Morrissey: Chinese People Are A 'Subspecies'

Posted: 09- 6-10
Huffinton Post


Morrissey

Singer and songwriter Morrissey described the people of China as a subspecies because of the way they treat animals, and he is is standing by his remarks.

The outspoken former Smiths frontman, a longtime vegetarian and animal rights advocate, told the Guardian Weekend magazine:

"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."

The interview was done by poet Simon Armitage, who told the Guardian:

"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. 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."

Morrissey has been called a racist before for lyrics in songs such as 'Bengali in Platforms' and 'Asian Rut,' and for the anti-immigration comments he made to NME music magazine in 2007.

But he's not backing down on this one. He later said in a statement:

"If anyone has seen the horrific and unwatchable footage of the Chinese cat and dog trade - animals skinned alive - then they could not possibly argue in favour of China as a caring nation. There are no animal protection laws in China and this results in the worst animal abuse and cruelty on the planet. It is indefensible."


Check Out the 2,929 Reader Comments HERE:

Views: 203

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, this is a silly insult. We are all subspecies, except for mixed race folks. I think what he meant to say was subhuman. What an ass...
This sort of stuff bothers me big time, because people who seem for no apparent good reason to make animal rights progress difficult are going to quote this now for decades. I'm passionate about the wellness of persons who are at the mercy of others (such as animals) yet zealous advocates often do more damage than good by feeding ammunition into the hands of their opponents in the form of irrational behaviour. I hate that I oppose much of what PETA do, because I absolutely agree %100 with thier cause, but very sadly I just can't support them since IMO they turn off far more people than they win over. That's sadly a case of having your heart in the right place but your head in your ass.
In the theatre of social change, all shades are needed. When PETA appears "extremist" to common folk, it makes other animal rights activists look more "moderate".

Were it not for PETA's presence on the scene, some other more "moderate" group would have to bear the brunt of the "extremist" reputation.

IMO this is true of all issues of social change. So for a single person to speak out "theatrically" simply makes everyone else seem more "reasonable".

We need all shades.
I think that we'd have a PETA efficacy disagreement. I don't believe that PETA is about protecting animals.

Example A : "According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers." Source There are no kill shelters throughout the nation. So PETA cede's a soap box with this behavior.

Example B : Question “Doesn't animal experimentation help animals by advancing veterinary science?”

PETA's Answer:
"The point is not whether animal experimentation can be useful to animals or humans; the point is that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary suffering on those who are at our mercy." Source

Marybeth Sweetland, PETA VP, is insulin dependent. It's derived from pigs and animal experiments. It's a little more than a double standard.

The point being that PETA pays a lot of lip service, but their actions speak much louder. Instead of buying land and taking care of the animals, they choose to advertise and build up their income. In 2009 they had 17 million in Assets with a surplus of nearly $900,000 for 2009 alone (consider the economy). For me, this is a problem. "You kill thousands of animals and pocket 900g's all while complaining about profits and how animals are treated? I see." Source

My concern is that PETA makes people like me say, "What a bunch of kooks." and instead of looking at good ways of getting a dog, I got mine from a breeder (good breeder though) instead of thinking about adopting a 6 month old. Next time I'll know better, but not thanks to PETA.
I don't really know where I stand on this, I mean, Yes of course animals are being horribly mistreated...but there isn't much you can really do but disagree. I mean, it is a totally different culture. It doesn't make it right, but you will never be able to make them see why it isn't right.

as far as this guy's statement..well, he could have thought it out a little better.
Islam is technically another culture and I think it's wrong too.
I think we can all agree that there are lots of different ways Morrissey could of or should of expressed his views with causing controversy. However that would would defeat the point he wants the attention. Does anyone actually care what a has-been singer thinks about the world?
Indeed, the headline "Morrissey against animal cruelty" would get people like ourselves walking about it on the internet.

If he really cared perhaps he should use some of the wealth he has accumulated to actually do something productive, instead of branding 1.3 billion people inhuman.
It is likely that Morrissey wants the attention in order to draw attention to the widespread, disgusting abuse of animals in China.
All the Morrissey critics have their priorities in order! It's a far more grievous offence to describe a people as a
"subspecies" than it is to torture and skin alive millions of animals every year.
Look up the definition of "subspecies" in a dictionary. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "race". Some people still employ the term "race" to describe an ethnic group. So the term is technically correct and not necessarily controversial (if he meant it to be).
How do you know what Morrissey meant? Can you read his mind?

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 5 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service