Let's review the evidence. Is Morrissey racist?

Still waiting for the outrage on this site over Morrissey's 2007 comment on True To You:

"I would go to wherever there seemed to be interest - except China, which is too barbaric. In China, as we all now know, cats and dogs are skinned alive for the fur industry. Come, come, nuclear bomb."

Golly! Did Morrissey advocate that China be nuked? Not just boycotted. Nuked, for Christ's sake?

Where's the outrage? Where's the indignation?

Could it be that maybe everyone read the comment and took it as (a) an exaggeration, per Morrissey's usual mode of speech and (b) recognized that Morrissey's dislike of China was founded solely and entirely on the fact that someone told him skinning cats and dogs was a national industry, and not racism?

I think the difference in effect Worm is that 'China' is particularly vague. China's government? China's history? China's culture? China's people? It's easy to distance one's self from the charge if you don't partake in the behaviour and you feel no great affiliation with whatever the individual feels is meant by "China".

By saying "Chinese" and combined with "species" (which sounds particularly clinical and cold), anyone who has ever considered themselves to be of Chinese heritage, living in whatever country around the world, becomes the focus of finger pointing and deemed to be a "subspecies". It's much harder not to be swept up in the net of the accused. Guilty or not of these offences you can't but feel that that is a direct barb in your direction.
 
I think the difference in effect Worm is that 'China' is particularly vague. China's government? China's history? China's culture? China's people? It's easy to distance one's self from the charge if you don't partake in the behaviour and you feel no great affiliation with whatever the individual feels is meant by "China".

By saying "Chinese" and combined with "species" (which sounds particularly clinical and cold), anyone who has ever considered themselves to be of Chinese heritage, living in whatever country around the world, becomes the focus of finger pointing and deemed to be a "subspecies". It's much harder not to be swept up in the net of the accused. Guilty or not of these offences you can't but feel that that is a direct barb in your direction.

I think you make a fair comment here, but I also think that in the minds of PETA and Morrissey, and most activisits, the fur trade is closely intertwined with the government and therefore they tend to attack the entire country, as if it were a monolithic entity, for the cruelty of a single industry. That's not fair, but it does seem to obtain among activists.

The word "subspecies" was unfair and stupid to use, but as I've been saying, he chooses explosive exaggerations to achieve an effect. He always has done. That's how he speaks. And to be honest, it's often the case with regular folks like you and me that when we want to speak out against people we don't like we call them "monsters", "troglodytes", "subhumans", or whatever. We don't actually think they're less than human, it's just the most powerful way of conveying our disapprobation. Of the NME, Morrissey said: "Conor doesn't understand how the relentless stream of "cheers mate, got pissed last night, ha ha" interviews that clutter every single issue of the 'new' NME are simply not interesting to those of us who have no trouble standing upright", i.e. the average NME reader was a caveman.

Clearly "subspecies" can indicate that he holds a racist opinion of the Chinese-- I've never tried to deny that-- but it's just as possible that it can be nothing more than an unfortunate amplification of his non-racist dislike of the Chinese fur industry. When we're given something like this statement to unpack, it's necessary to turn to secondary evidence to figure out what he really meant to say, and in this case I think it's clear-- though of course I wish it were even clearer-- that Morrissey does not actually regard the Chinese as racially inferior, any more than he intended to say that all Americans are "a couple of steps up" from "diseased orangutans".

Again I would like to point out that long before the "subspecies" remark Morrissey called China "barbaric" and stated they should be nuked. This was said in a public Q & A on his de facto official website, True To You. Nobody said a word. People are freaking out (uh, they freaked out 14 months ago-- Ed.) because, yes, "subspecies" has racist overtones, but it's pretty obvious his second comment should have been taken as his first one was: China supports a particularly cruel kind of fur trade, or so he's been told by PETA, and therefore China and the Chinese are bad in his eyes. Unfair, dumb, ignorant, call it what you will-- it should have been accepted as a comment on animal cruelty in China and not as a hateful slur on the Chinese as a race.
 
Last edited:
A day later and nobody's taken my bait. Well, I guess I was being obvious. ;)

Has everyone forgotten Morrissey's Guardian editorial?

"I abhor racism and oppression or cruelty of any kind and will not let this pass without being absolutely clear and emphatic with regard to what my position is.

