A
An observer
Guest
No revisions at all, actually
> Okay Mr. Revisonist, this statement was about the North and South of the
> UK.
> The north of England like Manchester, Wigan, Coventry, Darby, etc...
> Are old failed cole towns, with a lot of ruffians with lower class
> accents.
> Morrissey was out to prove that people from this type of dejected region
> of the UK could produce wonderful beauty. The earliest Smiths days were
> all about the north/south class struggle. All of Morrissey's favorite
> actors were from the north. When he made that statement
> "everybody" was exclusive to the UK.
Here is the quote in context:
"He moves on to talk about the record sleeve of "Hand In Glove", which depicts a nude male. This also is no gimmick.
'I wanted to even the balance out', he says. 'It's crucial to what we're doing that we're not looking at things from a male stance. I can't recognise gender. I want to produce music that transcends boundaries.
'I want it to get through to everybody. I don't want it directed at just one generation. I want people to enjoy the music and also to think about what's being said.'"
MELODY MAKER, September 3, 1983
Morrissey isn't talking about the North/South divide. True, the quote at first refers specifically to sexuality, which doesn't necessarily bolster my argument, either, but then he goes on to mention age ("generation") and then makes a few general comments about what he expects from fans. Clearly his views on politics and society were extrapolated from the ideas he was most passionate about-- issues of gender equality-- and I chose this quote because it expresses, both in and out of context, the point I was making, which is that The Smiths set out to exclude nobody.
The North/South divide was much on his mind, of course, but that was only a small part of a larger, mostly coherent ethos. I can produce hundreds of quotes that back up my argument and if you've followed The Smiths as closely as you claim over the years, you know it.
Besides, you've only proven my point. You say, or at the very least imply, that Morrissey (before he apparently lost his mind in L.A., of course) would never have sung for the "Mexican trash" that now populate his SoCal audience. Well, what are these working class Latino kids if not the counterparts of the sons and daughters of the coal miners in Northern England? Didn't Morrissey himself come from squalor? Didn't he wear tatty old blue jeans with patches on them as some symbol that "real" humanity resided with the lower classes? Wasn't one of his favorite Wilde quotes, one which was used on a t-shirt (although I don't know if it was official 'Smithdom' or not), "All of us are born in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars?"
Stars: the film personalities you mention. Rightly so, they were and are a big part of his life. Let's forget for a moment that a number of them, such as James Dean and Dick Davalos, were American. His favorite films were the post-war British variety, the ones where Cockney accents were finally permitted, for instance, and the awful squalor of life was allowed onscreen. The term, I think, is "bedsit" or "kitchen sink" dramas. Shelagh Delaney's "A Taste of Honey"-- and I dare you to try and convince me or anyone that there is a work of art that has had a greater influence on Morrissey-- begins thus: "The stage represents a comfortless flat in Manchester and the sreet outside. Jazz music. Enter HELEN, a semi-whore, and her daughter, JO. They are loaded with baggage." You mentioned some "trashy whores" coming to the L.A. gigs-- I'll bet one, or many of them, might have been a heroine in a Shelagh Delaney play.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What I submit to you is that you are completely failing to see the correspondence between the England that Morrissey loved and the Latino culture here in L.A. In 2002, isn't it possible that play could open like this? "The stage represents a comfortless flat in Echo Park and the sreet outside. Hip-hop music. Enter MARIA, a semi-whore, and her daughter, SILVIA. They are loaded with baggage." What's the difference?
I'll tell you the difference-- these are "dirty Mexicans" here. They're not clean-cut white folks who are nobly struggling through life in order to prove a point about art. They don't have a sub-genre of films dedicated to them that achieved some cult and even some mainstream success. They don't have an Albert Finney or Criterion DVDs or literary movements that warrant capitals ("Angry Young Men"). In short, Morrissey's heroes are cool because they're English-- they're white-- while kids from roughly the same background here in L.A. are dirty, nasty, and beneath contempt-- because they're not white.
That's disgusting. And your attitude is writ large on nearly every post you've made on this board.
You might say that Morrissey would have reviled Mexicans back in '84. You're probably right. The Smiths-- as I have argued elsewhere-- are much bigger than Morrissey. Just because Morrissey was narrow-minded doesn't rule out the universal applicability of his ideas. Nor does it rule out self-contradiction. Whatever his inconsistencies, the concepts upon which The Smiths were founded, which he and Johnny talked about endlessly, are extraordinarily egalitarian. That his Mexican audience seems out of place listening to his records is a failure of imagination on your part-- I suspect Morrissey, although he was slow to do so, probably made the connection himself after awhile, which is why he caters to his Mexican audience now. Why can't you do the same?
