Overboard with “Rationality”: Django Unchained and “Mandingo Fighting”

Quentin Tarantino certainly has a knack for igniting controversy with his films. Perhaps no movie of his has started such a hullabaloo than his latest work, Django Unchained, drawing criticism from a variety of circles, from both the political left and right.

After finally seeing it myself, the film has many issues addressed by critics, including (but not limited to): Tarantino’s gratuitous use of the n-word, excessive violence; being just another white messiah flick, or just plain irreverent.

All of these topics are important, but one issue that interested me was the questioned accuracy of the so-called “mandingo fighting” portrayed in the movie; i.e., fight-to-the-death matches between slave men. A commonly cited article at Slate authoritatively stated that mandingo fighting never existed, paraphrasing David Blight, a historian from Yale, that no such thing occurred because doing so would have been irrational to do so. This take on the film’s mandingo fights got picked up from other outlets, following Slate’s lead. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has a great post at The Root regarding the issue of mandingo fighting, as well as using bloodhounds for tearing apart and eating, not just capturing, runaway slaves. In the post he asks, “Did this happen — could this have happened — given the fact that the ultimate goal of a master was to exploit his human chattel for maximum profit, and destroying property would not be perhaps the best business decision?” Specifically regarding the dogs issue, Gates finds that it did sometimes happen. Certainly this same approach can be applied to the portrayal of mandingo fighting. However, Gates does not go that far, giving support to the Aisha Harris article at Slate and adding, “Destroying one’s property was not the smartest business strategy.” Unfortunately, Gates seems to contradict himself when it comes to the issue of mandingo fighting.

So, did “mandingo fighting” ever take place in the antebellum South? In fact, as Adam Rothman pointed out, new historical texts on the antebellum period describe the situation in Mississippi during the time having been even crazier and more bizarre than that portrayed in the film. Slaveholders constantly feared uprisings and runaways, and they commonly cracked down on supposed wrongdoers to “send a message” to the other slaves.

Still, I think more the pertinent question is: does it even matter whether they existed or not? I think that social scientists like Blight and others need to take great care in stressing the rationality of a social system, whether it be economic, political, etc. A dialectical approach is helpful here, as in George Ritzer’s notion of the “irrationalities of rationality,” in which rationalized structures produce undesired outcomes (such as the horrors of modern warfare). The whole point to take from this is that Americans of African descent, with the exceptions of freedmen and women, were PROPERTY of whites. This means they had no rights. While those fights may not have taken place, it seems folly to believe it never could have happened in such a rational economic system. Even worse, whether intentionally or not such a line serves to whitewash the antebellum South as a land of happy darkies and benevolent—even kindly—slave masters who would never abuse or kill their slaves due to enduring economic losses.

Whatever your thoughts about the film, it certainly was very powerful. Gates finished his piece this way: “Whether you like Django’s post-modern take on slavery or not, one of its most salutary effects is that it has generated a greater conversation about the enslavement of our ancestors than any that I have witnessed perhaps since Roots.”

Comments

  1. Seattle in Texas

    I appreciate this take on Django and the conclusion about sums it up all the way around.

    We were hesitant to see the movie based on all the criticisms and hearing that the “N” word was used over one-hundred times, etc. On my end, I was about evenly torn on whether I wanted to watch it or pass–the criticisms alone, at least from the media and online, were enough to make it difficult to find any legitimate reason to watch it. Yet folks we knew who had seen it said “we totally had to see it”…which was like, really??? But I heard??? Nobody would say a word about the movie just that, “we had to see it.” It was like, still…naaah, I’ll pass.

    Then being a Terintino fan myself, about half the time :) as I do like some of his work and other works I don’t care for too much or not at all, about half of me found myself wanting to see the movie and the other half not–it’s either going to be good or bad…and knowing his work, coupled with the mixed reactions, just could not tell which way I would lean on the movie. And what I found rather horrifying prior to seeing the film was hearing that humor was somehow added into the mix of all this…taking slavery very serious, I thought there was no way this could be done in anyway, shape, or form. But then with Terintino…hmmmm…it’s something really only he could pull off…possibly…as with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EevoRUakA88 . Some may find it funny and others not, but, an example. That scene had all of us laughing with tears quite literally because it was so unexpected with all of the earlier scenes that had aroused rather painful and sad emotions, and simply because we just all found it seriously funny.

