father of indie pop. Morrissey is culturally myopic. Indie pop is culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was white people appropriating black music. White people were culturally myopic. Rock n Roll was almost culturally myopic. Punk caused Rock n Roll to morph into indie pop, which then became hopelessly white and culturally myopic (but didn't know it). Arcade Fire is currently culturally myopic (and hopelessly white). Privileged white liberals think they are sophisticated, sensitive and inclusive, but they are still really culturally myopic. Non-white people are less culturally myopic. White liberal people like Morrissey's music more than they like non-white music, which just goes to show that they are hopelessly culturally myopic. Ecce homo, ergo elk.

Or something like that.

Admit it, you're ghostwriting John Harris' autobiography, "The Judas Kiss: Betrayal At The Hands of My Own People".