> Morrissey was very outspoken about American, and was very anti-america.
> He traveled to America in his youth and HATED it.
> It wasn't until he came back with the smiths that he changed his tune.
> and soon as he saw a ton of young american kids worship him, he all of a
> sudden loved america.
> Morrissey is pretty shallow in this respect, if Morrissey knew about
> mexicans in the smiths days, I am sure he would have had a nasty thing or
> two to say about them, but now he is being openly worshiped by them, he
> eats it up.
Right. Morrissey hated Americans. "Diseased orangutans is a bit extreme. I'm sure they're a couple of steps up from that." Which is why you consistently bring up the fact that you have ties to England, yeah? Which is why you mention that you knew Morrissey, that you'd gone shopping with him, yeah? If Morrissey is indeed shallow; if, as you seem to say, he accepted you even though you were American; then it seems to me that what you're saying is that-- miraculously!-- the limits of his affections extend only to you and no further. How convenient for you! And how arbitrary and ill-reasoned it makes your arguments look.
> I have revised nothing, I have personally met morrissey quite a few times,
> I was active during the smiths days, and lived in both L.A. and the U.K.
> (Leaminton SPA to be exact) during the 80s. I know what the sceen was
> about on both sides of the pond. One thing is for sure, it sure the hell
> wasn't about mexicans!
Yes, it *was* about Mexicans. It was about anyone who was excluded and spat upon. It was for the downtrodden and the historically persecuted. How the hell could Morrissey worship an outsider-- a gay Irishman living in fin de seicle London for Christ's sake-- and not identify with outsiders of all races, genders, and types? Sure, the issue of Mexicans didn't come up-- why would they? Morrissey was stuck on a tiny little island in the North Sea. Once he got out and explored the world-- like any normal human being-- his vision was expanded and refined. You've traveled-- why haven't you done the same?
> Johnny is far beyond the point, my focus was on Morrissey and what he has
> become. Johnny is a super sweet guy and I don't think he has a racist,
> biggoted, or elitist bone in his body. Johnny's focus was always on the
> music.
I think you're being terribly naive about the ramifications of your arguments. What you're saying is that there is a certain type of fan-- The Smiths fan in the 1980s-- who should attend his concerts, and a certain type of fan-- people of other colors-- who shouldn't. Along the way, you throw in a copious amount of insulting racial epithets which make it very clear who you hate and why.
Let me ask you-- why is it you stick the tag "Latino" or "Mexican" on nearly every description you use of, say, the people who attended the Hollywood Palladium gig (I was there too, by the way)? Sure, no one likes homophobes or whores, or chicks who don't know how to use make-up, but you never failed to add that they were Mexican. Why is that? Surely we all despise filth and degradation, so why shouldn't your handle be "Last Clean Fan"? Why isn't the primary theme of your posts personal hygeine, say, or morality?
The answer is simple: you made it a case of white versus brown. You versus them. Older fans versus newer. This is why you are racist, despite the fact that you cling to that miserable rationalization "Morrissey is an elitist". There's no elitism in pop music. Period. It's impossible by definition. Morrissey knows that. The truth is, the number of human beings that Morrissey would find acceptable would barely fill a toll booth. He is a classic misanthrope. Oh, sure, he's forgiven-- after all, he hates humanity not because they're awful but because, damn it, he loves them so much they can only disappoint him. Fair enough, Moz.
There's a paradox about being a Smiths fan that is very similar to Morrissey's being a Wilde fan. Morrissey wouldn't give us the time of day, and Wilde wouldn't give Morrissey the time of day (not even as rough trade). I'm not talking about politeness-- signing autographs-- I'm talking about really liking someone. Yet we love The Smiths, and Morrissey loves Wilde-- why is that? Simply because each strikes a bargain with those who love him. They love the worship, and we love worshipping them, and neither side is about to ruin the deal. Whatever Morrissey's private thoughts are about this new infusion of working-class fans, he exists as a public man, and therefore he cannot exclude them. Just as, whatever Wilde would have thought privately about a rail-thin moper from the grim North of England, he would gladly have shown enough politeness to ensure that Morrissey would fork over the dough for a ticket to "Earnest".
