1. Ishmael Reed is right. The first thing easily noticed is that the promotion of the film is largely false. The film does not star and is not about Black people. Jamie Foxx is at best a supporting player behind Waltz and probably also behind DiCaprio. The film is pure White-centered propaganda where the moral is that Black liberation and sovereignty are not possible, only a permanent subservience that is itself only granted to the extent White men with money are liberal. And Namibians, Tanzanians, Jews, Gypsies, Communists and poor Germans know better than the film’s promoted myth of humanist German saviors. Kerry Washington barely even speaks in this film despite being described in the film as one who does so well. In fact, her’s is the most “honest” depiction in the film in that she appears as only honorable Black women can – as a mirage or a silent memory (other then when she is crying out in pain from being tortured).
2. Jelani Cobb is right. This film does to Africans and Black-led liberation struggles what Tarrentino’s Basterds did to Russian involvement in World War II. That is, in each case those most involved in the fighting are removed to tell a barely-loosely-based non-historical narrative. Just like Lincoln, Black leadership in the abolitionist movement is invisible. So the tremendous amounts of Black-led – and equally violent – rebellions that terrified those engaged in the “business” of enslaving Africans are replaced with Django, or in Tarantino’s words, the “exceptional nigger” who is only accidentally and ironically referred to as “non-exceptional” by DiCaprio. Rebellion among Africans was not rare, nor “exceptional,” and quite unlike the extras Africans lingering in the backgrounds of this film real life was replete with their heavy involvement – even the films’ maligned “house slaves” were in reality highly involved in supporting rebellion, even poisoning their “owners.” So for all the excitement at seeing a Black man kill Whites with impunity that many seem to use as an excuse to like this film the reality is that in real life there were many more Djangos/Harriets none of whom needed White men to give them license or sanction.
3. I don’t care about cinematic traditions, most of which in this country are firmly grounded in severe anti-Black “antagonisms,” so I don’t like seeing any humor in a film about enslavement that includes violent beatings, lynchings, rape, dog attacks, branding of African people and the violent demonstration of this country’s foundational love of the violence of boxing, football and to a lesser extent basketball – in this film called “Mandingo fighting.” Jonah Hill is funny, no doubt, but in his silly White-boy movies. I don’t want to see his comedic talents applied to night-riding Klansmen (and never mind that the Klan didn’t even exist yet). Nothing about enslavement was/is funny, no matter how many Africans found ways to find humor during their suffering and no matter how many times Whites could be themselves the butt of the joke. And since we see no films telling these histories from the perspective of the enslaved and from the perspective of total overthrow, and since the effects of enslavement – or better, its persistence through mass incarceration, political imprisonment and wild inequalities of life – I don’t want to see or hear about people laughing at all for any reason associated with this history.
4. I’ve heard some speak of “catharsis” in seeing Django exact revenge. But his isn’t even the noble total liberating revenge against the institution of slavery as would be the case if the real story of Harriet Tubman or Nat Turner were ever told honestly (as opposed to making a Styron film about the latter or a Tarantino film about anyone). The cathartic moment for Django is carried out on Sam Jackson, a house slave (and not even a radical one as did exist), nor is it against the ruling southern plantocracy (Waltz gets to kill DiCaprio) or the northern capitalist bank-rollers. And the film is so horrible in its delivery of the history of enslavement that even White southern journalists have called seeing the film a “liberating experience.” Catharsis for whom?
Awwww, bump this, I’m leaving it at 4, the film doesn’t even deserve the promised 5. Spike Lee may have been wrong in his making of Malcolm X but he is damn right here (or at least excused) for dismissing this film without seeing it and knowing it would be what it is, disrespectful to our ancestors.
Hi Brother Jared,
I agree with all your points. This film and Lincoln was produced to render collective action of working people, poor and in the case of these films Afrikan people, our history and humanity unimportant and easy to distort and deny in the face of our continued oppression in a decaying capitalist system.
I think the discussion of “Django”,Con & Pro, is good, because the discussion lets me know that we are critically viewing movies about us. “Roots” gave us some history,when Kunta Kinte’s descendent, Chicken George, fulfilled the American Dream having bought some land in Tennessee and delivering his family there. But the struggle against white supremacy still existed, after they arrived; that was the state that produced the Ku Klux Klan. I liked “Buck and the Preacher” back in the ’70s when Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte wiped out a gang of racists and slave catchers to protect and support a caravan of freed slaves traveling to the West to claim their American Dream future there, but were still not free because white racist power did not die after emancipation. White supremacy is, even in the 21st century, the dominant cultural force that tends to influence our thinking about ourselves and about our oppressor. We are made to believe that individual accomplishment; not community achievement is supreme; so success is measured so. Success is which individual is the wealthiest, and who holds on to his wealth. Some in our community complain about how millionaire athletes, entertainers and entrenpreneurs should pool their millions into programs to benefit our community; but the ideology of the individual proclaims, “What God has for me is for me!” Movies like “Django” cannot be true history because it is told from a white supremist point of wiew. Who saw “Independence Day”? In Hollywood’s normal fashion, the savior of the planet was, of course, the U.S.A. Will Smith, a black man, was the hero Air Force pilot. That felt good. But at the ending when people around the globe celebrated the defeat of the aliens, Africans were represented by pygmy-looking primitives with spears, as if from a Tarzan movie. A white supremacy perspective. That is not modern day Africa. That’s white Hollywood; and so is “Django.” The phrase, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” is what they want from us. Not only should we resist in action, but we must resist such thinking. Don’t rationalize, don’t think the way they think. When you do, you join the Masters.
THIS REPLY IS OVERWRITTEN AND UNNECCESARY. WITH ALL THE MESS BEING PORTRAYED ON THE SCREEN; YOU COMMENT ON ITS AUTHENTICY?…ITS HOLLYWOOD. MORE OF THIS MOVIE IS AUTHENTIC THAN NOT; AS FAR AS THE DEPICTIONS OF SLAVERY AND THE PLANTATION…SO GET OVER YOURSELVES; YALL INTELLECTUALIZING A MOVIE THAT WAS FORTUNATE TO EVEN GET MADE.
So Jamie Foxx’s Django Character does NOT even get the chance to take out Mr Candie-land- the film’s chief villain & captor & abuser of his wife- which is the whole purpose of him going to Candie-land in the first place??? It’s the white German dude who gets to kill off DiCaprio’s Candie, while Django just gets to take out the 2nd fiddle Uncle-Tom House-Nigger in Black-face [Sam-Jack]???