    What tilted us to the leaning end of watching the film in the end was, Terintino directed it so anything’s possible. We are fans of Jamie Foxx and pretty well knew he would not pick up a script that he would find to be more harmful than good with such a serious and delicate issue. Both Terintino and Foxx are from the south leaving both to have an inside understanding and a higher level of competency with the history and culture of the south–especially in terms of racial relations. And lastly, if it were something we found too offensive and horrible to watch, we could walk away.

    Fully prepared to walk away, we watched it all the way through with an array of emotions and tears that came from those array of emotions. Even those with the thickest of skin would have to still feel some sort of pain with some of those scenes…if they don’t, they are truly and deeply disturbed in some way. That’s all I can say. The plantation house exploding at the end into smithereens was most definitely the climax of the film in my own humble opinion. People who are pro-south in the confederate or antebellum context and prefer to romanticize slavery wouldn’t appreciate the film. It’s not an apologetic film of the south or slavery; it’s quite the opposite. Even with the fair criticisms, I personally take the position that better it was made and put out than not in line with the conclusion of the article above. While some of us may not see the film again, we do not regret the decision to watch it at least one time around. It’s just one of those you have to see and then come to your own conclusions…whatever they may be….

  2. John D. Foster Author

    Thanks for sharing your experience with this movie, Seattle. Watching the movie at home I was basically on the edge of my seat during the entire movie, and I almost broke down crying during the mandingo fight (perhaps a reason why I focused on that for this blog). Perhaps this movie helped to make us all realize how much healing really has yet to occur over our nation’s legacy of slavery, regardless of it’s good or bad qualities.

    • Seattle in Texas

      You are welcome–and again, appreciate the take on the film.

      That particular scene was intense and disturbing, but it was in a way that demonstrated a purpose for it being in there. The violence in the movie was not senseless or irrelevant to the time period even if the plot were fiction. And the arguing on whether or not such events even took place is problematic!! I’ve heard about things as this before seeing the film and while not the norm, and even if not often, they did take place. It’s disturbing. But it is/was what it is/was. And it should be historically relevant not somehow excused because of the lack of frequency. And for all we know it could have happened more than we realize. Lynching and burnings were not frequent for the same reasons and with the same logic the critics follow with regard to economic rationality, etc., but they did happen and not only for sadistic entertainment purposes for white society, but to keep those enslaved, etc., in check. It was pure terrorism. It’s just sick all the way around and for anybody, I don’t care what their stature or level of education or expertise or prestige, to suggest that particular scene was less important or minimize the relevance seems to legitimate that same very sick and disturbing white supremacist mindset. If it happened even one time, it was one time too many.

      In terms of the arguments on whether the film should hold any validity because it is fictional, well why shouldn’t it? It was held within the approximate social contexts of those times. It seems U.S. society is so sensitized to the issue and non-fiction that perhaps fiction is valuable in communicating the sobering ugliness of the past and a shared history. After seeing the film and being familiar with the criticism–most of which I get where they are coming from but do not necessarily share personally, I don’t understand why we would not welcome creativity and innovation on such topics, particularly if they might be useful or in any way valuable in getting the painful realities of the past across to contemporary society…and my understanding is Tarantino even held back on the disturbing violence for this film. It was an intense and powerful movie and yes, I think if anything, as you stated, does more to help us realize how much healing really has yet to occur over our nation’s legacy of slavery….

      Again, thank you for that take on Django

  3. babybird722

    I am relieved to see that it was not just Spike Lee and I who found Django disturbing. I did not expect the “White Messiah” and I would have passed on the movie had I known. I also did not expect the level of violence but that was on me because should have known Tarantino takes gore to a new level.

    Tarantino’s take on slavery illustrates the problem African American’s have overcoming this horrible legacy passed on to us. This country might understand the physical cruelty we endured but we suffered more than physical harm. Our families were ripped to pieces. Black men watched helplessly as White men violated the women they loved. Black women watched their men studded like animals. Our children were sold away from us. Unlike the Jamie Fox character, there was no White man to help us get the love of my life back. We did not have guns. Those who closed their eyes, buried their feelings and survived, did they love their families less?