Here we get to the crux of my argument, which I've made elsewhere but which I'll reprise again. Morrissey's private limitations do not translate to The Smiths, and, I feel, do not necessarily translate to the relationship he has with his fans. You know how I feel? He doesn't love us. He puts up with us. His personal history is littered with failed, broken relationships. He's a lonely, solitary man and in some twisted way he likes it like that. But he understands that pop music is for the masses, and The Smiths were all about the masses. To some degree his solo work is, as well, all though much less so. The bottom line is, there's no way a man can make pop records and be elitist *as a public figure*. I don't give a damn if you cornered Morrissey in Ralph's tomorrow and got him to admit, in a hushed whisper, that he secretly loathes Mexicans. That's neither here nor there. He makes the records, he does the tours, he welcomes his audience whether they're black, white, or brown. That's the truce he strikes with all those messy people who make his life possible.
Now, all this speculation about Morrissey is just that-- speculation. But the issue you brought up is one of public importance: who, exactly, should comprise Morrissey's audience. The answer, obviously, is "everyone". That's what pop music is all about-- that's what the bargain entails.
And yet this speculation can have a serious impact on the fans. And certainly it can have a tremendously negative impact on The Smiths, which, again, for the seven hundred and nineteenth time, were much bigger than just Morrissey. Morrissey may equal The Smiths, but The Smiths do not equal Morrissey. We don't have a relationship with the man (well, sorry, you do), we have something far more important. We have a relationship with the music. Therefore, it's outrageous to think that you, or I, or anyone should dictate what his audience should be like, or even bellyache about it on an Internet forum, as you've done. If I'm sensitive to all this, it's because I've had to deal with this kind of crap for well over fifteen years of being a Smiths apostle.
The Smiths were (and still are) for everybody. They were possibly more accepting of all types of people than any other artist in history, right up there with all the bleeding hearts like John Lennon or Bono. Hell, they were probably more inclusive than the usual standardbearers of "unity" like Bob Marley. Fox In The Snow called Johnny's comment "banal"-- damn right! And beautifully so!
No one can complain if you call out the racists, the homophobes, the thugs who come to the shows. Go ahead and lament the presence of those people in the audience. As I see it, maybe they're the people who *should* be going to these gigs, rather than a pack of mealy-mouthed suburban zombies who want to be mollycoddled and reassured that yes, thank God, they are, after all, very depressed and put-upon and isn't life a gas because of their heroic resistance to corporate tyranny. But don't make it a racial issue, and do not attempt to use an ill-conceived notion of The Smiths to back up your terrifyingly transparent bigotry.
Elitism in pop music-- what a joke!
> Nothing more, nothing less. Johnny quit not because he trying to preserve
> the smiths, but because he was over worked and drained.
That's true, but that's not the whole truth. Johnny has gone on record in the past-- I have it on VHS-- that he broke up The Smiths to preserve them intact. As he says it, "When we were on top, when we'd peaked, when we made the best record we were gonna make". Now, sure, that was partially spin control-- "I wasn't forced out of The Smiths, I left on my own". I do not think that was the sole reason. But it was one of the reasons, and a very important one.
Whatever his reasons, the critical reputation a band enjoys is often greatly impacted by the sort of fans you run into on the street (or, these days, on the Internet). For example, most of us haven't heard much of the Grateful Dead's music (no complaints from me), but we feel we know what the band is all about from the sort of people who like them. So while we can't bring The Smiths back, we can certainly negatively affect their reputation with all this racist nonsense. Like I said, I wouldn't care if you, LWF, were an isolated case, but you're not. People like you have always made life difficult for the more reasonable, fair-minded-- and considerably larger portion-- of The Smiths' fan base.
Considering how steadfast you are in your positions, LWF, I would make a genuinely sincere suggestion-- sit down and sort out what your attitude is toward Morrissey's Mexican audience. You seem to acknowledge that racism is bad. But it is apparent to those of us who have given a great deal of thought to this subject that you, unfortunately, are a racist. My advice is to decide whether you are or aren't, because all this dilly-dallying talk of "elitism, not racism" makes you appear confused rather than cogent.
I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm not trying to be P.C.-- I loathe P.C. But, personally, I can't remain silent while you publicly slander something which is so much more than just a band to me. Interpreting The Smiths can be very difficult, but when you add up all the fragments they have a firm and wonderful consistency with all the highest, noblest, and most commonly held ideals of popular culture. If you can't see that, I recommend you check your math.
