Morrissey is NOT racist

Required reading. Thank you. Neil's column should end this silly debate. It won't, of course, but Neil deserves a bear hug anyway.

Yes, I agree- it's good to see there are some proper journalists who actually know what they are talking about :thumb: - a big hug and thank you to Neil :bow:
 
I admire the fact that Morrissey still feels the pain, and will always speak up for animal welfare; I just wish he'd do it in a more constructive, less knee-jerk emotional way. Just a word or two of difference, and maybe we'd be discussing animal welfare in China, not bogus charges of racism.

I don't know how anyone can view such cruelty and not be revolted. It does not bode well for humans everywhere that such torture is condoned anywhere.

Beautifully articulated, Anaesthesine. And proof that not everyone is coming from either Camp Morrissey Apologist or Camp PC Brigade, as seems to be the claim on the main page. :rolleyes:

I was troubled by Moz's comment, not because I was personally offended (his meaning is obvious), not because he doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants (I'd defend that right no matter WHAT he said), and not because I find anything wrong with being deliberately provocative. (That's one of his greatest charms, I think.)

It's an ugly word, and it's been used by ugly people to do ugly things. But that's not the main reason it irritated me. So-called journalists are constantly using overblown, sensationalist rhetoric to amp up outrage over every tiniest thing, and bloggers, etc., follow suit, to the point of becoming outraged that others aren't outraged enough.

As soon as I read that part of the interview, I groaned. That word is guaranteed to enrage, and madness always follows. It was inevitable that the real issue would be derailed by the ridiculous debate over whether or not Morrissey is a racist. And that's frustrating, both from an animal rights perspective and from a fan perspective.

There have been a handful of times when it's seemed that Morrissey, not content to simply put his foot in his mouth, has blown it off with a shotgun. When the rest of us do this, it's not newsworthy, and most people let us live it down. But these things--whether genuine controversial statements or manufactured rubbish--tend to trail him forever. (Tom Clark made sure to wheel out a few of these ghosts in his op ed.)

Some people take perverse delight in discovering and pointing out the "inconsistencies and hypocrisies" of people who “preach” about something that isn’t popular. Remember that whole “OMG, Morrissey was seen eating at a steakhouse” rumor? I know people who were positively GLEEFUL that he was “caught.” Many people WANT to believe the worst. Of course, it was total bullshit, and as I recall, Morrissey and PETA made sure that people knew it was bullshit.

It's all just absurd and tiresome, and, with the latest mention on HuffPo, I don't think it will be going away any time soon.

I still wish we could see these remarks in their wider context. Armitage probably cut a ton of stuff that was vastly more interesting than what he pubbed in The Guardian. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Some people take perverse delight in discovering and pointing out the "inconsistencies and hypocrisies" of people who “preach” about something that isn’t popular. Remember that whole “OMG, Morrissey was seen eating at a steakhouse” rumor? I know people who were positively GLEEFUL that he was “caught.” Many people WANT to believe the worst. Of course, it was total bullshit, and as I recall, Morrissey and PETA made sure that people knew it was bullshit.


I don't know what steakhouse you're referring to, but Morrissey's favorite hang-out when he was living in Los Angeles had this menu:

menu_5_10.gif



Now, read over that menu, and then realize that Morrissey threw a spaz/walk-off fit at the Coachella music festival, claiming he could not stomach the smell of burning animals. Yet he stomached the smell of burning animals just fine at The Cat & Fiddle, his known "spot" in LA, a city with numerous vegetarian restaurants. In fact, their web site still uses Morrissey's name to promote themselves: "The Cat and Fiddle Restaurant continues the Hollywood tradition…Rod Stewart, Ronnie Wood, Morrissey, Christopher Lloyd, Woody Harrelson, and their cohorts drift into the patio for refuge."

How come the smell of burning animals didn't offend him there like it did at the Coachella festival? A festival is a place where you're supposed to be tolerant of a diversity of people, whereas your chosen hang-out spot reveals the kind of place you CHOOSE as a place you are most comfy at. Why didn't he make his LA "spot" a vegetarian restaurant? Was it because The Cat & Fiddle has a Hollywoodian history?

That was more important to him than the little murdered lambs they cooked and served there?