That tells me all I need to know about who the real star of {San}Quenton’s ‘Django’ really is!!!
IMO When white folks see any realistic depiction of slavery [movie or documentary]- a so-called ‘liberating experience’ is NOT the appropriate response.
The descendants of a prominent white New England family that was once the US’ ‘Biggest Slave-Trading Family’ went on a journey recorded in the documentary ‘Traces of the {slave}Trade, A {family’s}Story from the “Deep North” ‘. The coordinator sent out request to either 250 or 350 family members- she only got 9 to agree to take the journey [another dropped out because he was concerned what his Black co-workers would think & did NOT want to discuss the reparations issue]. That’s a 3% – 4% response from whites who know for a fact that their ancestors made a KILLING in the slave-trade & even brought 2 slave-children from Africa [a little girl & boy] as ‘pets’ for their wives & children!
After they visited the Ghana Slave-Castles- one guy said “At first I thought our ancestor perhaps didn’t understand what they were doing was so bad, but after this I now know that’s BS- They knew just how Evil their BIZ was, but It was so profitable that it made them {filthy}RICH!!!
Then some of them tried to dismiss that they benefited from their family legacy, when the subject came up about college [all were college grads]. It then came out that all but 1 [out of 10] were Alumni from top Ivy-League schools, & that’s when it hit them just how much they in fact benefited from their affluent white back-grounds.
Ultimately they asked the question ‘So What Are We Going Do About this?? What should we do to address the damage our ancestors caused?? They did NOT talk in terms of feeling ‘liberated’ – They Instead Talked About Feeling OBLIGATED To do something to meaningfully address the issue. They were even willing discuss the taboo [in most white Lame-stream circles both conservative & 'Liberal'] issue of Reparations! Now That’s the appropriate response!
Holly-weird has made it official who ‘Django’s’ real star is. The only one of its cast to get an Oscar nomination is the white German Dude [Christolph Waltz].
Yes, I saw this and it is really funny. Again, Reed is right, Waltz is the real ["supporting"] star and the academy knows it.
“knowing it would be what it is, disrespectful to our ancestors”…
What about anything of present day existence isn’t as a whole?… What insult would be the last straw? In all honesty this is Hollywood and knowing what it is, no one should be surprised or feel the need to be offended. Instead of over analyzing Django’s merit, put that effort into making your own non-fiction movie about Nat Turner or fictional movie of similar content and pass that around. We may not be invited to the Oscars but it’s beyond time we stop with the peanut gallery exercises and support people who actually make films for us with some redeemable quality content. Ignoring Hollywood would be a great exercise in self-determination. The money saved on oil-butter popcorn and Junior mints alone would be astronomical.
I saw the movie and enjoyed it. To me I saw a black man Willing to do what he could to get his woman. We must understand the time the character was in SLaVERY and he needed the white mans assistance to get his wife. Hell, we in 2013 and most black people still need the white mans assistance to get something done 500 years up from slavery. If black people teach their children our history the movie won’t matter. Instead of bashing a movie that actually shows a black man cutting and shooting white folks for almost two hours , a black man fighting for a black woman ( a rare thing in todays media)you need to asking the question why our black movie producers are not making any movies of our history that has to do with slavery. Maybe a Nat Turner movie? Or do I have to wait for the White Man to do it ?
why do everyone thinks that all blacks was slaves during that time, there was a lot of free blacks in slavery times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cou_qZjc_yI
True. Let’s not forget many of them owned slaves, too. And it was not always “family.” Some of those free blacks were full and willing participants in the slavery system. And they need to be called out.
A minuscule of Africans enslaved other Africans for profit, the vast majority “owned” their family members, because unfortunately, a person was safer to be held enslaved, than set free. Free Black people were often kidnapped, but if a enslaved person was taken from their family member who owned them, that family member had a better chance of getting them back, because it was considered theft of property.
Of the tiny population of Africans who owned other Africans, they were mostly mi
No one thinks all Africans were enslaved, but the vast majority were, like more 90%.
In 1790, when the first census was taken, African Americans numbered about 760,000—about 19% of the population. In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, the African-American population increased to 4.4 million, but the percentage rate dropped to 14% of the overall population of the country. The vast majority were slaves, with only 488,000 counted as “freemen.”
Read more: African-American Population — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html#ixzz2JhmWnyI6
I wholeheartedly agree with you, a few friends and I have been racking our brains to come up with another movie where a black woman is the focus of the rescue mission and we haven’t been able to find one. I don’t know why folks were expecting a documentary from Quentin Tarantino, that’s just not what he does – but the redeeming value in this film to me is the point you have made, finally a movie that sees a Black Woman worthy of someone “walking through hell” to rescue her! That alone made it a great movie for me.
It would have been nice if she’d spoke a word or two. Being the mute object just isn’t good enough for me.
Black filmmakers, like Danny Glover, have been trying to get films done for YEARS (see Toussaint for details.) So you’re point about waiting for White Folks to do films about Black Life isn’t informed. Tarantino can get a film green lighted quicker than most Black filmmakers working today, no matter what the topic is.
DK: the decision about which films are to be made and promoted has nothing to do with what Black movie producers are or are not doing. the industry selects, funds and promotes that which will suit them politically. this is my point. to vaguely blame an undefined group of “black movie producers” for not doing something good misses the point of film production and political function.
This is a light wait excuse. There are plenty of black men and women in the industry, that know the industry, have money and the facility to produce great black stories, dramatic or comedic. Never the less they fail to unite unlike other ethnicities in the industry, because modern day black hollywood from Opra to spike and denzel are just a batch of rich scared coons. Hip Hip Horaay for Django, the new Steppin Fetchit.
We need more discussion on Samuel L. Jackson’s habit of accepting despicable roles in Tarantino’s movies, among other negative portrayals associated with him. His character “Steven” will go down in infamy as the worst head nigger in charge snitch ever performed in cinema. Tarantino blackened Jackson’s face attempting to depict evil & other negative traits. Anthony Browder”s book,”The Browder File”,has a chapter addressing the many attributes and virtues regarding Blackness. Will the Super Funky Soul Power Hour ever address the Chinese re colonization of Afrika & the rapid mining of the strategic minerals?