> Okay Mr. Revisonist, this statement was about the North and South of the
> UK.
> The north of England like Manchester, Wigan, Coventry, Darby, etc...
> Are old failed cole towns, with a lot of ruffians with lower class
> accents.
> Morrissey was out to prove that people from this type of dejected region
> of the UK could produce wonderful beauty. The earliest Smiths days were
> all about the north/south class struggle. All of Morrissey's favorite
> actors were from the north. When he made that statement
> "everybody" was exclusive to the UK.
Here is the quote in context:
"He moves on to talk about the record sleeve of "Hand In Glove", which depicts a nude male. This also is no gimmick.
'I wanted to even the balance out', he says. 'It's crucial to what we're doing that we're not looking at things from a male stance. I can't recognise gender. I want to produce music that transcends boundaries.
'I want it to get through to everybody. I don't want it directed at just one generation. I want people to enjoy the music and also to think about what's being said.'"
MELODY MAKER, September 3, 1983
Morrissey isn't talking about the North/South divide. True, the quote at first refers specifically to sexuality, which doesn't necessarily bolster my argument, either, but then he goes on to mention age ("generation") and then makes a few general comments about what he expects from fans. Clearly his views on politics and society were extrapolated from the ideas he was most passionate about-- issues of gender equality-- and I chose this quote because it expresses, both in and out of context, the point I was making, which is that The Smiths set out to exclude nobody.
The North/South divide was much on his mind, of course, but that was only a small part of a larger, mostly coherent ethos. I can produce hundreds of quotes that back up my argument and if you've followed The Smiths as closely as you claim over the years, you know it.
Besides, you've only proven my point. You say, or at the very least imply, that Morrissey (before he apparently lost his mind in L.A., of course) would never have sung for the "Mexican trash" that now populate his SoCal audience. Well, what are these working class Latino kids if not the counterparts of the sons and daughters of the coal miners in Northern England? Didn't Morrissey himself come from squalor? Didn't he wear tatty old blue jeans with patches on them as some symbol that "real" humanity resided with the lower classes? Wasn't one of his favorite Wilde quotes, one which was used on a t-shirt (although I don't know if it was official 'Smithdom' or not), "All of us are born in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars?"
Stars: the film personalities you mention. Rightly so, they were and are a big part of his life. Let's forget for a moment that a number of them, such as James Dean and Dick Davalos, were American. His favorite films were the post-war British variety, the ones where Cockney accents were finally permitted, for instance, and the awful squalor of life was allowed onscreen. The term, I think, is "bedsit" or "kitchen sink" dramas. Shelagh Delaney's "A Taste of Honey"-- and I dare you to try and convince me or anyone that there is a work of art that has had a greater influence on Morrissey-- begins thus: "The stage represents a comfortless flat in Manchester and the sreet outside. Jazz music. Enter HELEN, a semi-whore, and her daughter, JO. They are loaded with baggage." You mentioned some "trashy whores" coming to the L.A. gigs-- I'll bet one, or many of them, might have been a heroine in a Shelagh Delaney play.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What I submit to you is that you are completely failing to see the correspondence between the England that Morrissey loved and the Latino culture here in L.A. In 2002, isn't it possible that play could open like this? "The stage represents a comfortless flat in Echo Park and the sreet outside. Hip-hop music. Enter MARIA, a semi-whore, and her daughter, SILVIA. They are loaded with baggage." What's the difference?
I'll tell you the difference-- these are "dirty Mexicans" here. They're not clean-cut white folks who are nobly struggling through life in order to prove a point about art. They don't have a sub-genre of films dedicated to them that achieved some cult and even some mainstream success. They don't have an Albert Finney or Criterion DVDs or literary movements that warrant capitals ("Angry Young Men"). In short, Morrissey's heroes are cool because they're English-- they're white-- while kids from roughly the same background here in L.A. are dirty, nasty, and beneath contempt-- because they're not white.
That's disgusting. And your attitude is writ large on nearly every post you've made on this board.
You might say that Morrissey would have reviled Mexicans back in '84. You're probably right. The Smiths-- as I have argued elsewhere-- are much bigger than Morrissey. Just because Morrissey was narrow-minded doesn't rule out the universal applicability of his ideas. Nor does it rule out self-contradiction. Whatever his inconsistencies, the concepts upon which The Smiths were founded, which he and Johnny talked about endlessly, are extraordinarily egalitarian. That his Mexican audience seems out of place listening to his records is a failure of imagination on your part-- I suspect Morrissey, although he was slow to do so, probably made the connection himself after awhile, which is why he caters to his Mexican audience now. Why can't you do the same?
