Love Music Hate Racism on Morrissey

He has Morrissey's voice on tape making remarks, yes, but that wasn't the whole story-- the rest of the story was the NME's presentation of those remarks, which distorted them. Jonze must think his readers are idiots.

The NME pulled out of funding the LMHR concert so Morrissey helped when out when they needed the money. It seems Martin Smith has a very short memory as that loathsome idiot Jonze was the editor of the kid's music mag at the time.

The newspapers are very good at manipulating readers so they don't have to think and let them believe they have formed their own opinion.
What's sad is that none of Morrissey famous fans defend him......they're usually so quick to namedrop.
 
We have asked LMHR if they will be returning Morrissey's money as they now want 'nothing to do with him'.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer.
 
I think this is a little unfair on LMHR. I'm not saying Morrissey's comments were right or wrong, but if you were a donator or member of LMHR wouldn't you be severely pissed off if the organisation accepted money and then kept on defending a musician who was purposely using suggestive language when it comes to race?

The recent comments were not racist. The previous NME comments were open to that interpretation even if the NME did spin it to launch an attack. But even with that in mind, an organisation like LMHR has to distance themselves from Morrissey to maintain any credibility.

What on earth could LMHR do in this situation? Defend him and risk disgruntled supporters and reduced donations?
 
The NME pulled out of funding the LMHR concert so Morrissey helped when out when they needed the money. It seems Martin Smith has a very short memory as that loathsome idiot Jonze was the editor of the kid's music mag at the time.

The newspapers are very good at manipulating readers so they don't have to think and let them believe they have formed their own opinion.
What's sad is that none of Morrissey famous fans defend him......they're usually so quick to namedrop.

Conor McNicholas was the Editor. Jonze was just a writer.
 
I think this is a little unfair on LMHR. I'm not saying Morrissey's comments were right or wrong, but if you were a donator or member of LMHR wouldn't you be severely pissed off if the organisation accepted money and then kept on defending a musician who was purposely using suggestive language when it comes to race?

The recent comments were not racist. The previous NME comments were open to that interpretation even if the NME did spin it to launch an attack. But even with that in mind, an organisation like LMHR has to distance themselves from Morrissey to maintain any credibility.

What on earth could LMHR do in this situation? Defend him and risk disgruntled supporters and reduced donations?

I don't agree with that. LMHR did not have to say anything, to anyone. If they had to say something, it would hardly have been difficult to convey that they thought the wording was unfortunate, without implying that they saw a racial intent behind it. Instead they are actively choosing to interpret Morrissey's comment as a racist remark. In the above interview, they even resort to below-the-belt rethorics and downright distortions, as well as charmingly implying that they were really being rather generous in accepting his money the last time around. It's just despicable.


If, as you say yourself, the recent comments were not racist, then why does LMHR have to attack them? It's one thing to be a realist, but let's not forget to try to hold our public figures to some sort of minimum standard of sense and probity. LMHR aren't just damaging Morrissey, they're trivialising the cause they exist to serve.

cheers
 
If, as you say yourself, the recent comments were not racist, then why does LMHR have to attack them? It's one thing to be a realist, but let's not forget to try to hold our public figures to some sort of minimum standard of sense and probity. LMHR aren't just damaging Morrissey, they're trivialising the cause they exist to serve.

cheers

Fair points Qvist. I'm just trying to see it from their perspective and their supporters who may not give two hoots about Morrissey and know little about him. To potentially their average supporter or donor, the only time they hear about Morrissey is when he's said a potentially provocative comment or action. In the piece, the chap from LMHR lists all of the alleged racist things Morrissey has said or done so it's probably a case of the straw that broke the camel's back for them. LMHR donors may only know those events and comments, so would surely question the organisation if it chose to defend him.

And yes, they could have just kept silent, but it's a not a great call for a pressure group to keep quiet on subjects close to their heart as they want to be seen as proactive and get as much press as they can.
 
Fair points Qvist. I'm just trying to see it from their perspective and their supporters who may not give two hoots about Morrissey and know little about him. To potentially their average supporter or donor, the only time they hear about Morrissey is when he's said a potentially provocative comment or action. In the piece, the chap from LMHR lists all of the alleged racist things Morrissey has said or done so it's probably a case of the straw that broke the camel's back for them. LMHR donors may only know those events and comments, so would surely question the organisation if it chose to defend him.

