Was/Is Morrissey Racist?

You may or may not have noticed that there is a diversity of thought and opinion on this thread.

although i had, until recently at least, been under the misapprehension that pseudo-intellectual meant someone who talked about 'intellectual' ideas which you didn't like, and the political- correctness was a label in use by right wingers to criticise language or actions they didn't like! but then, i'm daft like that!

Tell me about the new Rush album, justine (or anyone). Any good? Do the lyrics reflect any of Neil's recent tragic experiences?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm sorry. I'll stop crying in a second. Hold on. One more second. Hehe. Okay.

You're right. WE ARE ALL POORER. Do you think Morrissey might have been censoring himself ALL along and that he has some GOOD songs somewhere he's been HIDING from everyone?

"[Morrissey's] an intelligent person who will not allow his thoughts to be policed by pseudo-intellectual politically correct sheep and bullies."

"Morrissey is probably sub conciously censoring his own lyrics now."

?

Pseudo-intellectual: something people call others when they're unwilling or unable to form a proper rejoinder to a well-developed and perfectly coherent argument that they happen to disagree with.

Politically correct: term people use when invoking ridiculous belief that they're allowed to say anything they want and others aren't allowed to point out that what they've said may well be idiotic or despicable.

I mean, that's what, four posts on this thread, and you haven't actually addressed the question, which is what we can glean about Morrissey's actual beliefs on these issues. Your only argument thus far has been that people should have zippers over their mouths and brains and not be allowed to have opinions about anything anyone else has said.

a.) Moz talks about this stuff. b.) ILM: "That stuff seemed sort of racist. Do you think maybe Moz is sort of racist?" c.) ILM talks about this stuff. d.) Jack: "I have nothing to say about this stuff apart from noting that it's wrong of you to talk about this stuff."

Thus the only one I see "policing" discourse (as opposed to engaging in it) = Jack, no?

In this sense you're doing precisely what I noted about Moz, above (as Nitsuh): buying into this notion that because someone is an artist their discourse is mystic and above the comprehension, criticism, or discussion of the listeners. But signifiers signify actual things, and none of us is above being responsible for what we choose to signify. This is my complaint with Moz: not that he is a racist (I don't necessarily believe that he is) but that he's naive or solipsistic enough to toy with meaningful, significant words and imagery as if they mean nothing, as if they're meaningless aesthetic costumes to be donned and removed without responsibility. In this sense he's no better than those people who think it's funny to put swastikas on things to "stir people us" -- racist, maybe not, but ignorant and ahistorical enough to miss the fact that speech and symbols have meanings and effects, and that people get stirred up because they recognize those meanings and care about them. Even when it's just an innocent stumble -- I honestly don't think Rush, for example, had much of an idea of the intellectual baggage that comes with Rand -- it's there: whether you realize it or not, you're saying something that a lot of people disagree with, and I think it's not only valid but admirable for them to argue against it. If you're going to say things, you have to be prepared for people to say that you're saying stupid things: freedom of speech does not imply freedom from criticism.

i.) My reference to swastikas was not meant as a reference to that "controversial" art exhibit in New York: knowing little about the actual pieces included, I'm in no position to say whether they used the Nazi imagery in a meaningful or in a destructive manner. (It sounded from the press like it was used reasonably topically, but some of the artists overstretched their statements in the way one would expect: i.e., they cheapened the reality of Nazism in roughly the same way that calling anyone you don't like a Nazi cheapens the reality of Nazism.)

ii.) That argument wasn't intended to lay waste to postmodernism so much as a really awful bastardized thinking that might stem from complete misunderstandings of postmodernism. It's always possible to recontextualize reprehensible signifiers in ways that are aware of their original weight, ways that comment on that original weight, and ways that use that weight to noble purpose. What irks me is when artists think their mere appropriation of such symbols completely strips them of that weight, thereby relieving the artist of any duty to deal with it. Such people are like those kids who wave guns in their friends' faces and say "don't worry, it's unloaded" right before the shot fires.

If you don't like 'glib', Jack, you might be better to stay away from terms like 'politically correct', and maybe engage with the discussion?

If I were to speculate on ways in which critical feedback may have been damaging to Morrissey's art I would probably say that vast quantities of unjustified fawning have wrought far more havoc than these discussions.

so an old record store buddy of mine has a sense of humor.

...huh.

https://pitchfork.com/news/adollarap-rocky-says-morrissey-is-on-his-new-album-all-smiles/

lol @ the url, "ADOLLARAP" is a good rap name

“Anything you need him to do, he show up and do,” Rocky said of working with the Smiths co-founder.

I thought this thread had been shut down and moved to another with a better title

Morrissey is a racist