Hey you all, it is just an entertaining Hollywood movie. It is not trying to be an accurate account of history. Take it for what it is. Some just have to over analyze.
I agree, it is just a movie, chill.
Just finished listening to Tony Browder’s take on this film on Daren Muhammad’s “State of the City” program.
Check it:
http://www.spreaker.com/show/state_of_the_city_with_daren_muhammad
thanks for sharing!
I disagree and reject the usual tired academic posturing by Jared and other Black academicians whose arrogance and elitism is becoming tiresome and predictable.
Django was a singular fictional account it provided not only entertainment value but it also provided for a change a fictional portrayal of slavery unseen on the screen since Roots as such it was functional besides being entertaining.
The film provided an interesting array of personalities one finds today in the world of reality from guilt driven liberals to Black apologists and pedestrian whites and Blacks just taking up space .
I never expect whites in any area of life in our nation to define, create, and provide me with information regarding the reality of life for my ancestors not then nor now.
Yet I do expect our Black intellectuals to elevate me with miore than just a pedestrian rant about a fictional movie scripted by Hollywood . I am long pass empowering whites with so much influence and power. I enjoyed my popcorn and watched a fictional movie no more no less at some point our community must get pass the constant state of crisis and over reaction whenever race is in the mix.
Ps: I am looking onward to Vox Union to continue to publish my commentaries ….
Being College Educated [but not a PhD], I’m not apt to hate on Blacks just because they may [or may not] have college degrees [especially considering that currently sisters w degrees largely out-number us brothers w degrees which has caused it's own issues]. For me its not whether one has a degree or not, but what one does, says, writes or presents as relevant / of benefit- to our cause [or to people in general]. IMO Bro Dr Ball fits that bill. His et-al’s book refuting Marable’s pseudo-intellectual ‘Re-invented Malcolm’ hit-job, is essential for Intellectual & Spiritual Warfare against Mis-Info masquerading as ‘relevant’ info. I’ve witnessed a lot of BS posturing as so-called ‘intellectualism’ in my day.
Bro Dr Ball specializes in mass-media’s impact on our [IE: Black] contemporary culture. IMO He’s doing his job in critiquing Holly-weird hyped movies especially when they purport to speak to &/or for &/or about Us or portray important events RE Us. 2 such movies this yr are ‘Lincoln’ & ‘Django’ which claim to say something important about slavery. Now YOU may know about slavery &/or how to research its history, but I know that many / most of our youth today don’t know. Black studies is being slashed in many / most inner-city schools even at the college level, & under the NCLB / RTTT regime its all about ‘Teaching to the Test’- Meaning there’s only room for ‘teaching’ some so-called US ‘History’ [basically US propaganda & Myths] & thus little if any time for teaching Black students our History- either contemporary or ancient.
So you may understand that when you go to see a Holly-weird movie, unless stated unequivocally it’s a documentary, that it’s just entertainment -BUT- Most kids today minds are so consumed in Contemporary Pop-culture [MTV, Nintendo, American Idol, Snoop-Dog, etc], & that many don’t take the time to do any serious historical [or any other] research- even via the internet! So when movies come out that claim to be ‘historical’ [ala 'Lincoln' & 'Django'] IMO the youth are apt to take them as ‘factual’ [I suspect many/most young folk know about Malcolm X from watching Spike's movie- not from reading his Auto-biography nor other books about him].
It’s a sad state of affairs when folks are convinced they’re actually informed when they’ve actually been woefully Mis-Informed [ala 'The Mis-Education of the Negro']! But that’s too often the way it is.
So since so-many depend on mass-media [TV, movies, twitter, etc] for ‘information’, yet knowing Holly-weird’s woeful track record RE propaganda & misrepresenting Blacks & Browns, IMO it’s folks like Bro Dr Ball job to critique films from a positive Black & revolutionary perspective. I’ve not seen ‘Django’ & may not ever see it, but I’ve read enough about it & know enough about {San}Quentin’s other films to know that- He deliberately Mis-Represented ‘Django’ as confirmed by Bro Dr Ball, Ishmael Reed & others. He first claimed it was about slavery, but when called out that it was A-Historical & seemed to turn the Horrors of Slavery into some-kind of a QT style JOKE, he then says it’s just a spaghetti-western / blaxplotation film w ole Dixie-land & slavery as its back-drop. Well which is it QT? You can’t have it both ways!
Then Jamie Foxx is billed as the star [again targeting a Black audience], but it’s the white German Dude who- Frees Django, confronts the film’s main villain [DiCaprio's Candie] both intellectually & ultimately vindicates ‘justice’ [takes Candie out]- NOT Foxx’s Django! So how’s can Foxx actually be the main star then QT??? IMO QT just MisUsed Slavery as an EXCUSE to do what he always does in his movies- Show a bunch of BLOOD & GORE in a supposedly ‘artistically humorous’ fashion & ‘Liberally’ use ‘NIGGER’ in his Dialogue!
IMO it’s a sad state of affairs that probably the 2 most Holly-weird hyped movies claiming to be about slavery since ‘Roots’ [35 yrs ago] is Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ [which actually wrote Fredrick Douglass out of its script] & QT’s ‘Django’!
Spielberg’s ‘Amistad’ [1997] though IMO has got its own ‘issues’, is more important [but less hyped] on the topic of slavery than ‘Lincoln’ [timed for the 150th anniversary of the so-called 'Emancipation Proclamation'- which in fact did NOT even immediately free any slaves & was designed to exempt border slave-states].
AND the 1993 film ‘Sankofa’ was in some ways even better [though far less known] than ‘Roots’ [or any of the others] w a far smaller budget & NO well-known stars / personalities [It was independently made by an Ethiopian Brother]. IMO if you want to use movies [outside of documentaries] to teach the youth about slavery- let them see ‘Sankofa’, ‘Roots’, ‘A Woman Called Moses’ [about Harriett Tubman], ‘Amistad’ & maybe ‘Glory’ [1987- though it too has its 'issues']- NOT ‘Lincoln’ & ‘Django’!
QT I think to the public isn’t a very redeeming person. If there are any lessons to be learned from his movies it’s because you personally learned something from it. It’s very obvious if you study him that he makes the kinds of movies he does because he likes to. He rips off grind house, blaxploitation, and spaghetti westerns because those are his favorite kinds of movies. He enjoys seeing violence and gore on the screen. This is really neither here nor there. If we as a society were truly appalled with it we would put our money where our mouths were and not purchase his films.