And yes, they could have just kept silent, but it's a not a great call for a pressure group to keep quiet on subjects close to their heart as they want to be seen as proactive and get as much press as they can.

I know. But I just don't think they are doing themselves, their supporters or the cause any favors either.

cheers
 
In the piece, the chap from LMHR lists all of the alleged racist things Morrissey has said or done so it's probably a case of the straw that broke the camel's back for them. LMHR donors may only know those events and comments, so would surely question the organisation if it chose to defend him.

And yes, they could have just kept silent, but it's a not a great call for a pressure group to keep quiet on subjects close to their heart as they want to be seen as proactive and get as much press as they can.

I hate to say it, but LMHR really had no choice in the matter, I agree. Their cause is racism, just like Morrissey's is animal rights. There is no room for ambiguity when it comes to true believers. Morrissey pushed one button too many, and he had to go. That's what happens when you are provocative, people push back. The money issues are obviously problematic.

LMHR has every right to be as unreasonable as Morrissey, and to be upset with him. I do wish they had said something to the effect of "we feel that Morrissey is not, in fact, a racist, but his constant provocative statements on this issue give us no choice but to regretfully sever our ties" or something like that.

I find them irritating and sanctimonious (and please, Bowie, Siouxsie and Elvis Costello? That's absurd.). Still, they are activists just like Morrissey, and being somewhat unreasonable goes with the territory.
 
Well I know quite a few good activists who manage to get the job done, and done well, without being somewhat unreasonable. You don't hear people from TI rambling against politicians who've said something ambiguous about money, or Open Society Foundation crusade against an actor who pulled a poor-taste crack about the downside of democracy. That's because they're too busy dealing with real problems to worry about inventing ones. There's no shortage of people who are prepared to deal with media bullshit instead, but in my experience they don't tend to be the people who actually achieve things. You should expect more. It's quite realistic. ;)

cheers
 
I hate to say it, but LMHR really had no choice in the matter, I agree. Their cause is racism, just like Morrissey's is animal rights. There is no room for ambiguity when it comes to true believers. Morrissey pushed one button too many, and he had to go. That's what happens when you are provocative, people push back. The money issues are obviously problematic.

LMHR has every right to be as unreasonable as Morrissey, and to be upset with him. I do wish they had said something to the effect of "we feel that Morrissey is not, in fact, a racist, but his constant provocative statements on this issue give us no choice but to regretfully sever our ties" or something like that.

I find them irritating and sanctimonious (and please, Bowie, Siouxsie and Elvis Costello? That's absurd.). Still, they are activists just like Morrissey, and being somewhat unreasonable goes with the territory.

All very true, but I am now totally alienated from both LMHR and The Socialist Worker because they aren't showing an ounce of brains in this mess. It's okay to be "unreasonable", because when activists are "unreasonable" they're often exercising perfectly sound reason, merely in another direction. But Smith et al don't sound like they're reasoning at all, in any direction. They sound like fools, overlooking a "questionable" statement by a pop star when it's accompanied by a check and putting on a laughable show of Moral Seriousness when the next remark is accompanied by nothing (not to mention blabbing about "anti-racist symphonies" and the like).

Also, a slight quibble: there is room for ambiguity in the cause of fighting racism. There has to be. Otherwise American anti-racist groups, for example, would have thrown a party and disbanded after Election Day, 2008. The subject is immensely complicated and must be addressed with at least some degree of sophistication. So I don't think it's correct to say they had no choice. They did. If nothing else they could have issued the statement you came up with, taken more money from Morrissey, and set up booths at his gigs. Their cause would have been helped, they would have had the same level of publicity for their organization, and ultimately more people would have come over to their side.
 
Last edited:
Well I know quite a few good activists who manage to get the job done, and done well, without being somewhat unreasonable. You don't hear people from TI rambling against politicians who've said something ambiguous about money, or Open Society Foundation crusade against an actor who pulled a poor-taste crack about the downside of democracy. That's because they're too busy dealing with real problems to worry about inventing ones. There's no shortage of people who are prepared to deal with media bullshit instead, but in my experience they don't tend to be the people who actually achieve things. You should expect more. It's quite realistic. ;)

Yes, I know serious activists who do serious jobs, and then I'm acquainted with fluffy media-types who make a stink about everything. That's their job, too.