Racism is beyond common sense and I believe it has no place in our society."


The Internet doesn't forget!

I can anticipate the obvious response from the peanut gallery. Let me say this. Anyone who believes he wrote this editorial, and gave money and support to Love Music Hate Racism, just to mollify his critics, get some positive PR spin, and adopt a politically correct position in order to fit in with mainstream opinion, doesn't know anything-- anything-- about Morrissey.
 
I think you make a fair comment here, but I also think that in the minds of PETA and Morrissey, and most activisits, the fur trade is closely intertwined with the government and therefore they tend to attack the entire country, as if it were a monolithic entity, for the cruelty of a single industry. That's not fair, but it does seem to obtain among activists.

The word "subspecies" was unfair and stupid to use, but as I've been saying, he chooses explosive exaggerations to achieve an effect. He always has done. That's how he speaks. And to be honest, it's often the case with regular folks like you and me that when we want to speak out against people we don't like we call them "monsters", "troglodytes", "subhumans", or whatever. We don't actually think they're less than human, it's just the most powerful way of conveying our disapprobation.

Clearly "subspecies" can indicate that he holds a racist opinion of the Chinese-- I've never tried to deny that-- but it's just as possible that it can be nothing more than an unfortunate amplification of his non-racist dislike of the Chinese fur industry. When we're given something like this statement to unpack, it's necessary to turn to secondary evidence to figure out what he really meant to say, and in this case I think it's clear-- though of course I wish it were even clearer-- that Morrissey does not actually regard the Chinese as racially inferior, any more than he intended to say that all Americans are "a couple of steps up" from "diseased orangutans".

Again I would like to point out that long before the "subspecies" remark Morrissey called China "barbaric" and stated they should be nuked. This was said in a public Q & A on his de facto official website, True To You. Nobody said a word. People are freaking out (uh, they freaked out 14 months ago-- Ed.) because, yes, "subspecies" has racist overtones, but it's pretty obvious his second comment should have been taken as his first one was: China supports a particularly cruel kind of fur trade, or so he's been told by PETA, and therefore China and the Chinese are bad in his eyes. Unfair, dumb, ignorant, call it what you will-- it should have been accepted as a comment on animal cruelty in China and not as a hateful slur on the Chinese as a race.

I'm not debating if Morrissey is a racist or not or if he likes to rely on hyperbole in his everyday expression. As I have said earlier in the thread, I don't believe him to be racist and yes, you're right he is fond of the dramatic.

I'm answering, well at least raising the possibility of an answer to your question of why people communicated in high pitch voices post species-gate. As I mentioned, by saying 'Chinese' he personalised the attack and by doing so he gave it greater weight.

Also uttering the sentiment in a national newspaper which, arguably, was having a slow news day that particular Saturday probably didn't help either. Not to mention, does anyone even read Trew-tew-yew these days (those days)? I hardly think you can compare the reach that Julia's infrequently updated site manages with that of a nearly 200 year old national daily.

All reasons why the beast was quick to rouse this time round.
 
I think you make a fair comment here, but I also think that in the minds of PETA and Morrissey, and most activisits, the fur trade is closely intertwined with the government and therefore they tend to attack the entire country, as if it were a monolithic entity, for the cruelty of a single industry. That's not fair, but it does seem to obtain among activists.

The word "subspecies" was unfair and stupid to use, but as I've been saying, he chooses explosive exaggerations to achieve an effect. He always has done. That's how he speaks. And to be honest, it's often the case with regular folks like you and me that when we want to speak out against people we don't like we call them "monsters", "troglodytes", "subhumans", or whatever. We don't actually think they're less than human, it's just the most powerful way of conveying our disapprobation. Of the NME, Morrissey said: "Conor doesn't understand how the relentless stream of "cheers mate, got pissed last night, ha ha" interviews that clutter every single issue of the 'new' NME are simply not interesting to those of us who have no trouble standing upright", i.e. the average NME reader was a caveman.

Clearly "subspecies" can indicate that he holds a racist opinion of the Chinese-- I've never tried to deny that-- but it's just as possible that it can be nothing more than an unfortunate amplification of his non-racist dislike of the Chinese fur industry. When we're given something like this statement to unpack, it's necessary to turn to secondary evidence to figure out what he really meant to say, and in this case I think it's clear-- though of course I wish it were even clearer-- that Morrissey does not actually regard the Chinese as racially inferior, any more than he intended to say that all Americans are "a couple of steps up" from "diseased orangutans".