Yes, he did hang out at steak houses. The Cat & Fiddle serves steak for $24.75. And he sat there day after day, inhaling the aromas with a smile on his face. Because The Cat & Fiddle is a "hip" spot for celebrities, and that trumps his concern for smelling the aroma of cooked animal flesh. On stage, as a fraud, he'll run off and then come back and claim he just can't possibly sing while there's a scent of cooked meat in the air. In his private life, he sits in the Cat & Fiddle meat-house restaurant as happy as could be, smelling cooked lambs, cooked cows, cooked fish, cooked pigs......

So what is bullshit, again? Probably the guy who made a music video promoting self-righteous attacks on fur-wearing senior citizens ("Everyday Is Like Sunday") while he was still sporting leather shoes and cruising around in leather-seated sports cars. Is PETA gonna make sure I know that he wasn't really a regular celebrity customer of The Cat & Fiddle, to such an extent that they use his name to promote themselves on their web site? This is an organization that says research on animals to treat and cure diseases should be abolished even as their own Senior Vice President injects insulin into her body every single day to stay alive. Oh, but the people who do that research and gave that bitch her insulin should have mail bombs sent to their family residences, according to Morrissey by way of his endorsement of the Animal Rights Militia.

PETA, btw, was busted for killing adoptable dogs and cats that they took custody of under false-pretenses. Some of these dogs and cats were killed right in the pick-up van and tossed like trash into a dumpster behind a Piggly Wiggly. I guess we're supposed to forget.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Chill suggested it was a matter of intelligence, but I don't know about that; I've come across a few intelligent varmints who were racist f***ers, in my time.
I do know this: the man who wrote and sings songs such as, to pick a random example that I happened to be listening to just yesterday, "It's Not Your Birthday Anymore" ~ "You Were Good In Your Time" is incapable of evil intent.
This is beyond boring now.
 
I think context and personality should be the way to judge this matter.

If Nick Griffin (Leader of the British National Party) said those words then I would use it as further evidence of his sick racist mind.

But it was Morrissey. Who I've known for nearly 30 years (through his work - which is his life laid bare) and who could never be racist.

If Nick Griffin used the word 'n*****/nigga' we would all know he was being derogatory and racist.

But when a black rapper uses that word it is from a different perspective and carries a different message.

So if you can't distinguish between the words of a fool and those of a genius then that's your problem not Morrissey's and it's not for him to correct.
 
You're all preaching to the converted here.:crazy:

Anyone in the wider world who wants to see if Moz is racist or not isn't likely to come and find out from his adoring fans now are they?
 
Last edited:
I think context and personality should be the way to judge this matter.

If Nick Griffin (Leader of the British National Party) said those words then I would use it as further evidence of his sick racist mind.

But it was Morrissey. Who I've known for nearly 30 years (through his work - which is his life laid bare) and who could never be racist.

If Nick Griffin used the word 'n*****/nigga' we would all know he was being derogatory and racist.

But when a black rapper uses that word it is from a different perspective and carries a different message.

So if you can't distinguish between the words of a fool and those of a genius then that's your problem not Morrissey's and it's not for him to correct.

This is exactly right.

Any remarks should be contextualized. Here in America, we just saw a shameless demagogue, Glenn Beck, hold a rally in Washington at which he claimed his movement was continuing the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Critics who blast Morrissey for using the word "subspecies" would, by the same superficial logic, be forced to praise Glenn Beck as a conscientious, justice-loving man simply because he praised Dr. King in public. It doesn't work that way. All the evidence needs to be considered.
 
I don't know if Morrissey is racist or not, because I don't really know him. But I do know this, which should be obvious to everyone: Morrissey likes to mouth off and give outrageous statements when speaking to the press; now, I would really respect him if those statements were all provocative and intelligent, but, let's face it, sometimes they're just plain stupid and offensive. And, let's be honest here, we can't pretend that he's been "had" by the evil media again; this has happened far too many times for that to be the case. He just seems to enjoy stirring things up, even when he's making himself look like an ass in the process. I don't feel I need to jump to his defense this time, because I wouldn't do that if some celebrity I don't care about said the same. He doesn't deserve to be left off the hook just because he's Morrissey.


That said, his statement was not as extreme and offensive as some people seem to think. He didn't say that the Chinese were sub-human, or that they were not human, as some posters seem to think. A subspecies is a biological classification that simply means that there are multiple subspecies within a species; for instance, Canis Lupus is a species, and it includes 39 subspecies (including subspecies of domestic dogs and wolves). It doesn't imply that any of the subspecies is inferior to another, and it mostly definitely cannot imply that a subspecies is not a part of the species: in fact, that would be a contradiction in itself. By definition, belonging to a subspecies of the human race would mean that you are most definitely human; so, if Chinese were actually a subspecies, every human in the world would also belong to a subspecies of humans, the only question would be how many subspecies there are.

