Love Music Hate Racism on Morrissey

[cih]

Why do you say things you don't believe??

No idea what you mean by that - I was referring to Morrissey speaking, in anger, about the mistreatment of animals in China - he made a mistake in using the term 'sub-species'. Right?

To sound reasonable when all you really want to do is self-righteously proclaim your moral superiority?

No, I don't claim moral superiority over anyone. And, it IS reasonable to find the term 'sub-species' disagreeable.

Hey, I'll help you out. You aren't a racist. You're better than Morrissey. You're better than the fans who defend him. Now maybe it's time to move on?

No again, I'm not perfect, I'm sure I have ingrained racist attitudes like everyone else - I try my best and that's all I can do.
I'm not better than Morrissey(!?) - as an artist he is unique, and about the ONLY contemporary songwriter/performer of his ilk that I ever listen to - I rate him as superb.
I'm not better than his fans, my brother has been a pretty huge fan of the Smiths & Moz since the mid eighties, and I grew up listening to the music. If you see what I wrote in the Madstock thread I had plenty of criticism of Madness fans, of whom I was one, but no criticism of the Morrissey fans.

These glib, inaccurate deductions of my own thoughts and beliefs are fairly pointless. All i have done is point out that Morrissey made an error in saying what he said, and that you are making an error in defending it. And that it should come as no surprise that a representative of an anti-racism group should want to distance his organization from it. That is my belief - no personal jibe at you intended, or the other bloke.

 

[cih]

Is it self-preservation? http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ Somebody just reposted this the other day, in another thread here. It's the same answer. And then there's this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/truth-lies-here/8246/.

Truth, it seems, is both useless, and extinct.

Again, I meant Morrissey made a mistake, not me. I stand by everything I said, including the literal translation of untermensch (which is debatable to certain extent I concede but I was not incorrect, and it's irrelevant anyway - anyone can see that 'sub-species' when applied to a group of humans, means sub-human).

STAND BY IT IF YOU WANT TO, I DON'T GIVE A f***

 

[Worm]

No idea what you mean by that - I was referring to Morrissey speaking, in anger, about the mistreatment of animals in China - he made a mistake in using the term 'sub-species'. Right?

Define "mistake". Yes, it was a mistake to use the wrong word to over-state his dislike of animal abuse. It wasn't racism.

You said it was "clumsy racism". "Clumsy racism" is not a mistake, it's an imperfect expression of a clear point of view.

No, I don't claim moral superiority over anyone.

Sorry, but you bumped a thread that was dead and buried just to strike a pose. In this thread all the viewpoints have already been expressed. Viewpoints just like yours have been aired, defended and attacked by various sides, and put away. It's over. You haven't contributed anything other than to tell us, again, how wrong we are. I don't know why you would jump in unless it just made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to take a stand against racism. Now you've gone and posted three-- three-- air guitar emoticons, which is truer to your mission and what you should've done in the first place.

Why do I attribute that motive to you? Because you're the same as a few others who have contributed to this sprawling debate: you're willing to interpret one of Morrissey's statements ("subspecies") as unambiguous yet you completely ignore another one of Morrissey's statements ("I am not a racist, I abhor racism" etc). Why? Because there's no fun in conceding Morrissey isn't racist. Admitting that language is ambiguous robs you of the precious right to condemn someone else as racist, which is a hoot. If you were true to the ideas you claim to believe (language depends on context and intent, people say things they don't really believe in moments of passion) you would have to come down off the mountaintop and live in the scary world the rest of us inhabit in which words are sinuous and fluid and not buzzers in a pinball machine.

 

[cih]

Talking of sinuous and fluid, who do you think is going to win Strictly Come Dancing this year?

 

[cih]

Talking of warm and fuzzy, do you think Wagner will win X-Factor?

 

[cih]

Does anyone else find that an emoticon portrays your feelings better than your own face?

 

[Worm]

Funny! Now you're making a contribution.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Does anyone else find that an emoticon portrays your feelings better than your own face?

I was so anti-emoticon when I first joined. Now I can hardly post without using one.

 

[Qvist]

Again, I meant Morrissey made a mistake, not me. I stand by everything I said, including the literal translation of untermensch (which is debatable to certain extent I concede but I was not incorrect, and it's irrelevant anyway - anyone can see that 'sub-species' when applied to a group of humans, means sub-human).

1. I pointed out that "subhuman" is literally the equivalent of "Untermensch". You argued that "The term 'subhuman' is the closest translation of this term with the meaning the Nazis applied to it, with all ambiguity removed, and is exactly the same as 'sub-species' when one is talking about the human race. ".

In point of fact, "Untermensch" is actually a translation of "Subhuman", not the other way around - it was first used by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book "The revolt against civilisation", and the nazis picked it up from the German translation of that book.

2. I suppose there's no point in trying to explain the point about context to you a third time, or expect it to be replied to by anything else than continued assertions of privileged insight?