Again I would like to point out that long before the "subspecies" remark Morrissey called China "barbaric" and stated they should be nuked. This was said in a public Q & A on his de facto official website, True To You. Nobody said a word. People are freaking out (uh, they freaked out 14 months ago-- Ed.) because, yes, "subspecies" has racist overtones, but it's pretty obvious his second comment should have been taken as his first one was: China supports a particularly cruel kind of fur trade, or so he's been told by PETA, and therefore China and the Chinese are bad in his eyes. Unfair, dumb, ignorant, call it what you will-- it should have been accepted as a comment on animal cruelty in China and not as a hateful slur on the Chinese as a race.

bang on the money - and its that obvious
 
I'm not debating if Morrissey is a racist or not or if he likes to rely on hyperbole in his everyday expression. As I have said earlier in the thread, I don't believe him to be racist and yes, you're right he is fond of the dramatic.

I'm answering, well at least raising the possibility of an answer to your question of why people communicated in high pitch voices post species-gate. As I mentioned, by saying 'Chinese' he personalised the attack and by doing so he gave it greater weight.

Also uttering the sentiment in a national newspaper which, arguably, was having a slow news day that particular Saturday probably didn't help either. Not to mention, does anyone even read Trew-tew-yew these days (those days)? I hardly think you can compare the reach that Julia's infrequently updated site manages with that of a nearly 200 year old national daily.

All reasons why the beast was quick to rouse this time round.

The aroused beast (as you call it) took form on this site, in these pages - The statement Worm mentioned was linked on this site (in these pages) so i don't see the difference. I am not sure about your point about personalizing the attack. Calling for a Nuclear attack is pretty personal - he wasn't suggestting they bomb only the government. A nuclear bomb is pretty indesciminate.
 
Last edited:
I'm not debating if Morrissey is a racist or not or if he likes to rely on hyperbole in his everyday expression. As I have said earlier in the thread, I don't believe him to be racist and yes, you're right he is fond of the dramatic.

I'm answering, well at least raising the possibility of an answer to your question of why people communicated in high pitch voices post species-gate. As I mentioned, by saying 'Chinese' he personalised the attack and by doing so he gave it greater weight.

Also uttering the sentiment in a national newspaper which, arguably, was having a slow news day that particular Saturday probably didn't help either. Not to mention, does anyone even read Trew-tew-yew these days (those days)? I hardly think you can compare the reach that Julia's infrequently updated site manages with that of a nearly 200 year old national daily.

All reasons why the beast was quick to rouse this time round.

And yet the beast failed to notice that the "Chinese" quote was included in the middle of a paragraph in which he was sniping at everything under the sun, from pop singers to royalty. We don't have the taped conversation at hand, but it sounded an awful lot like he was just on a roll, dropping one bomb after another. Not on a rant against the Chinese, more of a rant against anything on his mind. He actually prefaced his comment with "Did you see the thing on the news...?" (Question: does anyone seriously believe if Morrissey had been reading "Middlemarch" the night before instead of watching some BBC documentary about Chinese circuses that we'd be having this discussion?)

The beast also failed to notice that the author of the piece was a poet, a careful chooser of words and a keen observer of other people. Simon Armitage had this to say, immediately after listing all of Morrissey's acid-tongued remarks: "Like many who've gone before me, as the conversation rolls on I find I can't unpick the contradictions. The charm, but also the barbed comments. The effeminate gestures, then the surly machismo. The desire to be centre stage coupled with the lack of social ease. The obvious trappings of success, fame and fortune, but the repeated complaints of victimisation and neglect. What I am certain of is that nobody is more aware of being in the company of Morrissey than Morrissey himself. Call it self-consciousness, call it self-absorption, call it self-defence, but every gesture seems carefully designed, and every syllable weighed and measured for the ripples it will produce when lobbed into the pond. Sometimes it's in the form of a brilliant, Wildean retort, sometimes it's a self-deprecating comment of suicidal intensity, sometimes it's a shameless remark about the indisputable nature of his own brilliance, and sometimes it's a claim so mystifying that at first I think he's taking the piss".

Key line: "every syllable weighed and measured for the ripples it will produce when lobbed into the pond".

