Is it wrong of me to hope this ends up being yet another case of journalistic malfeasance? I hadn’t realized that Tim Jonze was The Guardian’s music editor. And then simultaneously publishing an article and an op ed along with the interview, referencing a “row” that they helped to resurrect? That's a bit suspect.
I don't think Morrissey for a moment thinks that using the words 'Chinese' and 'subspecies' in the same statement is particularly wise. But when you witness something as heartbreaking (not to mention vomit-inducing) as footage of animals being skinned alive you 'can't help' but lash out in response. Anybody who can be calm, measured and reasonable in response to this horrendous footage must be sociopathically detached.
You make a great point. I would be seriously concerned if someone’s initial reaction to this footage was to walk away placidly. There really are no words to capture the visceral reaction you have to something like that. You really do
feel like “lashing out”—and I sometimes wish that people who commit such atrocities could experience the sort of agony they put these animals through themselves, but I would never actually sanction such a thing. All of this is just to say that I can completely understand a visceral response to the footage Morrissey referred to. Any sane person’s initial response is going to be heated and irrational.
But, as you said, his comment was not at all wise. And he knew he was going to be interviewed; he brought this topic up himself. He wasn't speaking out of pure emotion.
I'm neither part of the PC Brigade nor anti-free speech. I just think that smart people should be smart in their discourse. As I said above, I love Morrissey’s passion, and I’m glad he’s talking about what’s going on in China. Most of the time, he has a real way with words when speaking about this topic. I no more believe that Morrissey’s a racist than I believe I’m the late George Sanders. But there are two things that really trouble me about his comment.
The first, as I mentioned above, is that, if properly quoted, it IS a sweeping generalization about a people group. Most people who stop and think about it—if they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt—would have to admit that he most likely meant his comment as a criticism of
a culture that permits such atrocities and NOT of the Chinese people as a whole.
But this is not a man who chooses his words lightly. And “subspecies” isn’t a word most people chuck around without some serious thought. The use of such a word when referring to a people group—
especially one whose beliefs and practices are antithetical to your own—places you in ignominious company. Recent history is chock full of people who used this word. A good way to avoid comparison with such as these is to avoid using their rhetoric.
One thing that’s been made clear to me as I’ve dialogued with people about animal rights issues is that
many of them are more than happy to keep out of it. And if you give them any reason to write you off so they don't have to listen or think or ACT, they’ll jump at the chance. It isn't right, but it happens all the time.
When Morrissey spoke about the animal torture in China, he was acting as an advocate. He was the voice of the animals who have no voice. It was a prime opportunity to say something that the people with their heads in the sand could hear.
Instead, he made a totally irresponsible statement, one he HAD to know would get people talking . . . about HIM. There is much more debate about whether or not Morrissey's a racist than there is conversation about China's animal and human rights violations. And that is profoundly sad.
My cynical side wonders if he said this just to keep himself in the spotlight. But another part wonders why a man who would go to all that trouble in 2007/2008 to make it clear that he’s against racism would willingly start a media shitstorm that will likely end with that word being attached to him forever.
I wish Moz would respond to this kerfluffle and clarify his statements (I’m not saying he needs to apologise—and I doubt he would, anyway). But he could use this as an opportunity to refocus people’s attention on the actual issue he meant to draw attention to in the first place.
Hey, a girl can dream.
Also: Morrissey with a cat on his head is adorable. I had to say it.
Or, as I half-feel, could it have been just teasing, both towards her, indirectly, and of Armitage's hero-worship? 
