Anyhow, What I do not understand is why you think Morrissey should have put himself in the spotlight to be crucified? Everyone knows the media was just going to make him out to be the most infamous racist who ever stepped.
I do understand that you could argue that he owes the Chinese an explanation, but does he really?
Morrissey owes us all an explanation, not just Chinese people. I'm not saying he "should have put himself in the spotlight to be crucified". If he's confident that his opinion of Chinese people is accurate, then, he should have the guts to face up to anybody who disagrees with him and try to point out the error in their thinking, as he sees it. You seem to have as little confidence in him as he has in himself.
"The media" wouldn't be able to present him as "the most infamous racist who ever stepped" if he didn't make moronic claims about a whole ethnic group. You say that "the media" want to make him look like a racist, but neither Simon Armitage nor any journalist has put words in his mouth. I've yet to see Morrissey say that he was misquoted. If anything, "the media" were doing him a favour by offering him the opportunity to appear on a programme that has upwards of two million viewers to counter the charges being made against him.
He was just speaking of what one would instantly envision if they had witnessed the same horrific treatment of those poor circus animals.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but it sounds as though you're saying that anybody would react to animal cruelty in China as Morrissey has. That's obviously crap. You don't have to condemn an entire population of people simply because of the actions of some of them. To do so is not only ridiculous to the point of idiocy, it's blatant racism.
Of course, he could have been a little more choosey with his words, but I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of taking every advantage to twist his words against him.
Not only could he have been a little more choosy with his words, he should've been. I am not twisting his words against him. He described the members of an entire ethnic group as "a subspecies". No twisting of his words is necessary.
I think Morrissey was possibly misinterpreted, and I can see where if he had discussed this issue under situations determined to incriminate him, it would only make matters worse.
So I don’t really think you can blame him from not wanting to be put in such situations where questions are designed to incriminate him further.
Again, he hasn't been misinterpreted and his words haven't been twisted. The allegations of racism derive from precisely what he said to somebody who interviewed him. The fact that he has - when he commented further on the matter - refused to retract his remarks simply underscores the point.
He says he is not a racist. So I’ll take him at his word, and not take his words as if he were racist.
Nick Griffin also denies being a racist. So what? Morrissey cannot dignify his racism by simply saying, "I'm not a racist". Like many others, Morrissey seems to want to give the impression that in order to be a racist you have to be a fully paid-up member of the BNP, have a shaved head and a swastika tattooed between your eyebrows. When he denies that he's a racist, he is lying.
I guess my main argument is that at the end of the day:
-Morrissey’s actions can at least be considered justifiable.
His claims cannot be justified. He is claiming that an entire ethnic group of people are cruel to animals (or that they are, at best, complicit with such cruelty). That claim cannot be justified unless there is evidence that points to its being absolutely true. Morrissey cannot provide evidence that "the Chinese are a subspecies" because it does not exist. He can't back up his claim with evidence because the claim is false.
- (whereas) The actions of those who viciously mistreat animals could never be justifiable.
I'm not arguing that mistreatment of animals is justified.
I don’t think it is fair to call Morrissey hypocritical when he chooses not to answer certain question. After all, those questions only server to defer the public’s focus of scrutinizing the actions of those who have absolutely no justification. (I tried my best not to be as long-winded. Thanks for the criticisms)
-rdc
It is absolutely fair to call him both a hypocrite and a racist. He criticises those who refuse to be accountable for themselves as debased and then refuses to be accountable for the views (racist or not) that he holds.
If he doesn't want to be shown up as a racist there are three pretty obvious solutions to that problem: he could outline precisely why the opinion he has of Chinese people is not racist; he could change his views; or failing that, he could just keep his idiotic mouth shut in the first place.
No. 27