Please, by all means, people should go back and check it out. There's not even a paragraph break between the slew of insults he tossed out and Armitage's description of Morrissey's persona. Armitage goes right from listing Morrissey's laundry list of pet peeves to an explanation of Morrissey's behavior. In fact, it was Armitage's whole point that Morrissey's comments were hard to interpret and in any case difficult to take seriously at face value.
 
Last edited:
The aroused beast (as you call it) took form on this site, in these pages - The statement Worm mentioned was linked on this site (in these pages) so i don't see the difference. I am not sure about your point about personalizing the attack. Calling for a Nuclear attack is pretty personal - he wasn't suggestting they bomb only the government. A nuclear bomb is pretty indesciminate.

Arousal? Are you sure? It's not like me. It's not even 8pm! Well before the watershed.

I'm sorry, I am referring to the world outside of these pages, namely the public at large and non-Morrissey-solo users. Frankly, most people here are high up to the eyeballs. Very few could give a view that wasn't partial or solely dependent on media sources.

if you don't understand what I meant, can I suggest you read this? You may find it informative.

I think the difference in effect Worm is that 'China' is particularly vague. China's government? China's history? China's culture? China's people? It's easy to distance one's self from the charge if you don't partake in the behaviour and you feel no great affiliation with whatever the individual feels is meant by "China".

By saying "Chinese" and combined with "species" (which sounds particularly clinical and cold), anyone who has ever considered themselves to be of Chinese heritage, living in whatever country around the world, becomes the focus of finger pointing and deemed to be a "subspecies". It's much harder not to be swept up in the net of the accused. Guilty or not of these offences you can't but feel that that is a direct barb in your direction.
 
And yet the beast failed to notice that the "Chinese" quote was included in the middle of a paragraph in which he was sniping at everything under the sun, from pop singers to royalty. We don't have the taped conversation at hand, but it sounded an awful lot like he was just on a roll, dropping one bomb after another. Not on a rant against the Chinese, more of a rant against anything on his mind. He actually prefaced his comment with "Did you see the thing on the news...?"

The beast also failed to notice that the author of the piece was a poet, a careful chooser of words and a keen observer of other people. Simon Armitage had this to say, immediately after listing all of Morrissey's acid-tongued remarks: "Like many who've gone before me, as the conversation rolls on I find I can't unpick the contradictions. The charm, but also the barbed comments. The effeminate gestures, then the surly machismo. The desire to be centre stage coupled with the lack of social ease. The obvious trappings of success, fame and fortune, but the repeated complaints of victimisation and neglect. What I am certain of is that nobody is more aware of being in the company of Morrissey than Morrissey himself. Call it self-consciousness, call it self-absorption, call it self-defence, but every gesture seems carefully designed, and every syllable weighed and measured for the ripples it will produce when lobbed into the pond. Sometimes it's in the form of a brilliant, Wildean retort, sometimes it's a self-deprecating comment of suicidal intensity, sometimes it's a shameless remark about the indisputable nature of his own brilliance, and sometimes it's a claim so mystifying that at first I think he's taking the piss".

Key line: "every syllable weighed and measured for the ripples it will produce when lobbed into the pond".

Ah, no it wasn't. It was highlighted in a supplementary article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-china-subspecies-racism

So in fact on that day, the interview appeared in the Guardian's magazine, Weekend, there was an article in the main body of the paper and there was an opinion piece. Not to mention that on the Friday beforehand, the Guardian was tweeting about how Morrissey had made another faux pas or something along those lines.

If you think that it was a turn a phrase sleeping contentedly in paragraph, then that is just plainly false. There was much ado about it. And that beast was poked with a stern finger.

And speaking as someone who works in the media, people don't care or have the time for nuances. They want to know what they want to know and they want it in bite sized chunks. Only a small percentage of people read past the first few paragraphs.
 
Last edited:
Ah, no it wasn't. It was highlighted in a supplementary article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-china-subspecies-racism

So in fact on that day, the interview appeared in the Guardian's magazine, Weekend, there was an article in the main body of the paper and there was an opinion piece. Not to mention that on the Friday beforehand, the Guardian was tweeting about how Morrissey had made another faux pas or something along those lines.

If you think that it was a turn a phrase sleeping contentedly in paragraph, then that is just plainly false. There was much ado about it. And that beast was poked with a stern finger.