Coming from somebody who is not black, I thought Django as a character was if not a true hero, he was at least admirable.
It showed me a couple of simple things.. You might at some point in your life have to do bad things to accomplish good. The other point being, There is nobody lower than that person who continually sells out their own kind just for the sake of a slightly more comfortable life.
Hell Yeah Bro. My popcorn was stale but otherwise we had the same experience at the movie – well said!
Greg, what could possibly be more tired and pedestrian than calling someone with a phd arrogant and elitist while not responding to the points they make and making vague and unoriginal claims of being above white influence?
Jared,
Not difficult at all when a phd makes such trite comments.Really why should I be compelled to weight in on every one of your talking points when it is not warranted?
Your hollow points about the films’s shortcomings are yours not mine. I provided my views without the drama of your presentation. BTW I imagine I could I mirror your post to me and ask you for a detailed response to my talking points as well but I m not interested given your phd influenced talking points to-date left me unimpressed.
You are on point about me regarding my being above white influence that is my unoriginal state of being.
Go Skins
Why was Spike Lee wrong in his making Malcolm X?
Because Elijah Muhammad must be considered one of the greatest Afircan Americans of the twentieth century, the mentor of Malcolm and the force behind a movement subsequent to Garveyism which propelled the civil rights movement by fomenting militant resistance in opposition to the status quo. Spike stereo types black women, men, and themes to make his movies in the end palatable to white audiences.
Elijah Muhammad was the creator and the destroyer. Yes, he created a movement. But ultimately his greatest creation (Malcolm X) he destroyed. The assassination of Malcolm X is the most infamous and despicable example of black on black crime of the 20th Century. I think Spike’s depiction of his character was fair and balanced. If I was the director I may have creator an even more sinister character. After all, the men of the NOI proved to be the greatest hypocrites of all
God is the only creator, Elijah was a mentor, without which there would not have been a Malcolm. You make the assumption that the NOI was ultimately responsible for Malcolms death, but you have no proof. We do know that the NSA and the CIA spied on Malik Shabazz and restricted his movement in Europe. Black stooges have always been used to sabotage black progress, but that doesn’t make them the shot callers. Incidiently, I’d rate “She’s Gotta Have It” over Malcolm X, as Spikes greatest work.
While your points are thought provoking, I disagree. It seems to me that you overanalyzed from quite the narrow critical lense and perspective. Has any movie that included this subject matter emcompassed all there is to encompass? It is a naturalistic, realistic snapshot from a postmodern artist with his creative flair. Reading the creative race card as you do, so homogenistically, only perpetuates the hatred that the villains of the movie portrayed so well. I imagine had Tarantino tried to portray all representative negroids and caucazoids to your liking, characters would have been surveyed, and not developed at all. Merely answerers of some black imaginatory role call for superficial purposes. Django’s story is his story, not a universal narrative for every slave.
I thought it a worthwhile venture and worthy of its various accolades. Waiting for more depictions with different plots and varied character, archetyped, and even stereotyped representations. They all are useful. Note: The second comment was for me to correct my contact web address.
I was debating with myself about going to see the movie just to see how bad it was. But a few days before going I watch Kathy Hughes devote an hour to the film on BET. During the hour Jamie Foxx and Tarantino tried to justify the film as being ground breaking in that the liberal use of the N word is a gauge of just how far we have come as a society. Thanks Kathy Hughes for sparing me the agony of seeing this insult of my ancestors. Shame on you Kathy Hughes for being a part of this. Slavery and the history of slavery ain’t no joke.
agreed
I just came across this- ‘Django Unchained’: The fallacy of famous detractors’ uninformed criticism’ – Opinion by Kirsten West-Savali- Jan 16, 2013 @ http://thegrio.com/2013/01/16/django-unchained-the-fallacy-of-detractors-uninformed-criticism/
In it Ms Savali focuses on Spike Lee’s & Tavis Smiley critiques that they refuse to see {San}Quentin on the QT’s spoof on slavery. On one hand Ms Savali validates Lee’s & Smiley’s position but still takes them to takes for refusing to see ‘Django’. She says their critique amounts to protesting QT’s ‘liberal’ use of nigger in ‘Django’. Well Spike did NOT comment much beyond he refuses to see something that’s ‘disrespectful to our ancestors’- but Smiley gave a lengthy critique of ‘Django’ beyond just objecting to QT’s ‘liberal’ use of the ‘N’-word.
- Then Ms Savali says this:} ‘So much focus has been on Tarantino’s treatment of the slave experience, little mention has been made of his razor-sharp depiction of their white overseers. Ignorant, illiterate and incestuous, his disdain for them is palpable. They are depicted as the worst sort of scum — as cowards with no discernible skills or merit…’ {
When one person commented that many / most US ‘Founding-Fathers’ were in-fact slave-owners, Ms Savali’s legalese fall-back position was- she said slave overseers not owners.
The fact is {San}Quentin on the QT’s portrayal of those who were neck-deep in the dirty BIZ of slavery- as all being a bunch of Dumb Red-necks & Hicks from ‘Ole Dixie-land’- tends to perpetuate another convenient white ‘liberal’ MYTH RE slavery, Jim-Crow & systemic racism!
Fact: Out of the 56 so-called ‘Founding-Fathers’ who signed the US Declaration of Independence in 1776- at-least 18 [= 1/3rd] were slave owners. Of the 7 most influential ones, 5 were slave owners [IE: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Jay & even Ole Ben Franklin himself- FYI: Jay & Franklin were northern slave-owners from NY & Penn State]. NYC did BIG BIZ RE ports for slave-ships & Wall St got Filthy-Rich from doing BIG BIZ- financing slavery in the US!
FYI: Out of the First 18 US Pres- 12 WERE SLAVE-OWNERS. Of the 14 US Pres between Ole slave-owning George Washington [FYI: the WH & DC were NOT built during his regime- the US capitol instead was in Philly] & Abe Lincoln- 12 of them had slaves working in the White House- which was built by slaves, as was much of DC [FYI: the 'over-seer' of the slaves who placed the dome on the capital bldg was Jefferson Davis- before becoming Ole Dixie's Traitorous Confederate Rebel Pres]: the 2 exceptions were Quakers John Adams Sr & Jr.
