Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The United Nations slanders Denmark
5 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Tue Mar 21, 03:17:00 PM:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Muslim activists outraged over the cartoons have organized a boycott of Lego products. Lego therefore became a symbol because of Muslims, not American conservatives. The UN poster strikes me as an endorsement of the idea that Danes were racist. And in any case, why use a branded product so closely tied to national identity? It is like using the Golden Arches - who would not understand that as explicitly anti-American?
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Mar 21, 06:05:00 PM:
If you had looked at the rest of the post that TH linked, you'd have seen a link here.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17718&Cr=racis&Cr1=
*ahem*
"Referring to the recent controversial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspaper cartoons and the violent reactions, he said the cartoons illustrated the increasing emergence of the racist and xenophobic currents in everyday life. But the political context in Denmark was what had given birth to the cartoons."
Yes, I'm sure that the selection of a lego and not a painting, or orange, or rock, or any other conceivable object was just a coincidence.
And secondarily, "Because Lego is a Danish company and a Lego is used to represent something as distict from the puzzle pieces, it is a slam against Lego, and additionally a slam against Denmark?" makes perfect sense. It's called an analogy.
By 
, at
Wed Mar 22, 06:47:00 AM:
It should've been a picture of "The Prophet", or Osama, or Kofi, or Zarqawi, adding in a few faves like Hitler, along with the UN logo.
If what I've read on TH's site is true - that the Koran actually teaches intolerance to anyone who isn't one of them, then the message should've been more properly directed toward the Muslim world. We let them live alongside us in our culture, they do not do the same.
And if it was supposed to be interpreted by such critical analysis as red spots mean whatever, or grey symbolizes whatever, then it's just plain silly. These people have access to virtually no media or education. HTF are they supposed to get the "message"?
Now... the propoganda part, the reproduction of the piece for distribution along with more faux anti-Mohammad images... that part they'll get. And they'll be told what to think too.
TH got it right. Again.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 22, 01:07:00 PM:
If the UN statement had mentioned Britain, or communism, or old people, or leopards and zebras, maybe I'd have made the connectiong. However, it didn't. It mentioned Denmark.
Coincidentally(!) there was just a big international hullabulloo over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. (well, some of them were. Others were fabricated and attributed to it)
It really isn't that big of a leap in logic.
By , at
Wed Mar 22, 04:33:00 PM:
I find it unf.........g believable that some respondents question that a lego piece on a human rights poster is a slight at Denmark. Out of all the possible emblems representing repressive human rights in countries the UN comes up with - a Lego. Right.