I'll defend Morrissey to the grave - his accomplishments are not those of a petty racist or a bigot; here we go again, he's the T.S. Eliot of pop music.

All very true, but I am now totally alienated from both LMHR and The Socialist Worker because they aren't showing an ounce of brains in this mess. It's okay to be "unreasonable", because when activists are "unreasonable" they're often exercising perfectly sound reason, merely in another direction. But Smith et al don't sound like they're reasoning at all, in any direction. They sound like fools, overlooking a "questionable" statement by a pop star when it's accompanied by a check and putting on a laughable show of Moral Seriousness when the next remark is accompanied by nothing (not to mention blabbing about "anti-racist symphonies" and the like).

Also, a slight quibble: there is room for ambiguity in the cause of fighting racism. There has to be. Otherwise American anti-racist groups, for example, would have thrown a party and disbanded after Election Day, 2008. The subject is immensely complicated and must be addressed with at least some degree of sophistication. So I don't think it's correct to say they had no choice. They did. If nothing else they could have issued the statement you came up with, taken more money from Morrissey, and set up booths at his gigs. Their cause would have been helped, they would have had the same level of publicity for their organization, and ultimately more people would have come over to their side.

I don't know if I agree with you there. Morrissey is deliberately provocative when it comes to race. LMHR seem a bit juvenile, it's true, but many people wouldn't be able to accept such provocation as part of their public face. According to the article, several bands (spare me) took offense, and the spokesman didn't feel like going out on a limb to defend Morrissey. That's not an unreasonable choice for him to make - I don't know the circumstances, but it may have been the only one he could have made to salvage his organization's credibility with its own members.

As for nuance when it comes to activists and their beliefs, there are some who can handle it, and some who cannot. Morrissey himself is the ultimate hardcore when it comes to animal rights. I happen to sympathize fully with his position, so I give him all the room he needs when he makes proclamations that are ill-advised or emotionally overwrought.

I hate the fact that Morrissey is now seen as a racist - it breaks my heart that such a great artist is up to his neck in such nonsense. I wish he had expressed himself differently, and we could all be talking about improving the rights of animals in China and elsewhere instead of massaging the conscience of a few self-righteous Socialist-Worker types and listening to the gleeful cackle of Morrissey's enemies in the media. He should stop handing them so much ammunition, and then take away their guns. :rolleyes: :(
 
I hate the fact that Morrissey is now seen as a racist - it breaks my heart that such a great artist is up to his neck in such nonsense. I wish he had expressed himself differently, and we could all be talking about improving the rights of animals in China and elsewhere instead of massaging the conscience of a few self-righteous Socialist-Worker types and listening to the gleeful cackle of Morrissey's enemies in the media. He should stop handing them so much ammunition, and then take away their guns. :rolleyes: :(

Exactly.
 
I ran across this article by the same writer who wrote the one in The Stalinator above. He recycles the interview with Smith, then states:

Right now there could very well be some alienated kid in urban Britannia flirting with far-right ideas. Hearing a well-respected musician get away with calling another race a “subspecies” might be just enough to push their confidence over the edge into beating down an immigrant.

Does this sound as nutty to anybody else as it does to me, or is it just my personal pronoun peeve kicking in?


Bonus:
Old thread discussing a previous piece by the same writer after the last racist flap.
 
Does this sound as nutty to anybody else as it does to me, or is it just my personal pronoun peeve kicking in?

Nuttier than a Newt-Beck sandwich.

You only need to consider the opposite scenario to see how foolish the notion is: would a kid who had just decided he was going to attack an immigrant stop doing so if he read a Guardian blog in which Morrissey said immigrants should be embraced like long-lost cousins? Is this tender young man going to throw out his brass knuckles because he reads an item on Gawker?

These idiots only worry about the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Major social and political problems are ignored in order to obsess about pop stars' utterances.

A kid who is so close to beating up an immigrant he'll be swayed by a pop song is already a thug looking for any excuse to act on his desire for violence. He could just as easily decide to thrash an immigrant after stubbing his toe or burning his f***ing toast.