And it turns out that probably the US’ biggest slave-trading family was a prominent New-England Family [See the documentary 'Traces Of The {slave}Trade, A Story {of a slave-trading family} From The Deep-North' - PS: Sojourner Truth's ex-slave master was from New Amsterdam aka New York]. FYI: All of the original 13 US states were slave states, its just that the northern states voluntarily phased it out over time. Never-the-Less the US Gov’t's Fugitive Slave Law made it necessary that the Under-Ground Rail-Road had to end in Canada ['Stop Talking About the South, It Ain't Just the South... If You're South of the Canadian Border, You're in the South!' - Malcolm X].
Spike’s film on Malcolm more or less ignores everything that made Malcolm the brilliant threat he became. It takes almost 90 minutes before you even see Malcolm X and more time is spent on him in his pre-political days than is given to his most radical moments. The film deals nothing with the OAAU, his visits with African revolutionary leadership, his connections with RAM and so on. Ill try to find and post the discussion held in 1992 with Dhoruba bin Wahad, John Henrik Clarke and Amiri Baraka who i think all did a great job in demonstrating the details of the flaws in that movie. But basically it was a Warner Bros product that carefully took the growing re-emergence of Malcolm in the minds on young people and safely softened it for mainstream consumption. Id rather these films not be made at all as opposed to what happens where most will see them and have them become the foundation of what they think they know about the subject which ultimately inhibits access to the true power and brilliance of – in this case – Malcolm’s critique and suggested responses. And thats my point, Stephanie says I am too narrow and overly critical and then calls the film “naturalistic” and “realistic” while saying the film cannot be universally pleasing. The same was said to critics of Spike’s Malcolm, that it was “his story” as Stephanie says of Tarantino’s mess. In fact, my point is also that these films cannot be universally pleasing, they only mean to please the mindset of those who rule and those who want to distort history to manage the present. Tarantino’s film is not at all natural or realistic, that was my point and the point of those i cite and agree with. These films are the product of narrowly-held views meant to satisfy the narrow goals of those who create – and promote – them. These are not films “for the people, by the people” and so on, the perspective used in creating them is no more or less narrow than my (or anyone’s) criticism. Remember Reed’s point about Precious and For Colored Girls, the execs at Lionsgate said that these are films they can promote to their intended white audiences who dont want to see Black films like Miracle at St Anna (a Spike film i love) or the Great Debaters. These are products intended for white audiences that are at times markets to Black people as films for them. Movie execs, as Reed points out, have said explicitly that these films, like The Help, are for white audiences to enjoy and therefore are chosen for promotion because they do not upset white sensibilities about race. So we get a tarantino film about slavery and tyler perry films about Black people so that whites wont ever be disturbed in their myths of themselves and their country. You may search voxunion for Ishmael Reed for interviews and links to his work if you like. I almost feel like leaving it at Cathy Hughes like Django and Oprah and Bill Cosby supported Spike’s Malcolm X, i rest my case.
Yawn… I tire of this narrative that the masses cannot interpret the agenda of the ruling class . We are living in America as such we don’t need an interpreter to break the code from films to books .
Paternalistic posturing is not just a behavior of the white ruling class this posturing is also present in far to many Black venues.
I get it enough already with the overkill Django and Spike”s MLK worked for me and others on many levels …
Go Skins!
Spike’s epic [IMO his best film besides his 2 classic documentaries '4 Little Girls' & 'When the Levees Broke'] is about Malcolm X NOT MLK. I too am glad Spike did it, though I understand Bro Dr Ball’s issues w Spike’s ‘Malcolm X’ [but at-least it was NOT an insidious hit-piece ala Marable's book of 'Reinvention'].
But if Holly-weird is just in the entertainment Biz- instead of the political-propaganda Biz, then why didn’t Denzel win for his out-standing portrayal of Malcolm [nor for 'Hurricane' but instead won for portraying a fictional Thug Nigger Rouge Cop], & Spike wasn’t even nominated for best picture / director nor Angela Basset & the late Al Freeman Jr for best supporting actress / actor. Their ‘excuse’ was Malcolm X was too ‘controversial’ a figure.
Seemingly most Black ‘Django’ supporters back it NOT because it’s an accurate portrayal of slavery, but rather because ‘Django’ portrays a ‘Bad Mother-Fer’ ['Hush Your Mouth'- ala 'Shaft in Dixie-land']. Well there was another ‘Bad Black Dude’ movie that came out in 1996 w a Black Director [John Singleton] a mainly Black cast [Ving Rhames, Don Cheadle, & the late Ester Rolle - though they added a 'reluctant' white ally- Jon Voight] based a real historical event- called ‘Rose-wood’, where Ving Rhames played the ‘Bad Black Dude’ who came to rescue of the Black town for true love & honor. Yet it did NOT get nearly as much Holly-weird hype as ‘Django’. Thus Blacks largely failed support it w the same type of enthusiasm.
Now that Holly-weird has made it official that in fact “Django’s” real star is the white German dude NOT Jamie Foxx [Shultz got an Oscar nomination- NOT Foxx], even though most Blacks who like ‘Django’ seem to do so because he was a ‘bad Black Dude’ – IMO we should revisit {San}Quentin on the QT’s first film featuring a largely Black cast ‘Pulp Fiction’ & question 2 scenes in particular: 1} That notoriously ‘funny’ [maybe not] ‘Dead Nigger Storage’ scene 2} When that white KKK guy ass rapes Ving Rhames character. Why were these scene even in the movie?
The only reason that ‘Dead Nigger Storage’ scene was in the movie was so that {San}Quentin on the QT could get away w saying Nigger on film [FYI: QT writes the script for his own movies], & make every feel like he’s cool for doing it.
IMO it’s a toss-up for whether Rhames’ character was the baddest Black guy in ‘Pulp Fiction’ vs Sam Jack’s ‘Bad MFer’- but then Sam Jack’s character did work for Rhames’ character. So why did this KKK guy have a shop of ‘Confederate Artifacts’ in the middle of LA any way? The whole purpose for this KKK guy’s out of place appearance is so he could rape Ving Rhames’ ‘Bad Ass’ Character [because why not Bruce Willis' character]- there was simply NO other reason for him to be in the movie.