So, if the statement were "the Chinese are a subspecies", technically it wouldn't be offensive in itself - it would just be scientifically completely inaccurate, and in this day and age, ignorant. The idea that there are such things as subspecies of humans is an outdated one and has been debunked by modern science. We now know that there are no subspecies of humans, there is only Homo sapiens. There is a connection to racism, however: the classification of humans into "races" or "subspecies" has been used in the past to justify racism, antisemitism and white supremacism. Believing that there are such things as human subspecies doesn't necessarily lead to the idea that some of them are superior over others; however, it works the other way round - it's difficult to claim that one 'race' is biologically and genetically superior or inferior, if it's a fact that there is no biological basis for the classifications of humans into 'races' (which is why you'll find those outdated classifications of humans into 'subspecies' like the one copy pasted earlier, at far-right websites). And it's even more likely that a belief that humans can actually be classified into subspecies would lead into another form of racism, a prejudice towards the so-called 'interracial' marriages, and people of 'mixed' origin - towards ideas such as that 'races' should not mix, calling people 'mongrels' and comparing them to mules and such nonsense.

Now, I think that nobody really believes that Morrissey is so ignorant and misinformed to actually think that the Chinese are a subspecies. And, he did not say that...

However, contrary to what some other posters have said, I think that context in which those words were said actually makes them far more offensive. "You cannot help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies" because they treat animals so cruelly? He made a sweeping generalization about all Chinese, a group of some billion people, and implied that they are so cruel that he almost feels like they are somehow biologically significantly different from the other members of the human race? That is both offensive and incredibly stupid. First there is the stupidity of generalizing people based on their ethnic background or nationality (the kind of stupidity that is also at the core of all racial, ethnic and national prejudices). And besides, Morrissey himself should be well aware that the rest of the human race have also been horrible to animals. I think we all remember his boycott of Canada over the seal issue - I don't remember him saying that the Canadians were a subspecies...

The worst thing in all this is that he's really harming the cause he is advocating. These kinds of statements add fuel to the views that animal rights activists are hypocritical wackos who love animals but hate their fellow humans. I am a vegetarian and a champion of animal rights, but above all I am a human rights champion. Now, there is nothing wrong if one feels the opposite and cares more about animal rights than human rights, but it is very troubling if someone cares for animals but doesn't seem to give a shit about human rights abuses. I'm not saying that's the case with Morrissey, but that is the impression that he creates in public with statements like these, or his support for extremist actions like sending mail bombs to the scientists who experiment on animals. I doubt that he's even serious with half the stuff he says, but all he can achieve this way (besides some publicity for himself) is hurt the chances of the issue of animal rights being taken seriously by the mainstream public.
 
Last edited:
And, let's be honest here, we can't pretend that he's been "had" by the evil media again; this has happened far too many times for that to be the case.

I agree up to a point. He created the situation, it's true. He should take responsibility for his words.

But let's be clear about something. The Guardian was running a story on Saturday about a "controversial interview" that wasn't published until Sunday. No coincidence that Tim Jonze is the Guardian's music editor. I have no doubt Morrissey's comment would have provoked a backlash on its own, but the Guardian did him no favors by publishing two op-ed pieces in advance of the Sunday interview. Whoever made the decision-- I assume it was Jonze, but who knows?-- knew full well that such a juicy soundbite would crash around the web like a wrecking ball doing irreparable harm to Morrissey's reputation. Due to the nature of the web this is being overlooked, but the Guardian's handling of this matter was probably even more reckless and indefensible than the NME's 1992 Madstock cover story.

Doesn't mean Morrissey should be excused for his comment, but we shouldn't be blind to the Guardian's actions here, either. Perhaps their motivation was solely to sell papers and drive site traffic, rather than malice, but even so they acted badly.
 
Last edited:
...
On stage, as a fraud, he'll run off and then come back and claim he just can't possibly sing while there's a scent of cooked meat in the air. In his private life, he sits in the Cat & Fiddle meat-house restaurant as happy as could be, smelling cooked lambs, cooked cows, cooked fish, cooked pigs......