As I've said before, Morrissey's comment was ugly and can't be swept away, but it would be much, much easier to accept the criticism leveled at him if these same critics were actually speaking directly and proportionately to the root of the problem of racism.

And, lastly, once again they're missing the obvious fact that any kid who was enough of a Morrissey fan to act on his every word would also-- unless he were completely brainless-- understand that Morrissey is opposed to violence...and oppression...and...oh, hell, what's on Bravo right now? This is getting too boring.
 
Right now there could very well be some alienated kid in urban Britannia flirting with far-right ideas. Hearing a well-respected musician get away with calling another race a “subspecies” might be just enough to push their confidence over the edge into beating down an immigrant.

Does this sound as nutty to anybody else as it does to me, or is it just my personal pronoun peeve kicking in?

It's not just you. This is a nice device for turning trivial things into important ones, and would only be a valid line of reasoning if you accepted that any publicly repspected person was directly responsible for any effect he or she might have on anyone, and should as a result never say or do anything that could conceivably have a negative effect on anyone. I wonder what he'd make of Asleep on that basis. Or Panic. You know. There could be someone out there so fed up of Radio 1 that this might be just enough to persuade him to buy an assault rifle and a one-way ticket to the BBC building.


Yes, I know serious activists who do serious jobs, and then I'm acquainted with fluffy media-types who make a stink about everything. That's their job, too.

Is it, though? I mean, why do we have a perception here that somehow activists aren't doing their job properly if they don't put a fair bit of stupidity into what they're doing? That's not how NGOs who are big, successful or influential normally work.

And why this assumption that people would desert LMHR in droves unless they showered condemnation upon Morrissey? Most people who actively support organisations are above-average intelligent, and I strongly doubt many of them have Morrissey's statement high on their list of worries and concerns.

I also note that it wasn't the Socialist Worker who brought the subject up. Smith did so himself.

I hate the fact that Morrissey is now seen as a racist - it breaks my heart that such a great artist is up to his neck in such nonsense. I wish he had expressed himself differently, and we could all be talking about improving the rights of animals in China and elsewhere instead of massaging the conscience of a few self-righteous Socialist-Worker types and listening to the gleeful cackle of Morrissey's enemies in the media. He should stop handing them so much ammunition, and then take away their guns.

Well, you're right, of course. And in the midst of being angry at LMHR and the general idiocy of the media and the unfairness of it all, it is worth remembering that Morrissey might oh so easily have avoided the whole thing. I happened to play Oh well, I'll never learn on the car stereo today. It had a new poignancy. :)

cheers
 
he wasnt a racist when they took his cash to bail out their event , it smacks to me double standards

and let me just say that it would make you think people dont give a f*** about the facts behind the story , i do think as a country the treatment of animals is unacceptable and something should be done ... i just await the next NME sponsered LMHR release ... arseholes :mad:
 
I hate to say it, but LMHR really had no choice in the matter, I agree. Their cause is racism, just like Morrissey's is animal rights. There is no room for ambiguity when it comes to true believers. Morrissey pushed one button too many, and he had to go. That's what happens when you are provocative, people push back. The money issues are obviously problematic.

LMHR has every right to be as unreasonable as Morrissey, and to be upset with him. I do wish they had said something to the effect of "we feel that Morrissey is not, in fact, a racist, but his constant provocative statements on this issue give us no choice but to regretfully sever our ties" or something like that.

I find them irritating and sanctimonious (and please, Bowie, Siouxsie and Elvis Costello? That's absurd.). Still, they are activists just like Morrissey, and being somewhat unreasonable goes with the territory.

I think that sums it up :thumb:
 
i bet those people who took offence to Morrissey's subspecies-comment are the same ones who wouldn't hesitate in making degrading comments about 'obnoxious' Americans, the 'smelly' French, or 'thieving' Romas. We all know that Morrissey often says something that comes across badly - it's not always particularly clever or endearing, but I don't think a popstar's comments in an interview should be taken so seriously - he's in showbusiness for God's sake. He's not a politician or a human rights activist. Popstars say silly things all the time - and in this case it's not even that silly - he's making an observation based on his belief that animals are treaten badly by humans (which no one can deny). Another famous vegetarian, Paul McCartney also mentioned China as a country that treat animals badly, though not using the 's'-word about them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4476664.stm
 
Back
Top Bottom