    As a people we buried our feelings so deep down inside that 300 years later we still have not recovered our ability to feel safe in a nuclear family. Tarantino could never tell the real story because he doesn’t know anything about it.

    I am not mad at the black folks who made a few dollars acting in the film. But Spike was 100% on the money. Django trivialized events in our history that we still struggle to overcome. It was not a great film for us.

  4. Fresh_Mind

    when i went to a showing of this movie i was very unsure as to what could displayed.. but after watching it twice everything seemed so real from beginning to end. the seriousness of certain parts and what is being taught about slavery was shown very vivid but also i never thought of the fighting and how people really didn’t look at the i guess deep meaning of the movie and just wanted to see if everything was real or not. whether the fighting was sometimes or never happened, African Americans did get beat regardless so even if they did not “mandingo fight” they still were tortured and still had to do as there master said. people may think they know everything about history but maybe this fighting was truly underground or wasn’t called that.. whatever the case may be racism is still going on. people are still being intruders when it comes to these topics dealing with any racism and still people don’t even know they are racist, how a conversation could get so heated over name calling or the awkward silence when someone of another kind comes in the room.. the minority will always be on the backstage will always be an minority always be frontstage. even when people try to make it seem like they are not. Whether this movie wasn’t about African Americans the movie still would receive negative feedback.

    • Seattle in Texas

      Applying the intruder alert with the frontstage and backstage is creative and lends for an interesting way of theoretically analyzing the film. I think the intruder alert phenomenon coupled with the complexity of being in, or at least present, in both stages was one of the fundamental features of Django’s character throughout the film as he was being tested in various situations on whether or not he was a legitimate “free black man” in the slave society. It was as if white society had difficulty in knowing where he fit as a “free black man” within the settings as the roles for blacks both on and off plantations were clearly fixed with relation to the racial power hierarchies and social statuses.

      In contrast to other films and rather disturbing historical depictions that served to romanticize slavery and the experiences of the enslaved as being happy and content on plantations, Django’s status as an intruder in the backstage during this scene amplified the savagery of the slave system, as did his role as an intruder in the frontstage setting with the dog scene, etc. And given this scene was a depiction of the backstage setting…it should perhaps rather raise more questions on how often this may have actually happened. And further presenting his character as an intruder throughout the film really served to show how even the status of “free” for blacks during slavery in no way had an equivalent meaning of “free” for whites. The challenges and tests that went along with the “free” status for blacks were psychologically taxing and emotionally painful/damaging in ways that were perhaps completely unfamiliar for whites of most any status. That’s a great theory to use for analyzing this film.

  5. tannerhale2011

    I thought Django was a very disturbing movie. The violence was clear depiction of evil and tyrannical reign of slave owners. The parts where he rose against his masters were very inspiring, but the blood and the gore was extremely unnecessary.

  6. runnergirl123

    While this is the only Quentin Tarantino movie I have ever seen, I have to say I like the way it was filmed and I can appreciate the “creative” aspect of it there was little else that I liked about it. As was said in some earlier comments the concept of the “white messiah” is one that I did not particularly care for as it serves I think to perpetuate the idea that members of different races “need saving” by the supposedly morally superior white race. Now on the other hand in looking at deCaprio’s role as the cruel white man we see how even though both men are white one (the protagonist) behaves in an almost colorblind manor whilst Leonardo’s character opperates out of the white racial frame and the archaic stereotype that white men are the humans and all others are profitable playthings. Conflict theory states that the two must exist as the oppisites seen in this film in ordder for “society” or in this case the film to progress and for each character to know where they stood. It can be seen by one of “Candy land’s” oldest slaves that when roles and what people have come to believe as dominance are shifted or become unsure conflict will ensue until order and hierarchy are restored.

  7. Mitchellwillis1029

    I saw the Quentin Tarantino film, “Django” and it is in my top 3 favorite films. I understand why people are bashing this film. The Mandingo scene was very intense and quite gruesome. I believe Tarantino put this scene in his movie to give a feel of just how dark and wrong slavery really was to his audience. The film keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat. At times the blood is extremely intense, but that is what Tarantino’s films all have in common excessive blood. My favorite scene when Django was whipping a slave owner in one of the earlier scenes of the film. It just had a very ironic feel due to the fact that a former slave(Django) was whipping his former slave owner. Slavery is beyond wrong, so watching a slave overcome hardships and making a stand against evil made me feel good.

