So, traditional Inuit cultures of Nunavut were 'clearly evil in every possible way' when the first contact was made by the imperialist expansion of the British Empire into the landmass now re-classified as 'Canada'? Is that what you are saying? Is that what Morrissey is inferring? I hope not. Because to write such drivel is to dignify and condone the historical slaughter of "Red Indians", including Inuit and other cultural groups in Nanavut, by British/Canadian soldiers wearing bearskin/fur hats and using bayonets against seals and 'sub-species' so-called 'natives' with little distinction between a baby seal and a baby human. As they claimed the blood-stained lands for the 'royal family'.
Morrissey has a platform, a voice and every right to make statements. People DO listen (read) and the only purpose of making such statements is to invite replies and take part in a debate. The real issue is whether or not Morrissey is genuine or merely part of the machinery of 'bread and circus' radical-chic entertainment whereby soi-disant 'celebrities' pose as ethical spokespersons for various issues. If it's genuine, I think that's one of the few plausibly valid uses of this supposed 'celebrity'. However, we also know from various charlatans in the past that "world peace is none of your business" when you have a dedicated room for your fur collection in the Dakota building, for example.
If Morrissey is serious about engaging with the debate on Speciesism and the Death Cult Of Industrial Civilisation and isn't just cranking up the hype/ troll-o-meter for publicity then he needs to accept that his wealth and lifestyle will be subject to the same scrutiny as Lennon and Yoko when they sang "give peace a chance". They were, sadly, "all fur coat and no knickers" and managed to contain the cognitive dissonance of 'imagining' a better world whilst contributing to the ongoing slaughter of wild beings for their personal comfort. I'm not sure how many seal fur coats were in that room in the Dakota. Etc.
Morrissey performed in Seoul on his last 'world tour'. The ongoing slaughter and torture of farmed and 'pet' cats and dogs in Korea is just as egregious an industry as that of 'wild' seal clubs being culled. In the holocaust of nature, seals would be preyed on by polar bears and other beings which humans have already exterminated. A profound engagement with animal suffering also needs to address the philosophical question of animal suffering in the 'wild', in 'nature':
"The number of wild animals vastly exceeds that of animals on factory farms, in laboratories, or kept as pets. Therefore, animal advocates should consider focusing their efforts to raise concern about the vast suffering that occurs in the natural environment. While in theory this could involve trying directly to engineer more humane ecological systems, in practice I think activists should concentrate on promoting the meme of caring about wild animals to other activists, academics, and the general public. The massive amount of suffering occurring now in nature is indeed tragic, but it pales by comparison to the scale of good or harm that our descendants -- with advanced technological capability -- might effect. I fear, for instance, that future humans may undertake terraforming, directed panspermia, or sentient simulations without giving much thought to the consequences for wild animals. Our #1 priority should be to ensure that future human intelligence is used to prevent wild-animal suffering, rather than to multiply it."
http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-nature.html
Is 'existence' itself a dreadful mistake? Is the only way to end animal suffering (including human animals) to end life? Is all of existence a death-camp? And are humans about to engineer ever more levels of suffering? Is this what Morrissey wants to debate? If so, why is the torture/slaughter of previously 'wild' canine and feline beings in South Korea not so offensive to him that it would preclude him playing Seoul as well as Toronto? Why did he ignore this issue in Seoul? And Jakarta?
"I was expecting a comment from him about eating dogs after Meat Is Murder, but he let it go."
View attachment 31602
http://trailofthelionking.com/category/music/
I
f Morrissey believes that all sentient beings have equal rights to life and lives according to that ethos, then he is entitled to make the comparison with Auschwitz. But why not also Rwanda? Or Cambodia? Or anywhere else where one group of sentient beings declared another to be a 'sub-species' without an inherent right to life? Such as happens to baby male calves in industrial death-camps aka as 'farms' which exist to provide bovine milk for humans. Does Morrissey still eat dairy? Milk IS Murder. Does Morrissey endorse/allow Boz's branded suede rockabilly brothel-creepers as stage-wear? Or are they pleather?
Very few people have the financial resources and time to live an entirely 'ethical vegan' lifestyle as sourcing medicines without gelatine, say, is very difficult without extreme economic power. Any and all efforts by well-intentioned people to mitigate animal suffering (including human animal suffering) is to be applauded. But some of us have to shop at Primark, buy food with hidden trace ingredients sourced from animal death camps. As a millionaire 'celebrity', Morrissey has more power than most of us. Therefore, he must expect to have his choices with regard to diet, air-travel and clothing subject to scrutiny. It's not a 'witch-hunt' it's logically testing the sincerity of his opinions against his actions.
