Ultimately, the argument over the interpretation of the Lego block in the UN poster borders on the ridiculous, but I must also say that I find the response to the whole thing rather remarkable as well. A lot of this seems based on reactions to the UN more than to the poster, per se.
At any rate, let me address, one last time, a point that is being ignored by those who see the Lego poster as definitive evidence of the anti-Dane movement at the UN (the following is based on a comment I left at Elephants in Academia).
The previous posters, and the usage of Lego characters on the UNHCR web site prove that the poster-making folks at the UN were already familiar with Legos and therefore suggests the possibility that this was purely an artistic choice.
If the UN is so anti-Dane, and also see Legos = Those Awful Danish, why would they use Lego characters on their website?
How can yesterday’s poster be a deliberate act of Dane bashing, whilst the other usages are simply incidental?
If we are going to ascribe an anti-Dane mentality at the UN, we have to address those issues as well, do we not?
(Further: the Mohammed cartoon situation would be about religious tolerance, would it not? As such, the linking of it to racism is a bit strained).
Sphere: Related Content
“If the UN is so anti-Dane, and also see Legos = Those Awful Danish, why would they use Lego characters on their website?”
Um, do you see the difference in LEGO pieces that were used?
The LEGOS in the form of people, and it’s interesting that you acknowledge that they used them *previously*, are not nearly as recognizable as being LEGO as the ubiquitious LEGO block, everyone knows what a LEGO block is.
“How can yesterday’s poster be a deliberate act of Dane bashing, whilst the other usages are simply incidental?”
Geez, I don’t know, maybe it has something to do with the Cartoon issue being so widely known that wasn’t present when the *previous* LEGO posters were created.
“If we are going to ascribe an anti-Dane mentality at the UN, we have to address those issues as well, do we not?”
Not really.
“(Further: the Mohammed cartoon situation would be about religious tolerance, would it not? As such, the linking of it to racism is a bit strained). ”
Yes, and declaring Bill CLinton the first black President and Clarence Thomas a white man would be strained as well.
Ideology trumps skin color Doctor. You should probably know tihs by now.
Or maybe you’re just blowing smoke and trying to get cheap blog hits.
Best Regards
Comment by benrand — Wednesday, March 22, 2024 @ 10:29 am
If it makes you feel any better Professor Taylor, I think your view makes a lot more sense than that of benrand, Malkin, and other reactionary conservatives.
Comment by Joe Mucia — Wednesday, March 22, 2024 @ 10:45 am
What I find most baffling is that this episode seems to have brought out the internal English literature major in everyone. I thought the right wasn’t supposed to be into pomo/deconstructivist criticism?
Comment by Chris Lawrence — Wednesday, March 22, 2024 @ 11:13 am
I am afraid that I may be back on the fence on this one:
“UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diéne calls Danes Racists, Xenophobes”
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/21/un-special-rapporteur-doudou-diene-calls-danes-racists-xenophobes/
So maybe the Danes seeing an anti-Danish sentiment at the Un aren’t all imagining things, after all . . . .
Comment by Steven L. — Wednesday, March 22, 2024 @ 12:48 pm
Some people just can’t Lego of an issue.
–|PW|–
Comment by pennywit — Wednesday, March 22, 2024 @ 5:34 pm