So what is bullshit, again? Probably the guy who made a music video promoting self-righteous attacks on fur-wearing senior citizens ("Everyday Is Like Sunday") while he was still sporting leather shoes and cruising around in leather-seated sports cars. Is PETA gonna make sure I know that he wasn't really a regular celebrity customer of The Cat & Fiddle, to such an extent that they use his name to promote themselves on their web site? This is an organization that says research on animals to treat and cure diseases should be abolished even as their own Senior Vice President injects insulin into her body every single day to stay alive. Oh, but the people who do that research and gave that bitch her insulin should have mail bombs sent to their family residences, according to Morrissey by way of his endorsement of the Animal Rights Militia.

I think you make several good points here, Theo. With Morrissey being a person that has no qualms with judging a whole country based upon the horrific fur trade, it makes you wonder why we some fans defend him with such fervor, when Morrissey doesn't always uphold to the beliefs that he has. The very statement he made is loaded with contradictions. I won't either defend him, nor will I attack him for being racist. The best thing is for one to finally not have an opinion on Morrissey. Because it is ultimately futile to have one. I'll just say this: if you don't have respect for your common man you are nothing. It's deeply ironic that Morrissey, who has personally been attacked by other's moronic generalizations about him and his music (he's miserable, he's racist, so on and so forth), finds it so easy for him to lump an entire country together, with a biting, specific and rather well-thought out generalization: subspecies. Using that language towards a nation whose people have historically suffered from being mistreated because of their race and the perception that they are indeed sub-human or a sub-species, is rather dubious and unwise and will only render effects of confusion and outrage, which will ironically, turn the focus away from the animal rights issue and to Morrissey.
The animals, didn't benefit from it, the Chinese people who had nothing to do with the trade didn't deserve it and Morrissey doesn't deserve neither the praise or outrage for such comments. In fact he deserves no recognition for this.
 
Last edited:
I wonder just how many thousands of people around the world learned this very sentiment, or at least had it reinforced, by...Morrissey?

Precisely, which is why it is I find it ironic that he would yet again engage it inflammatory language against a whole country in order to prove a point about animals rights. Yet, he inextricably took the focus off that and back on him.
It doesn't matter if that sentiment is reinforced by him, if he doesn't practice that sentiment fully. I'll be the first to admit that Almighty Morrissey blundered. Terribly.
 
I don't know if Morrissey is racist or not, because I don't really know him. But I do know this, which should be obvious to everyone: Morrissey likes to mouth off and give outrageous statements when speaking to the press; now, I would really respect him if those statements were all provocative and intelligent, but, let's face it, sometimes they're just plain stupid and offensive. And, let's be honest here, we can't pretend that he's been "had" by the evil media again; this has happened far too many times for that to be the case. He just seems to enjoy stirring things up, even when he's making himself look like an ass in the process. I don't feel I need to jump to his defense this time, because I wouldn't do that if some celebrity I don't care about said the same. He doesn't deserve to be left off the hook just because he's Morrissey.


That said, his statement was not as extreme and offensive as some people seem to think. He didn't say that the Chinese were sub-human, or that they were not human, as some posters seem to think. A subspecies is a biological classification that simply means that there are multiple subspecies within a species; for instance, Canis Lupus is a species, and it includes 39 subspecies (including subspecies of domestic dogs and wolves). It doesn't imply that any of the subspecies is inferior to another, and it mostly definitely cannot imply that a subspecies is not a part of the species: in fact, that would be a contradiction in itself. By definition, belonging to a subspecies of the human race would mean that you are most definitely human; so, if Chinese were actually a subspecies, every human in the world would also belong to a subspecies of humans, the only question would be how many subspecies there are.

So, if the statement were "the Chinese are a subspecies", technically it wouldn't be offensive in itself - it would just be scientifically completely inaccurate, and in this day and age, ignorant. The idea that there are such things as subspecies of humans is an outdated one and has been debunked by modern science. We now know that there are no subspecies of humans, there is only Homo sapiens. There is a connection to racism, however: the classification of humans into "races" or "subspecies" has been used in the past to justify racism, antisemitism and white supremacism. Believing that there are such things as human subspecies doesn't necessarily lead to the idea that some of them are superior over others; however, it works the other way round - it's difficult to claim that one 'race' is biologically and genetically superior or inferior, if it's a fact that there is no biological basis for the classifications of humans into 'races' (which is why you'll find those outdated classifications of humans into 'subspecies' like the one copy pasted earlier, at far-right websites). And it's even more likely that a belief that humans can actually be classified into subspecies would lead into another form of racism, a prejudice towards the so-called 'interracial' marriages, and people of 'mixed' origin - towards ideas such as that 'races' should not mix, calling people 'mongrels' and comparing them to mules and such nonsense.