IMO {San}Quentin on the QT had everybody laughing so hard & saying how ‘cool’ ‘Pulp Fiction’ was, that IMO he put one over on us – IE: made Black men the ‘BUTT’ of his joke! Yet QT is who Holly-weird picks to make its most significant film on slavery since ‘Amistad’. Even then IMO Holly-weird only green-lighted “Django’ because the more allegedly ‘historical’ ‘Lincoln’ was also released to counter-balance it.
PLEASE post the 1992 discussion with John Henrik Clarke, Dhoruba Bin Wahad and Amiri Baraka. Thanks.
PLEASE post the 1992 discussion with John Henrik Clarke, Dhoruba Bin Wahad and Amiri Baraka. Thanks.
Reply
Dr. Ball, thanks for the clarity and please post that discussion if you come across it!
Has there ever been a comedic or satirical movie about the white Jewish holocaust? Would the American Israel public affairs committee,B’nai B’rith, or the Weinstein company that co-produced Django, ever tolerate such a movie? Some of us know that the so called Jews would go to the mattresses to prevent it. What would Dr.Amos Wilson say about Django? I’m waiting for Attorney At WAR Alton Maddox critique on Django.
I am not interested in the behaviors of the American Israel public affairs views . Who cares my views do not seek the validation of others …
I have evolved pass this waste of effort concerning myself with what whites and others say about my opinions on my being and personhood .
Please visit my essay on The Utility of Blackness hopefully VOX UNION will post it here
Would “The Producers” count?
They kinda already did…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds
Interesting/disturbing piece here (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/06/django-unchained-selling-slaves-as-action-figures.html) on the action figures being marketed with the film. “Slave dolls” can now be purchased. I also think Lou Gossett and Tim Gordon have interesting things to say on all this as well, particularly tarantino’s dismissal of Roots as being inauthentic. I kept checking to make sure this wasnt some kind of Onion piece and wished it was.
From The article You linked to: See how {San}Quentin on the QT disses ‘Roots’…
} The audacious release of the dolls could be perceived as adding insult to injury, especially considering Tarantino’s lack of regard for the legacy of Alex Haley’s epic 1977 mini-series Roots, which is American pop culture’s most prized depiction of slavery.
“When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either,” Tarantino told The Daily Beast’s Allison Samuels. “I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t” [WHAT! This guy has got a Whole LOTTA of F-ING Nerve!].
Academy Award-winning actor Louis Gossett, Jr., who starred in Roots, dismissed Tarantino’s critique, he was just “stirring stuff up” and making a “mockery” out of racism.
Gossett revealed that after seeing ‘Django Unchained’ at a Malibu movie theater last weekend, he walked out within the first 20 minutes. “Django is a very small speck on the horizon to what we should be giving energy to,” Gossett said… {
I can name at-least 3 gut-wrenching scenes from ‘Roots’ off the top of my head, that I’m sure has more meaning RE Slavery & its devastation of African civilization / culture & the Black Family- than anything in QT’s ‘Django’. They are: 1} When the slavers caught Kunta Kinte & put those chains on him, -2} When that ‘Nigger-Breaker’ whipped Kunta to make him stop saying Kunta & answer to Toby, & -3} When they sold Kizzy away from Kunta & Belle & ‘Ole Massa’ turned his back on Kunta as Kunta begged him not to send Kizzy away [& 'Massa's daughter 'conveniently' dissed Kizzy too].
The arrogance of this Guy! He Disses ‘Roots’ as NOT authentic while pimping ‘Django’ dolls- It’s enough to tell {San}Quentin to his FACE- NIGGA PLEEZE!!!
2 Other gut-wrenching scenes RE the infamous middle-passage, were from ‘Amistad’ -1} When that dying slave-mother lifted her new-born baby up from that dark filthy ship’s-hold that she was chained to the bottom of, & -2} When they tied 20 weak / sickly slaves to that sack of stones & dumped them over-board- Like GARBAGE- While They Were Still ALIVE!
Those 5 scenes seemed ALL TOO REAL TO ME QT!
Great idea I wish I owned this license and marketing rights!I wish when my kids were young I could have bought these items instead of nonsense like ninja turtles, my little pony, black barbie dolls etc..
For years Black faces were on products such as Uncle Ben’s Rice to Aunt Jemima’s Syrup etc.Our images reflected excellance and a superior product and sevice!!
Images of Black slave figures are great conduits for us to educate and informed our children while we elevate them with the truth and reality about life in this place we call America.
When I was in Detroit I was an advocate for Rosa Parks dresses, shoes, etc..I was an advocate for all of icons to be marketed not just for our kids but for whites but other people of color as well.
It makes no sense not to market our history, our pain and struggle should not just be a footnote or a photograph just for the rich and ruling class!!!
Our legacy is an asset and Our imgages have value and currency and we should take this historical capital and exploit thier value in the marketplace!
We do not get the money when we market our image. The White man gets the money.
IMO QT’s dissing of ‘Roots’ & Lou Gossett’s counter-comments should be spread thru-out Black communities & near theaters showing ‘Django’ where Blacks frequent.
I suspect this is not widely known in the Black community, & when it is I suspect that Blacks will agree that Spike had good reason to Hate on QT’s ‘Django’!
this is hilarious!(http://mije.org/richardprince/django-both-flash-point-free-all) Reed mentioned the hostile exchange between tarantino and Black attendees at a screening and q&a with the director. thanks to Richard Prince for his coverage, but Bill Rhoden walked out and Toure’ says he will see it more than the 3 times he already has… let me rest my case again!
“” ‘[A] black woman interrupted their conversation, saying, “A lot of black people are not going to like this movie. I’m about to have a heart attack,’” wrote Crosley, who defended the film. ‘Then a few audience members began to heckle Tarantino from the balcony, shouting: “This is bulls—.” ‘ Tarantino, she said, offered to speak to the hecklers later.
“The movie has become both a flash point and a free-for-all, and the issue is particularly sensitive among African-American viewers — not a large audience for the film, but a key one for principals like Jamie Foxx, who plays the title role.
” ‘If this movie does what it does and black people hate it, that doesn’t do nothing for me,’ Foxx said on BET. ‘Because I feel like the reason I exist is the black audience.’ ”
Released on Christmas, “Django Unchained” ranked second in weekend box office receipts, behind “The Hobbit.”
Black writers were of several minds. Every point raised in a given discussion — that “it’s only a movie,” that it’s really a love story, that it’s like a cartoon, that the use of the ‘n’ word is historically accurate — could find someone taking an opposing position.