> Morrissey was very outspoken about American, and was very anti-america.
> He traveled to America in his youth and HATED it.
> It wasn't until he came back with the smiths that he changed his tune.
> and soon as he saw a ton of young american kids worship him, he all of a
> sudden loved america.
> Morrissey is pretty shallow in this respect, if Morrissey knew about
> mexicans in the smiths days, I am sure he would have had a nasty thing or
> two to say about them, but now he is being openly worshiped by them, he
> eats it up.
Right. Morrissey hated Americans. "Diseased orangutans is a bit extreme. I'm sure they're a couple of steps up from that." Which is why you consistently bring up the fact that you have ties to England, yeah? Which is why you mention that you knew Morrissey, that you'd gone shopping with him, yeah? If Morrissey is indeed shallow; if, as you seem to say, he accepted you even though you were American; then it seems to me that what you're saying is that-- miraculously!-- the limits of his affections extend only to you and no further. How convenient for you! And how arbitrary and ill-reasoned it makes your arguments look.
> I have revised nothing, I have personally met morrissey quite a few times,
> I was active during the smiths days, and lived in both L.A. and the U.K.
> (Leaminton SPA to be exact) during the 80s. I know what the sceen was
> about on both sides of the pond. One thing is for sure, it sure the hell
> wasn't about mexicans!
Yes, it *was* about Mexicans. It was about anyone who was excluded and spat upon. It was for the downtrodden and the historically persecuted. How the hell could Morrissey worship an outsider-- a gay Irishman living in fin de seicle London for Christ's sake-- and not identify with outsiders of all races, genders, and types? Sure, the issue of Mexicans didn't come up-- why would they? Morrissey was stuck on a tiny little island in the North Sea. Once he got out and explored the world-- like any normal human being-- his vision was expanded and refined. You've traveled-- why haven't you done the same?
> Johnny is far beyond the point, my focus was on Morrissey and what he has
> become. Johnny is a super sweet guy and I don't think he has a racist,
> biggoted, or elitist bone in his body. Johnny's focus was always on the
> music.
I think you're being terribly naive about the ramifications of your arguments. What you're saying is that there is a certain type of fan-- The Smiths fan in the 1980s-- who should attend his concerts, and a certain type of fan-- people of other colors-- who shouldn't. Along the way, you throw in a copious amount of insulting racial epithets which make it very clear who you hate and why.
Let me ask you-- why is it you stick the tag "Latino" or "Mexican" on nearly every description you use of, say, the people who attended the Hollywood Palladium gig (I was there too, by the way)? Sure, no one likes homophobes or whores, or chicks who don't know how to use make-up, but you never failed to add that they were Mexican. Why is that? Surely we all despise filth and degradation, so why shouldn't your handle be "Last Clean Fan"? Why isn't the primary theme of your posts personal hygeine, say, or morality?
The answer is simple: you made it a case of white versus brown. You versus them. Older fans versus newer. This is why you are racist, despite the fact that you cling to that miserable rationalization "Morrissey is an elitist". There's no elitism in pop music. Period. It's impossible by definition. Morrissey knows that. The truth is, the number of human beings that Morrissey would find acceptable would barely fill a toll booth. He is a classic misanthrope. Oh, sure, he's forgiven-- after all, he hates humanity not because they're awful but because, damn it, he loves them so much they can only disappoint him. Fair enough, Moz.
There's a paradox about being a Smiths fan that is very similar to Morrissey's being a Wilde fan. Morrissey wouldn't give us the time of day, and Wilde wouldn't give Morrissey the time of day (not even as rough trade). I'm not talking about politeness-- signing autographs-- I'm talking about really liking someone. Yet we love The Smiths, and Morrissey loves Wilde-- why is that? Simply because each strikes a bargain with those who love him. They love the worship, and we love worshipping them, and neither side is about to ruin the deal. Whatever Morrissey's private thoughts are about this new infusion of working-class fans, he exists as a public man, and therefore he cannot exclude them. Just as, whatever Wilde would have thought privately about a rail-thin moper from the grim North of England, he would gladly have shown enough politeness to ensure that Morrissey would fork over the dough for a ticket to "Earnest".