3. Anyway, according to Merriam-Webster's online Thesaurus:

subhuman
adjective
Definition of SUBHUMAN
having or showing the nature and appetites of a lower animal <years of grinding poverty that had reduced them to a subhuman existence>
Synonyms animalistic, beastly, brutal, brute, brutish, feral, ferine, subhuman, swinish
Related Words animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar

-----------------

Definition of SUBSPECIES
: a subdivision of a species: as a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species c : subgroup 1 <a political subspecies>
— sub·spe·cif·ic\ˌsəb-spi-ˈsi-fik\ adjective

subspecies

The word you've entered isn't in the thesaurus. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.


Obviously and self-evidently, they mean exactly the same thing. Right.

 

[Worm]

"animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar"

What's subhuman about that? Sounds like a fantastic night out to me!

 

[Qvist]

"animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar"

What's subhuman about that? Sounds like a fantastic night out to me!

It does, doesn't it?

cheers

 

[not_me_not_I]

Subhumanism Begins At Home
Paint a Subhuman Picture
Still Subhuman
"Spineless subhumans, cemented minds"
Life is a Subhuman Sty
"and people are subhman and subhuman to you...I'll tell you why"
"Or is life sick and subhuman instead? YES!"
"...who think it's very clever to be subhuman to you..."
"But rejection from a fool is SUBHUMAN"
"A subhuman hand on my shoulder, a push and it's over"
"just look at me - a subhuman beast - I've got nothing to sell"
etc

 

[Orson Swells]

"... barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar..."

I think that's actually a Morrissey lyric about Mike Joyce.

 

[cih]

2. I suppose there's no point in trying to explain the point about context to you a third time, or expect it to be replied to by anything else than continued assertions of privileged insight?

No, actually let's consider the context. Which of your two definitions makes most sense when applied to Morrissey's "extreme vilification" for a group of people who skin animals alive. Did he really mean to refer to such people as:

a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species c : subgroup 1 <a political subspecies

or was it closer to:

animalistic, beastly, brutal, brute, brutish, feral, ferine, subhuman, swinish, animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar

Who knows?

first used by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book "The revolt against civilisation"

Not read it. Is it Harry Potter?


Anyway, I'm done here, feel free to have the last word - I promise I'll read it. Just please don't take my subsequent silence as acquiescence.

 

[Media Whore]

Just wanted to say cih, you are not alone in your thinking. I hear you.

 

[DAVIE]

I think that's actually a Morrissey lyric about Mike Joyce.

Hahaa, your probably right!!!
Nooo, Morrissey's precious money

 

[Bluebirds]

Talking of sinuous and fluid, who do you think is going to win Strictly Come Dancing this year?

Ann Widdecombe. Morrissey will be pleased as he supports her.

Wagner will not win the X-factor. You are obviously a racist as hoping some Brazilian lothario who shares the same name as Hitler's favourite composer is tantamount to calling the Chinese people a sub-species.

Matt the twat in the hat will probably win. Or Rebecca. COs shes like Leona Lewis. More inherent racism blah blah blah

 

[Qvist]

No, actually let's consider the context. Which of your two definitions makes most sense when applied to Morrissey's "extreme vilification" for a group of people who skin animals alive. Did he really mean to refer to such people as:

a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species c : subgroup 1 <a political subspecies

or was it closer to:

animalistic, beastly, brutal, brute, brutish, feral, ferine, subhuman, swinish, animal, bodily, carnal, corporal, corporeal, fleshly, physical, sensual; barbaric, barbarous, cruel, heartless, inhumane, sadistic, savage, vicious, wanton; coarse, crass, crude, gross, ill-bred, lowbred, rude, uncouth, uncultivated, uncultured, unrefined, vulgar

Who knows?

Man, I would halt right now before you lose yourself further in the maze of logic.

The only reason the word "subhuman" is even a part of this discussion is that LMHR misquoted him as having used it. The point was that misquoting him in this way misrepresented his statement, because "subhuman" and "subspecies" do not have an iodentical meaning. Which the dictionary definitions indeed show, and which you now implicitly concede. Following which you begin to argue that Morrissey really meant what "subhuman" means, and not what "subspecies" means, as if it had a grain of plausibility or reason that this is something you can reasonably judge.

Not read it. Is it Harry Potter?


Anyway, I'm done here, feel free to have the last word - I promise I'll read it. Just please don't take my subsequent silence as acquiescence. :thumb

Son, you were all-too obviously done here after your first ill-considered post, and no amount of dickhead posturing is going to gloss it over. Nighty-night.

 

[King Leer]

Since the 90s I've never asked a moderator for anything or thought a thread should be locked (does that feature exist here?) -- but this is one time I'll say LET IT GO.

 

[murder and desire]

Does anyone else find that an emoticon portrays your feelings better than your own face?

Nope, I loathe the wretched things.