[William C. Rhoden, New York Times sports columnist, tweeted Saturday, "...I walked out...is this what we've come to?" while Touré, who opines on MSNBC and in Time magazine, messaged Thursday, "Watching Django for a third time. Won't be my last."]“
This movie is about as much ‘history’ as Basterd’s was. It’s entertainment.
-Two notes, which mean nothing. They are just interesting footnotes that seem to be ignored. I’m not mentioning them to justify slavery, which is still huge today, even in the USA… (sex slaves)
In the 1700′s, 3/4ths of the world was in some form of slavery. Blacks, whites, purples.
And the irony – the first person to own black slaves in the pre-America Colonies was a black man.
‘The first person to own black slaves in the pre-America Colonies was a black man.’
Where did you get that from, name a source & the person you’re referring to?
By Pre-America do you mean British colonies pre-1776, or do you mean N. & S. America pre-1492 [ala the Olmecs]? Because post 1492 Blacks came to the Americas as slaves & servants- NOT initially as free-persons. Though a few at-times [but rarely] gained a degree of ‘freedom’ pre-1865.
FYI: Revisionist historians [ala Skip Gates] hype that a handful of ‘free’ Blacks at-times owned slaves. What they fail to say is in most of those cases those ‘free’ Blacks purchased their own wives, children & family members, as a ‘tactic’ to secure & insure their families’ protection from being sold off beyond their reach.
I came across a comment by an apparent Neo-NAZI- loudly pro-claiming that 5000 Blacks own 12000 slaves. Assuming that’s true, beside the fact that most of these so-called ‘slave-owning’ ‘Free’-Blacks [[say 75%] actually purchased their own wives, children, mothers, etc… Considering that there were 4 – 5 MILLION slaves in the US in 1860 & that at-least 12 – 15 MILLION+ Africans were shipped across the Atlantic to N & S America- This means that just .02% to .075% of real Black slaves were owned by Black slave-owners. This percentage is so minuscule to the total amount slaves that were owned by white people, that it makes little sense to even dwell on it. IMO it just being hyped as a distraction to side-tract folks from the main issue.
Everyone of these so called significant Black writers work for white companies and for years none of them have written anything that alter the existence of one Black person in real time.
Roots just like Django are at best second hand fictional tales which as I have noted are functional and have value from entertainment to the promotion of residual discourse and commentaries.
Truth is we need more not less films, discussions, commentaries about a part of our collective history which still impacts our present day existence. There are many personalites in both Roots and Django that exist today I have written extensively about ‘cultural dna” which impacts the present with orgins in our historical heritage.
We need to explore, create,and expand everything about our existence here in America and on the planet. I remain thirsty about my cultural dna..
Here are Amiri Baraka’s comments on Spike Lee’s Malcolm X from 1992 at the Patrice Lumumba Coalition gathering in New York hosted by Elombe Brath. Ill keep looking for Clarke’s and Wahad’s.
http://www.voxunion.com/realaudio/coupradio/OnSpikeLeesMalcolmX.mp3
From 2:11:00 to 2:14:12 is pretty much the movie and is also the best movie Hollywood has ever produced. From 2:29:04 to 2:31:15 and 2:32:22 to 2:32:53 is sequel and from 2:36:43 to 2:41:31 closes out the trilogy.
Almost forgot 0:12:36 to 0:12:38 was the trailer.
My nephew, Andrew Burroughs, Jr., a Black independent filmmaker (see: “Algeny”), like me, liked “Django.”
BUT
he wanted to point to films that all of us should know:
http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/4-movies-you-should-see-know-about-before-you-see-django-that-deal-w-rebellion/
For everyone who acquired Django like Hollywood acquires scripts, buy Algeny as a penance.
Another great movie is “Addio Zio Tom” also known as “Goodbye Uncle Tom”.
who’s surprised
the only solution .we must write our own history, produce our stories and promote
those that have been done.
The truth is not tolerated in hollywood unless framed incorrectly.
When are Black Independent Film Makers like Melvin Van Pebbles will come together & Make the Long-awaited Nat Turner Story! Unite & Make this Happen Black People with Clout! Get it Done tired of these Hollywood Devils & their Exploitation Fakeness Unearthed!
I think the movie in itself is a good thing judging by the comments be it negative or positive look at us black people what simulating conversation I love it!!!! for those who have no idea what our ancesters had to indure maybe a film such as this will motivate them to search for the truth thank you black people I love each and everyone of you.
it just dawned on me stay tuned for Django part two………lol!!
GREAT MOVIE…NO BLACK MAN IN AMERICA COULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS MOVIE MADE…SO SPIKE SHOULD LAY OFF; AND I GENERALLY LIKE SPIKE. MINISTER FARRAKHAN SPOKE VERY INFORMATIVELY ON THE MOVIE AND ITS ACTORS. I LIKE HIS PERSPECTIVE ALTHOUGH HE DID ALSO GO INTO THE SITUATION WITH WHITE MILITANTS IN AMERICA; AND TIED THIS INTO THE CRITIQUE. TARENTINO; REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK OF HIM, IS A WHITE BOY WITH A HOOD PASS… AND I DON’T GENERALLY ASSOCIATE WITH WHITES AT ALL, UNLESS ITS BUSINESS.
To all those who continue to say that attention to films or media is a waste of time, or is too much about caring what whites think, or is too phony and academic or whatever… i wonder (purely rhetorically speaking – not at all literally) what then is your professed intellectual tradition? What then is your political position (as if it is not exposed in the critique itself right? “all criticism is autobiography”)? Beyond the personal attacks, do you then also stand against every single leader/organization that has ever looked to further the liberation of oppressed people? Not one has ever been uncritical of popular media, not one has ever been willing to separate popular depictions of people from the actual treatment they suffer. From Ida B. Wells to Carlos Cooks, to Malcolm X and Dr. King, to John Henrik Clarke, to Amos Wilson, to Marimba Ani, to George Jackson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jalil Muntaquim, to SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, the BPP, RAM, RNA, and so on… Even Camille Cosby’s research speaks to this despite what her silly husband now says publicly. DuBois, Booker T Washington and Garvey were all in agreement in the need to produce our own journalism and mass media for precisely these reasons. Robert and Mabel Williams did the same, every organization produced its own newspaper and was critical of popular films, radio, journalism and so on. To accept these films uncritically, or worse to condemn the critics, is to be outside every single tradition-strand produced by those in struggle here and abroad. So, while I certainly may fail, I am clear in my attempt to take part in and extend that/those/these traditions in some small way… if that attempt fails and anyone feels it worth their time then say so and specify what is wrong with the critique. But condemning critique itself must be recognized as being outside any tradition of political struggle in which this website and I mean to take part.
