Lorde obviously sees her perspective as an outsider (read: non-American, but not necessarily non-Western) reacting to all of the shit that is shoved down her throat emanating mostly from the States as a valuable one. Many people both inside and outside the U.S. can relate to that. A critique of consumer culture is perfectly fine, but it can also be devoid of racialized particularities. Could it be as simple as saying champagne instead of Cristal? Why is the main defense just a recitation of straightforward facts – the song is a response to U.S. dominated popular culture by a non-American teenager – as if that single sentence contains within it all justification one would ever need? New Zealand is still nearly 70% white/European.
It’s a frustrating phenomenon that is occurring with more frequency, at least among white people: when someone suggests that something is racially problematic, and, for example, another well-educated emphatically not racist person doesn’t think the same thing, the implication is that the former is calling the latter a guilty-by-association racist. It seems insane that someone cannot point out a racially problematic portion of an otherwise straightforward pop song without being attacked. It is in these moments that we see the fantasy of “post-race” clung to most violently.