Morrissey's controversial political view - do you agree with him?
- Thread starter Kewpie
- Start date
cornelius blaze
Boychild mustn't tremble!
King Leer
Leering since '97
In an interview last year (or perhaps it was a TTY missive) Morrissey said "I mind my own business" mixed in among other thoughts. A user on here deftly highlighted the seemingly bland phrase for what it truly meant.
Morrissey has always said it's so easy to be controversial, and how few pop stars do it (no, sex scandals and drugs don't count).
Shit newspaper, but the eye-catching headline is proof Moz knows how to work the media up into a lather.
Morrissey has always said it's so easy to be controversial, and how few pop stars do it (no, sex scandals and drugs don't count).
Shit newspaper, but the eye-catching headline is proof Moz knows how to work the media up into a lather.
I Like You
Member
I can picture him mentioning to Boz before the gig that he plans to talk about the Falklands and Boz attempting to talk him out of it, Morrissey just gives him a grin and a wink.
¡Viva Morrissey!
Banned
Christ that was funny.
Technically, though, the site does belong to the administrator. Other than that...
Haha, yeah, I know David pays for it and it is "his" and what not but...
Anyway, thanks for the beer!
Girl-with-the-Thorn
Still here.
I agree with you there, although to be honest I don't know a great deal about the whole Falklands situation.
Wouldn't it have been helpful with a link or something to his statements? I've no idea what he's said or where, but I take it from the discussion that he's said something in support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands.
It is just so obvious what the actual problem with the Falklands war is, for the Guardian constituency and leftwards: It was fought by Thatcher, Thatcher profited from it and it led to much quite unbearable jingoism from the gutter press and the more zombie elements of the right, who ludicruously saw in it the restoration of sorely missed imperial glory. I'm not sure which of the two is the sorrier sight - the latter is more obviously stupid perhaps, but then again, the former at least professes some attachment to a certain level of rationality and you'd expect more from that quarter.
You wouldn't think there'd be much to discuss concerning the falklands. They are a) legally British, and b) inhabited solely by the descendants of British emigrants who c) uniformly want to remain British. The Argentinian claim to the islands is hardly even paper-thin. Even if it had been strong, the fact is that the islands were seized unilaterally in armed action, carried out incidentally by one of the most odious military dictatorships in South American history. To suggest that for the British government - any British government - to respond to that with military means is some sort of neo-imperialist aggression against Argentina is beyond absurd.
Indeed, the best, perhaps only, reasonable arguments that could be found against it are cynical ones: Does the protection of such a far-off and sparesely populated groups of islands really justify the enormous effort, outlay and human cost involved? But it is telling that such a cynical policy would have required much face-saving to be tenable. The simple truth is that the Junta invasion left London with no real choice. To simply accept what amounted to the the armed invasion of British territory populated by Britons would have been wrong, contemptible and dangerous. No matter how much you feel that the wrong people got a boost from it.
Frankly, I think it's about time the British left started acting somewhat more grown-up about this, and stop treating it as a constituent piece of the great mythic struggle with thatcherite evil. It's not all about your traumatised political emotions, you know.
It is just so obvious what the actual problem with the Falklands war is, for the Guardian constituency and leftwards: It was fought by Thatcher, Thatcher profited from it and it led to much quite unbearable jingoism from the gutter press and the more zombie elements of the right, who ludicruously saw in it the restoration of sorely missed imperial glory. I'm not sure which of the two is the sorrier sight - the latter is more obviously stupid perhaps, but then again, the former at least professes some attachment to a certain level of rationality and you'd expect more from that quarter.
You wouldn't think there'd be much to discuss concerning the falklands. They are a) legally British, and b) inhabited solely by the descendants of British emigrants who c) uniformly want to remain British. The Argentinian claim to the islands is hardly even paper-thin. Even if it had been strong, the fact is that the islands were seized unilaterally in armed action, carried out incidentally by one of the most odious military dictatorships in South American history. To suggest that for the British government - any British government - to respond to that with military means is some sort of neo-imperialist aggression against Argentina is beyond absurd.
Indeed, the best, perhaps only, reasonable arguments that could be found against it are cynical ones: Does the protection of such a far-off and sparesely populated groups of islands really justify the enormous effort, outlay and human cost involved? But it is telling that such a cynical policy would have required much face-saving to be tenable. The simple truth is that the Junta invasion left London with no real choice. To simply accept what amounted to the the armed invasion of British territory populated by Britons would have been wrong, contemptible and dangerous. No matter how much you feel that the wrong people got a boost from it.
Frankly, I think it's about time the British left started acting somewhat more grown-up about this, and stop treating it as a constituent piece of the great mythic struggle with thatcherite evil. It's not all about your traumatised political emotions, you know.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