Here we get to the crux of my argument, which I've made elsewhere but which I'll reprise again. Morrissey's private limitations do not translate to The Smiths, and, I feel, do not necessarily translate to the relationship he has with his fans. You know how I feel? He doesn't love us. He puts up with us. His personal history is littered with failed, broken relationships. He's a lonely, solitary man and in some twisted way he likes it like that. But he understands that pop music is for the masses, and The Smiths were all about the masses. To some degree his solo work is, as well, all though much less so. The bottom line is, there's no way a man can make pop records and be elitist *as a public figure*. I don't give a damn if you cornered Morrissey in Ralph's tomorrow and got him to admit, in a hushed whisper, that he secretly loathes Mexicans. That's neither here nor there. He makes the records, he does the tours, he welcomes his audience whether they're black, white, or brown. That's the truce he strikes with all those messy people who make his life possible.
Now, all this speculation about Morrissey is just that-- speculation. But the issue you brought up is one of public importance: who, exactly, should comprise Morrissey's audience. The answer, obviously, is "everyone". That's what pop music is all about-- that's what the bargain entails.
And yet this speculation can have a serious impact on the fans. And certainly it can have a tremendously negative impact on The Smiths, which, again, for the seven hundred and nineteenth time, were much bigger than just Morrissey. Morrissey may equal The Smiths, but The Smiths do not equal Morrissey. We don't have a relationship with the man (well, sorry, you do), we have something far more important. We have a relationship with the music. Therefore, it's outrageous to think that you, or I, or anyone should dictate what his audience should be like, or even bellyache about it on an Internet forum, as you've done. If I'm sensitive to all this, it's because I've had to deal with this kind of crap for well over fifteen years of being a Smiths apostle.
The Smiths were (and still are) for everybody. They were possibly more accepting of all types of people than any other artist in history, right up there with all the bleeding hearts like John Lennon or Bono. Hell, they were probably more inclusive than the usual standardbearers of "unity" like Bob Marley. Fox In The Snow called Johnny's comment "banal"-- damn right! And beautifully so!
No one can complain if you call out the racists, the homophobes, the thugs who come to the shows. Go ahead and lament the presence of those people in the audience. As I see it, maybe they're the people who *should* be going to these gigs, rather than a pack of mealy-mouthed suburban zombies who want to be mollycoddled and reassured that yes, thank God, they are, after all, very depressed and put-upon and isn't life a gas because of their heroic resistance to corporate tyranny. But don't make it a racial issue, and do not attempt to use an ill-conceived notion of The Smiths to back up your terrifyingly transparent bigotry.
Elitism in pop music-- what a joke!
> Nothing more, nothing less. Johnny quit not because he trying to preserve
> the smiths, but because he was over worked and drained.
That's true, but that's not the whole truth. Johnny has gone on record in the past-- I have it on VHS-- that he broke up The Smiths to preserve them intact. As he says it, "When we were on top, when we'd peaked, when we made the best record we were gonna make". Now, sure, that was partially spin control-- "I wasn't forced out of The Smiths, I left on my own". I do not think that was the sole reason. But it was one of the reasons, and a very important one.
Whatever his reasons, the critical reputation a band enjoys is often greatly impacted by the sort of fans you run into on the street (or, these days, on the Internet). For example, most of us haven't heard much of the Grateful Dead's music (no complaints from me), but we feel we know what the band is all about from the sort of people who like them. So while we can't bring The Smiths back, we can certainly negatively affect their reputation with all this racist nonsense. Like I said, I wouldn't care if you, LWF, were an isolated case, but you're not. People like you have always made life difficult for the more reasonable, fair-minded-- and considerably larger portion-- of The Smiths' fan base.
Considering how steadfast you are in your positions, LWF, I would make a genuinely sincere suggestion-- sit down and sort out what your attitude is toward Morrissey's Mexican audience. You seem to acknowledge that racism is bad. But it is apparent to those of us who have given a great deal of thought to this subject that you, unfortunately, are a racist. My advice is to decide whether you are or aren't, because all this dilly-dallying talk of "elitism, not racism" makes you appear confused rather than cogent.
I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm not trying to be P.C.-- I loathe P.C. But, personally, I can't remain silent while you publicly slander something which is so much more than just a band to me. Interpreting The Smiths can be very difficult, but when you add up all the fragments they have a firm and wonderful consistency with all the highest, noblest, and most commonly held ideals of popular culture. If you can't see that, I recommend you check your math.