Now, I think that nobody really believes that Morrissey is so ignorant and misinformed to actually think that the Chinese are a subspecies. And, he did not say that...

However, contrary to what some other posters have said, I think that context in which those words were said actually makes them far more offensive. "You cannot help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies" because they treat animals so cruelly? He made a sweeping generalization about all Chinese, a group of some billion people, and implied that they are so cruel that he almost feels like they are somehow biologically significantly different from the other members of the human race? That is both offensive and incredibly stupid. First there is the stupidity of generalizing people based on their ethnic background or nationality (the kind of stupidity that is also at the core of all racial, ethnic and national prejudices). And besides, Morrissey himself should be well aware that the rest of the human race have also been horrible to animals. I think we all remember his boycott of Canada over the seal issue - I don't remember him saying that the Canadians were a subspecies...

The worst thing in all this is that he's really harming the cause he is advocating. These kinds of statements add fuel to the views that animal rights activists are hypocritical wackos who love animals but hate their fellow humans. I am a vegetarian and a champion of animal rights, but above all I am a human rights champion. Now, there is nothing wrong if one feels the opposite and cares more about animal rights than human rights, but it is very troubling if someone cares for animals but doesn't seem to give a shit about human rights abuses. I'm not saying that's the case with Morrissey, but that is the impression that he creates in public with statements like these, or his support for extremist actions like sending mail bombs to the scientists who experiment on animals. I doubt that he's even serious with half the stuff he says, but all he can achieve this way (besides some publicity for himself) is hurt the chances of the issue of animal rights being taken seriously by the mainstream public.

This is a brilliantly thought out and generally explicates what I had been trying to say. Very, very well said.
 
There is also one other point to consider, before I slip into a coma over all this: Morrissey's avowed admission of "unlimited self-sabotage". He has regularly, religiously?, shot himself in the foot at various points in his career (too numerous to detail again here). It is a clear character trait. Personally, I have always found the psychological motivations for it far more fascinating than any offense or anger such incidents might inspire in some mothers. Is it a Northern 'thing', a Catholic thing, a childhood thing. It often occurs at points of inertia in his career, which can obviously be read as simply trying to jumpstart a 'buzz' with some column inches, but it could also be seen as kicking against the pricks to try and stimulate some creative juices. Or to feel hated for loving again.
OK, now I'm dead to this....:straightface:
 
Precisely, which is why it is I find it ironic that he would yet again engage it inflammatory language against a whole country in order to prove a point about animals rights.

Well, let me say again, the comment was dumb and I wish he'd have chosen his words more carefully.

That said, his comment was well in line with nearly every comment he's ever made, about nearly every topic under the sun, in this one crucial respect: Morrissey has always spoken in hateful terms as an indirect way of expressing love. "Behind the hatred there lies/A murderous desire/For love". I read the "subspecies" comment the way I've always read his interview answers, and the way I've always interpreted his songs, which is to derive an additional, more profound, truer "inverted" meaning, to wit, that anyone who does not show compassion for animals is not fully human.

As Gavin Hopps explained so eloquently in his book-- and as I think all Morrissey fans know, consciously or otherwise-- most of Morrissey's greatness lies in what he communicates beneath and between his literal meanings. Everyone calls him a talented writer, and he is, but to understand his genius you have to see his artistry and his persona in their totality, not just in his lyrics. Readers are consistently saying they're shocked by this "subspecies" comment because the Morrissey they remember was "gentle and kind". The thing is, they're not wrong. He has always stood for kindness. But exactly how many literal expressions of kindness has he really made? How many lines in songs can we point to where he's singing about compassion and empathy, justice and equality? It's no coincidence that the first words many of us will think of, "love, peace and harmony", come to mind heavily drenched in irony. He has always articulated his views through indirect, sometimes surprisingly counterintuitive modes of self-expression. This latest remark isn't any different, though, again, it's easily one of the clumsiest and least attractive utterances he's ever made.
 
Last edited:
Tags
cathexis sure is tl;dr in here
Back
Top Bottom