  8. rmm038

    Django was an amazing, but gruesome movie. It was hard to watch at times, but then again, it is important that it is seen.
    The movie is about a former slave who is bought and made a partner to bounty hunter. Though the movie has funny scenes, it has some serious lessons to be learned. Great movie over all and great tactics. I think many people were able to appreciate it and walk away with a necessary lesson.

  9. Shadowzxs50

    The take on slavery is interesting. Even tough the story of the movie is fiction, the way slavery is and the way black people are treated are spot on. If a slave is no longer useful to the master they could care less, in the movie after one of the black fighting slaves can no longer fight the master is quick to let the dogs utterly destroy him. Another how okay the slaves are okay with being slaves in a sense where if they disobey they are put in torture being put in a box under the hot sun. Once Django is cough he is put into torture, instead of going through due process of law, and it again reenforces how accurate the movie is to how slavery was back when it legal. Many people get offended by this movie and would choose to no see it because it disturbes them. The problem with that if we ignore how slavery was over time the next generation would wonder why was slavery bad generations ago. This is why in history we study about everything in the world, from the Holocaust to black slavery and the Manhattan project and 9/11.

  10. dk3295

    In my viewing of the movie Django, I feel that it is one of the most exciting and provactive movies I have ever seen. I enjoyed the action in the movie as well as its humorous scenes and its social The performances of Jamie Foxx, Samuel L. Jackson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kerry Washington were all compelling if not also shocking. Jamie Foxx was both bold and humorous as Django while Samuel L.jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio’s characters will have your jaws dropped. The chemistry between Foxx’s and Washington’s characters is definately cemented although due to the lack of screen time they had they it wasn’t really shown. My favorite scenes in Django included the scenes where he whipped the slave owner, when he blew up the Candy Mansion at the end and the nod to the first Klu Klux Klan. Overall, this is a great movie and I feel that it’s a must see for any fan of Tarantino or if you just want to get a good story with some great history.

  11. byronjr1

    I think the movie was good for younger kids who do not know what all blacks had to do. In the movie you saw a free black man who would do anything for his wife. As a man I thought that took a real man to do that. Even in the movie they said nigga alot many people do not know that word is still use today in a bad way. I think the movie thaught me that love is something you can not rebuy. He faught for his woman and almost died. I like the movie because it showed alot. I think many more people should watch the movie and also let there kids watch it. They also can learn from it.

  12. John D. Foster Author

    Thanks for all of your insights. @byronjr1: you make a great point about Django’s relationship with Hilde and how he risked his own life for his “wife” (it’s important to note he calls her that in the film though marriages were not legally recognized). It really flies in the face of the argument peddled by Orlando Patterson and others that black men didn’t care about their offspring or their loved ones.
    @dk3295: I agree with you about Hilde and Django not being on-screen together nearly enough. I especially wanted to see more of Hilde on-screen, and sadly this is yet another Hollywood film generally made by men, for men, and women are too often props or “damsels in distress” who need a man to save them.
    @shadow: yes, I think Tarantino was making the point that because they were property, slaves could be exploited in myriad ways. It’s almost as if the cotton-picking or other tasks are seen as permissible methods of exploitation while others (like mandingo fighting) were not; fact is ALL tasks performed by slaves were exploitative.

  13. jew025

    Applying the intruder alert and frontstage and backstage to this movie. Because django dealt with being in or at least present in the movie. Django kept being tested to see if he was a free black man or not and it got tested very well. Racism is still in affect today and people are still being intruders when it comes to topics dealing with racism and have no idea that theyre be racist. people let name calling become so heated and serious that an awkward silence begins to happens. often people of different race or gender walk in another room full of a different race and the room becomes quiet, theres no need for that. the minority will always the backstage and become the intruders in whites eyes.

  14. lydi_mae92393

    I feel like Django Unchained was a bit much with the goriness, but I also feel like the movie is a must see because it paints a picture of what most blacks had to endure during that time of slavery. It gives people an idea on how times were back then during those times and also how whites viewed blacks, whether they were free or not. It just gives a very well painted picture of life for a black person, and life for a white person in that time.

