Rihanna, chart topping pop singer, is becoming well known for her twitter rants, but many feel her latest lashing against a Dutch magazine editor was warranted.
A recent article printed in Dutch publication Jackie Magazine, wrote an article about black female entertainers called “N****B****.” The article listed Rihanna as the epitome of a “n****b****.”
“Rihanna, the good girl gone bad, is the ultimate n****b**** and loves to carry herself as such which in her case means; dressing half-naked,” the article stated.
Once the singer caught wind of the piece, she took to Twitter to speak out to editor-in-chief, Eva Kroes. The singer chastised the editor.
“I hope u can read english, because your magazine is a poor representation of the evolution of human rights! I find you disrespectful, and rather desperate,” Rihanna tweeted.
“You ran out of legit, civilized information to print! There are 1000's of Dutch girls who would love to be recognized for their contributions to your country, you could have given them an article,” Rihanna tweeted.
Rihanna spoke about the publication degrading her race.
“You paid to print one degrading an entire race! That's your contribution to this world,” the singer wrote. “To encourage segregation, to mislead the future leaders to act in the past! You put two words together, with the intent of abasement, that made no sense..."***** B****"
Her anger was summed up by two words, which Rihanna said she would tweet on behalf of black people.
“Well with all respect, on behalf of my race, here are my two words for you,” Rihanna tweeted. “**** ***!”
Kroes wrote an official apology on behalf of the publication on Facebook. The editor-in-chief said there was no intent to offend, and that it was a joke made in poor taste.
“It was a bad joke, to say the least. And that slipped through my, the editor-in-chief’s, fingers,” she said. “It was stupid, it was naive to think that this was an acceptable form of slang - you hear it all the time on tv and radio, then your idea of what is normal apparently shifts. But it was especially misguided: there was no malice behind it.”