“Not one has ever been uncritical of popular media, not one has ever been willing to separate popular depictions of people from the actual treatment they suffer. From Ida B. Wells to Carlos Cooks, to Malcolm X and Dr. King, to John Henrik Clarke, to Amos Wilson, to Marimba Ani, to George Jackson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jalil Muntaquim, to SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, the BPP, RAM, RNA, and so on . . .”
AMEN to that, Dr. Ball! Please keep on keepin’ on.
the attack on the movie is your right,but I saw what is happening every day all over again. house negros selling us out for STUFF! material stuff, Our children getting poor education no jobs to support our own.. All the big money Black Folk take the money over seas to help others. Poor housing in the USA for blacks and no jobs. million dollar ball players, movie and music stars and the president he promised us nothing and they are not doing nothing for the black community,so who are the slave house negros? If we want change. Open up grocery stores take your community back in the black neighborhoods,open up shopping mall (we are consumers) that assure black folk jobs. We need to go back to our own and stop condemning the the movie and look at who Sam had faith in. In the movie.The white is working us everyday against each other, I see it on my job,I work in the (Public Schools) People!!!Parent and students don’t know the History. Dr.King is dead because he preached justice for ALL, why not us Black America. You cn’t find a man that is willing to lay down his life for what is right. We need to stop going along to get alone on the backs of black folk who is dead that fought for the rights of the people. This was only a movie with plenty of truth and fiction.
I am working on a film about Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 told through a blacksploitation framework where using a “tarantino” ie sodomy as a form of torture by the Ethiopians as retribution to the I talians in their counter defense. #dagothiswop Oh and it’s a comedy & homage to vaudeville
In “Django Unchained”, “They used a formula that’s been used in Hollywood for quite some time now. You can show Afrikans being lynched, castrated, raped, and murdered as long as whites rescue us in the end. I remember this from going to the movies years ago to see “Mississippi Burning.” Lines were around the corner. I saw few Blacks in the lines. There was silence the whole time we were being raped and murdered on screen. Then the Calvary came to the rescue, played by Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe. I was still in my seat when all of a sudden a sea of whiteness stood up and applauded. I never saw anything like it.
Django was directed by Quentin Tarantio, the same director of “Pulp Fiction.” You remember “Pulp Fiction?” “Pulp Fiction” is the movie where Ving Rhames took meat in the back. In layman’s terms, he was f*ck*d in the you know where. In the movie “Django Unchained” you have Leonardo Di Caprio. You remember him? He was in “Blood Diamond.” With that said, already I’m suspicious of the movie. In the movie, the Calvary is played by a Dr. Schultz. Django was played by Jamie Foxx. Dr. Schultz and Django were at the table talking. They were trying to find Django’s wife. Here is “Django’s exact words: “My wife ain’t no field n*gg*r. She’s pretty.” Afterwards he said she ain’t no house n*gg*r either, but that don’t negate his opinion of the sisters in the field who were usually dark.
I’m no Spike Lee fan, but this time we are on the same page as far as the Django movie is concerned, but for different reasons. I know I’m in the minority group and most enjoyed the movie. I don’t look at Django independently of Dr. Schultz. I don’t look at Dr. Schultz independent of Django. I look at them both in relationship to one another. Dr. Schultz is the white savior who gave his life so Django could live. “Whattttttt!!!” Look at the movie again. Dr. Schultz is facing Di Caprio. One of Di Caprio’s men is behind Dr. Schultz with a shot gun pointed at Django and his wife. Dr. Schultz kills Di Caprio. Well Schultz knows he’s a dead man now. The man with the shot gun turns his gun away from Django and his wife, and kills Dr. Schultz. This gives Django a chance to get the ups on the man with the shot gun. Like Jesus, Schultz died so Django could live. The white man is always saving us, whether it’s Lincoln, Kennedy, or Clinton. Now it’s Dr. Schultz. We can’t save ourselves on film. According to Hollywood, there were no Afrikan abolitionists.
Someone told me they thought “Django Unchained” was a good movie, because they enjoyed seeing a black man kill all those whites on screen. It escapes me how we pick out parts of a movie we love and ignore the rest. They see Django as some sort of liberator. This same so-called liberator could have prevented a brother from being eaten by a pack of dogs, but didn’t. Django wanted to prove to Di Caprio that he despised n*g*rs so he could see his wife again. However, Dr. Schultz told him he was overdoing it and would expose their cover. Django ignored him. Di Caprio paid $500 for a fighter. The fighter ran away, because he was tired of fighting. Di Caprio said to the brother “I paid $500 for five fights and you only gave me three. Who’s going to reimburse me my $500?” Dr. Schultz said “I will reimburse you.” Django said, “We ain’t paying a penny for that Pickaninny. We got no use for him.” Django watched the brother scream and holler as the dogs rip the limbs from his body. Django can’t be liberator and murderer too. I see Afrikans trying to defend Quentin Tarantino. I ain’t about too. I know it’s just a movie, but your analysis of the movie is very real, and that’s what frightens me.
I have NOT see ‘Django’ but I’m glad I read your comment. So this is who ‘Django’s’ Black supporters are cheering as a hero.
Apparently the real reason Django wants to get his woman back because ‘She Ain’t NO field Niggress… She’s a fine [yellow] woman…’ & he’s willfully lets & watches a fellow slave get torn to pieces by dogs, even thought he had a chance to save him. WOW- That’s some kind of hero / role-model {San}Quentin on the QT got Negroes cheering for!!!
PS: I do remember that in ‘Pulp Fiction’ QT threw in a completely out of place KKK Pawn shop in the middle of LA for NO other reason than to have that KKK cracker ass-rape Ving Rhames’ bad-ass character!
Some have even suggested that the movie was a love story. As someone mentioned earlier, Django didn’t even get to kill the white man who enslaved his wife. Dr. Schultz got that honor. Django by letting that brother be eating by a pack of dogs to prove to Di Caprio his loyalty, brings to mind one question. Does the end justify the means?