  15. VaughnChris

    Django was a extremely gorey movie, but it had to be to show how slaves were treated during that time period. The intruder alert, backstage, and frontstage can be applied to Django Unchained. Being that Django started out as a slave, and eventually became free, he still had to prove to the white people that he was a free man. Nobody wanted to believe it, because during that time period black people were considered less than whites and didn’t deserve freedoms. Many of them were ignorant. In today’s society it is still prevalent that racism is around. With our media constantly putting down different races and being selective of what they show, the younger audiences grow up with that being in their mind that their better than someone else or another group of people acts a certain way so they are less than them. This isnt right and needs to be changed.

  16. John D. Foster Author

    I agree that intruder alert is applicable to Django. I think it would help those historians and others to realize at least the possibility that there were lots of horrible “un-godly” things that took place within such a social system, even if things like mandingo fighting were rare.

  17. brysonrichardson1

    Quentin Tarantino’s new film Django Unchained is many things. It’s an expertly executed action film, a riotous comedy, and a stylish genre exercise packed to the gills with memorable characters and razor sharp dialogue. However, despite its strengths, this film commits many of the worse offenses possible for a work of historical fiction, unwittingly reinforcing the racist narratives it is trying to correct. I didnt like the way whites used there front stage behaviors with Django threwout the movie. Tarantino has said that the film is his attempt to give young black men a Western-style hero as a counterbalance to the blanched profile characteristic of the genre.
    This portrayal ignores the significant extent to which black resistance shaped the course of American history. It also reinforces the view that blacks were either too timid or too dumb to effectively resist.

  18. BDW015

    I thought Django was a good movie. It show how diffenrt slave master threat thier slaves and show not all white men back in the day hated black people their was some white will to help black people get their freedom.

  19. chae_haynes

    Django was an excellent and outstanding movie It has a very powerful volume and message, along with comedy. It provided the viewpoint of both race perspectives. It also showed the different levels of slavery and master’s attitude toward slavery. There are many examples of backstage and frontstage shown in Django unchained. It shows how Django was first a slave and then became a freeman but, was also tested of his character if was actually a freeman. Even though Django Unchained was a black western slave movie with comedy parts, it also provided lessons of how blacks were treated and the extremes blacks had to go through.

  20. amj020

    I believe Quentin Tarantino’s, “Django Unchained”, is a great depiction of the struggle blacks went through as slaves during this time of slavery. People say that the movie was to offensive because of the violence against the slaves and the excessive use of the N word; well I say good for you for thinking that way, because it is offensive but the truth is that is how slaves were treated, and that is how people talked back then. If the movie was sugar-coated to where the treatment of slaves was less brutal in the movie, the overall message that Quentin was trying to get across in the movie would not be as strong and people might forget about the movie and its message. However, on the risk of sounding hypocritical, this movie does have one thing that makes it “watered down” in its message. The extremely excessive gore, unrealistic physics, and comedic parts in this movie kind of transforms it, for me at least, into more of a fantasy than a reality. This conveys a message of, “This might have happened”, instead of actually trying to demonstrate the reality of slave treatment during this time period. I may be a little nit-picky on this issue, but that is what this movie portrayed itself to me as; it portrayed itself as a movie that tried to discuss a serious issue, with some success, but ends up watering the subject down through the over utilization of gore, comedy, and the ridiculously unrealistic physics. Don’t get me wrong, overall I liked the movie, I just wish Tarantino would have taken the movie a little more serious than he did.

  21. hollyd

    Djano was interesting to say the least. What a good movie. It showed talent from every end. It really showed an insight to slavery and adds an interesting veiw on it.

  22. shasocialite

    This movie was very entertaining to say the least. When people started talking about how bad it was and how much “N” word was said, made me kind of skeptical of watching it. But as I started watching it, I realized it wasn’t nearly as bad as people were making it to be. I thought it was going to be a lot more graphic and the language was going to be intolerable. How they treated the slaves in the movie was how they were treated back then if not worse. Back in those days blacks weren’t called African Americans like they are today. They were called Niggers or Negros. I could see how this could offend someone who is watching the movie either white or black. But for me, it’s the truth and that’s what I like about this movie. Many people asked me if the movie offended me. My answer was no! It caused a lot of controversy because it’s true, and today there aren’t as many movies like Django. Most movies today are about false love, and hopeless dreams. Django was able to open up the eyes of many people and remind them of the struggle. So all in all, this movie was very good and every one no matter their ethnicity should see it.

