And just when we thought the dust had settled around the latest Lena Dunham controversy…
Turns out, the Girls creator HERSELF is not too cool with comedienne Lisa Lampanelli using the N-word to describe their friendship, and despite the argument one could make that there was no demeaning or belittling intention behind its usage in this specific instance, she is still HELLA uncomfortable with Twitter being the place to discuss such an explosive, hotly-debated issue!
After being criticized on the social media site for not taking a public stance on the drama, Lena responded:
Check out this clip (above) of French sociologist and author Antoine Buéno, who asserts in his new book "Le Petit Livre Bleu," that seemingly innocent cartoon is actually filled with HOriffic racial propaganda, and as he explains, "the embodiment of a totalitarian utopia, steeped in Stalinism and Nazism."
Apparently, Papa Smurf is not only an authoritarian, and the way he runs their collective "economy" with no private property is a metaphor for a socialist society. Meanwhile, the villainous Gargamel is actually just a caricuture of Jewish people, and Smurfette represents aryan perfection!
"The first comic strip, 'The Black Smurfs,' was intimately concerned with what you might classify as a racial threat. Because in that album, the smurfs are sick. And when they're sick, they don't turn purple or red or anything like that, they become black. And when they become black, they lose all trace of intelligence. THey become completely moronic. And further more, they can no longer speak, they just go 'nyap nyap nyap.'"
Well, you can't argue that he's certainly given this a lot of thought!
And he is RIGHT about The Black Smurfs comic, which was banned in the United States for its disgusting racial connotations.
But STILL! If you analyze anything deeply enough, you can draw the patterns that you want to support an argument. This one just happens to make some pretty inneresting ones!
After days of M.I.A. waging war on New York Times Magazine's Lynn Hirschberg over her piece on the Sri Lankan rapper, the publication has released this statement:
The cover article in The Times Magazine on Sunday profiled the singer and political activist M.I.A. While discussing her efforts to draw attention to the civil war in her home country, Sri Lanka, she was quoted as saying: “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono. He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”
While M.I.A. did make those remarks, she did not make the entire statement at the same point in the interview, or in the order in which it was presented.
The part that begins, “The whole point of going to the Grammys,” up to the end of the quotation, actually came first. The part that begins, “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” and ends, “Give war a chance,” came later in the same interview. The article should have made clear that the two quotations came from different parts of the interview.
There you go!
What do U think?? Does the clarification of the article make that much of a difference??