Uh, what are you claiming here?

Simon Armitage interviewed Morrissey and wrote an article about it. This was given to the editors beforehand, obviously. They posted an excerpt (in NME fashion, only to drum up sales and page hits). How does this change the fact that Armitage intended the quote to appear exactly as it did, in the middle of a paragraph? You realize Armitage's article came first, right?

Scratching my head on this one.
 
Last edited:
Arousal? Are you sure? It's not like me. It's not even 8pm! Well before the watershed.

I'm sorry, I am referring to the world outside of these pages, namely the public at large and non-Morrissey-solo users. Frankly, most people here are high up to the eyeballs. Very few could give a view that wasn't partial or solely dependent on media sources.

if you don't understand what I meant, can I suggest you read this? You may find it informative.

Listen i don't like the quote either and i did read your comment before but i just don't see alot of difference between "China" and "the Chinese"
 
Ah, no it wasn't. It was highlighted in a supplementary article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-china-subspecies-racism

So in fact on that day, the interview appeared in the Guardian's magazine, Weekend, there was an article in the main body of the paper and there was an opinion piece. Not to mention that on the Friday beforehand, the Guardian was tweeting about how Morrissey had made another faux pas or something along those lines.

If you think that it was a turn a phrase sleeping contentedly in paragraph, then that is just plainly false. There was much ado about it. And that beast was poked with a stern finger.

And speaking as someone who works in the media, people don't care or have the time for nuances. They want to know what they want to know and they want it in bite sized chunks. Only a small percentage of people read past the first few paragraphs.

More from Armitage taken from the linked article:

""I thought at the time it was a dangerous thing to say into a tape recorder. He must have known it would make waves, he's not daft," he said. "But he's provocative and theatrical, and it was one of dozens of dramatic pronouncements. I'm not an apologist for that kind of remark, and couldn't ignore it. But clearly, when it comes to animal rights and animal welfare, he's absolutely unshakable in his beliefs. In his view, if you treat an animal badly, you are less than human. I think that was his point."
 
Uh, what are you claiming here?

Simon Armitage interviewed Morrissey and wrote an article about it. This was given to the editors beforehand, obviously. They posted an excerpt (in NME fashion, only to drum up sales and page hits). How does this change the fact that Armitage intended the quote to appear exactly as it did, in the middle of a paragraph?

Scratching my head on this one.

I think we are speaking on two different planes here. You are speaking of why it shouldn't have made the impact. I am giving reasons as to why it did.

Should it have made an impact? Hmmm, I don't know. It's a great line.

I'm saying that that quote, stuck in the middle of an interview, created a big fuss. It also created copy. And that's what people focus on. Most won't wade through an article by Simon Armitage (who?) but most people will read

"Morrissey reignites racism row by calling Chinese a 'subspecies'"

and

"For almost three decades, indie rock icon Morrissey has made almost as many enemies as devoted fans willing to hang on his every melancholy-drenched lyric. Described by one high court judge as "devious, truculent and unreliable", the former Smiths frontman is no stranger to controversy and criticism. But tomorrow he reignites a simmering row about his views on race in an interview in Guardian Weekend magazine, in which he describes Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals.

Morrissey, a vegetarian and animal rights advocate who last year abandoned the stage at the Coachella festival in California because of the smell of cooking meat, described the treatment of animals in China as "absolutely horrific", referring to recent news stories about animals in Chinese circuses and zoos. He told interviewer Simon Armitage: "Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies.""

You can talk about why it shouldn't have mattered but all that is academic - it did. It did because of the way I have explained in the last few posts is the reason why it did and the 'let's make Shanghai rain like Hiroshima" line didn't.
 
Last edited:
I think we are speaking on two different planes here. You are speaking of why it shouldn't have made the impact. I am giving reasons as to why it did.

Should it have made an impact? Hmmm, I don't know. It's a great line.

I'm saying that that quote, stuck in the middle of an interview, created a big fuss. It also created copy. And that's what people focus on. Most won't wade through an article by Simon Armitage (who?) but most people will read

"Morrissey reignites racism row by calling Chinese a 'subspecies'"

and

"For almost three decades, indie rock icon Morrissey has made almost as many enemies as devoted fans willing to hang on his every melancholy-drenched lyric. Described by one high court judge as "devious, truculent and unreliable", the former Smiths frontman is no stranger to controversy and criticism. But tomorrow he reignites a simmering row about his views on race in an interview in Guardian Weekend magazine, in which he describes Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of their treatment of animals.

Morrissey, a vegetarian and animal rights advocate who last year abandoned the stage at the Coachella festival in California because of the smell of cooking meat, described the treatment of animals in China as "absolutely horrific", referring to recent news stories about animals in Chinese circuses and zoos. He told interviewer Simon Armitage: "Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies.""

You can talk about why it shouldn't have mattered but all that is academic - it did. It because of the way I have explained in the last few posts is the reason why it did and the 'let's make Shanghai rain like Hiroshima" line didn't.


But did it matter? - I think the general public have either forgotton or got used to these kind of comments from Morrissey and now take them with a pinch of salt - It is only on this site that it remains a hot talking point.
 
But did it matter? - I think the general public have either forgotton or got used to these kind of comments from Morrissey and now take them with a pinch of salt - It is only on this site that it remains a hot talking point.

If it doesn't matter and these things have no impact then I wonder why he is bothering to take the NME to court on the argument that these kinds of articles have a impact on his reputation in the public mind. I think it remains a talking point here because here is where people talk about Morrissey.

relevance?

The relevance is that if you were Chinese then may be you would be more affected by his words than by a non-Chinese person.

Where are you from? England? Do you consider yourself to be English?

Ok, do you see the difference in

"England is ridiculous for still allowing fox hunting to continue"

and

"The English are barbarous in their treatment of its fox population"

If you don't then, never the twain shall meet I'm afraid.
 
If it doesn't matter and these things have no impact then I wonder why he is bothering to take the NME to court on the argument that these kinds of articles have a impact on his reputation in the public mind. I think it remains a talking point here because here is where people talk about Morrissey.



The relevance is that if you were Chinese then may be you would be more affected by his words than by a non-Chinese person.

Where are you from? England? Do you consider yourself to be English?

Ok, do you see the difference in

"England is ridiculous for still allowing fox hunting to continue"

and

"The English are barbarous in their treatment of its fox population"

If you don't then, never the twain shall meet I'm afraid.

but he isn't suing the gaurdian is he? - the quote hasn't even been challenged. The point is that the "Chinese" quote (ugly as it is) wouldn't have been examined in such depth had it not been for the context of the NME hatch job.

and i wouldn't see a difference between for example "I long for a nuclear bomb on england" and "I think the english should be bombed"? - I don't think its more or less personal. I think its the same. Never the less i think the quote is damaging to his NME case
 
Last edited:
but he isn't suing the gaurdian is he? - the quote hasn't even been challenged

No because there is no case to answer to. Nothing they said was defamatory.

and i wouldn't see a difference between for example "I long for a nuclear bomb on england" and "I think the english should be bombed"?

Right, but if you replace China for England and Chinese for English that's still not what he said is it?

This is my last time round because I am getting dizzy. He inferred that the Chinese are a subspecies (or said you can't help but feel blah, blah, blah whatever). Therefore he made comment on a particular gene pool that is held by those who are of Chinese heritage and extraction. It's harder to distance yourself from that sentiment if your parents are from Guizhou but you live in Crouch End.

To say "I think they should be bombed" is to promote an action in retaliation. His claim is that their flaw is much more insidious and unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
No because there is no case to answer to. Nothing they said was defamatory.



Right, but if you replace China for England and Chinese for English that's still not what he said is it?

This is my last time round because I am getting dizzy. He inferred that the Chinese are a subspecies (or said you can't help but feel blah, blah, blah whatever). Therefore he made comment on a particular gene pool that is held by those who are of Chinese heritage and extraction. It's harder to distance yourself from that sentiment if your parents are from Guizhou but you live in Crouch End.

To say "I think they should be bombed" is to promote an action in retaliation. His claim is that their flaw is much more insidious and unavoidable.

Whereas the NME article was defamatory.......and thats why he's sueing? (are we talking at cross purposes?)

I understand your distinction - one quote refers to the inhabitants of a nation and the other to the genetic make-up of those that originate from that nation - perhaps you have a point but I am still not sure why the first one slipped the radar and the other didn't. I think it was more likely due to (as i mentioned before) the context of the shit storm brewed up by the NME hatched job.
 
Back
Top Bottom