  23. jcs067

    I enjoyed the movie Django Unchained. I feel as though the actors did an amazing job. Some parts were hard to watch and hear, especially the frequent use of the “N word” but over all i think the movie displayed a vivid picture of things that happened back in the slavery days in a comical way.

  24. twr009

    I liked the movie Django because it was an action filled movie, but at some points it was hard to watch because all I heard was “nigger” maybe 20 times in a matter of seconds. It brought to light how systematic racism was extremely different in those times then it is today. Back then the way they oppressed the African Americans was by fear of death, treating them less then human, or even killing them just for fun. The movie had a strong impact on me and made me see how we oppress people today. It’s always been hard for me to see it since I am considered white middle-class so I have never had to worry about these things till I was finally able to hear and see it happening because I wanted to see it.

  25. aznino

    I thought the movie Django was really good because it showed what African Americans really went through during slavery and it was also an action movie, which made it even better. Some things that really bother me during the movie was how ignorant people where back then, that they did not concider someone human because of their color of their skin. How it was really “rare to see a black dude on a horse and why would they even make black slaves walk to one place to another when they could just put them on horses and transport them faster, that was just dumb. Another thing that surprises me is how African Americans let them self be treated like that when most of the time their were more of them to take out their slave owner or just stand up to them and fight or die trying, but i understand why they would not because people back then did not think the way we do today.

  26. AndroDoster

    My thought on the movie Django was that it was a really good movie. The characters that they chose to play the roles were really good. Such as Jamie Foxx, Keri Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Christoph Waltz. They really enacted their roles really well. Watching this movie made me feel a sense of sympathy for people that actually went through during that rough time. It made me feel like I am truly blessed for the things that I have. The part that I did not like in the movie was the part where they let the dogs eat that man for not fighting because he was tired. I couldn’t fix my eyes to see that horrible scene. That part really grossed me out and I think that they should have not put that part in the movie. They were fighting for freedom basically just killing one another. There was a lot of vulgar language though. I think that if they could go back and change anything it would be the fact that most of the movie was basically stereotyped. It showed what slaves really went through, and how they were bought, sold, and used. This movie really gave people in outlook on how things really were during slave times.

  27. taa011

    The movie Django was a really good movie, i loved the fact that it showed what African Americans really went through during slavery. I also like the fact that it had a story tell, some slaves were really separated from their loved ones. Some things that really bother me during the movie was how ignorant people where back then, it didnt make sense that if a white person killed an individual it was ok, but if a black person did their were great consequences. This is where the Labeling Theory comes in. In this time, the society was white, and society would not accept a black person having the same opportunity as a white person.

  28. cgw007

    This movie was interesting because of two reasons: 1. It’s not a black person that came up with the whole idea in the first place, instead it’s a white(italian) guy. This is the whole reason why it’s daring. 2.The fact that this movie received so many responses; both negative and positive reviews! Whether you liked the movie or not, found it offensive, or just flat out loved it or felt ill about, the actors and actresses still did a wonderful job portraying the theme. Some parts were hard to watch, especially the frequent use of the “N word” and the goriness, but overall I think the movie displayed a vivid picture of things that happened back in the slavery days in a comical way as well as applying front stage racism within the movie.

  29. AXO191994

    The movie Django was a really good movie, The characters that they chose to play in this movie were awesome they did really good enacting their roles. Such as Jamie Foxx he was the best, Keri Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Christopher Waltz, I loved the fact that it showed what African Americans really went through during slavery back well it still goes on even today but back then it was worse. I also liked the fact that it had a story tell in a way, some slaves were really separated from their loved ones which hurts because I couldn’t live like that being away from my family and never seeing them, and some things that really bothered me when I was watching this movie was how ignorant people where back then, it didn’t make sense that if a white person killed an individual it was ok, but if a black person did their were great consequences of all sorts that just mad me mad. This is where the Labeling Theory comes in its based on the idea that behaviors are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society, who interpret certain behaviors as deviant and then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between deviance and non-deviance, so In this time, the society was white, and society would not accept a black person having the same opportunity as a white person would have.

  30. mef15

    I loved the movie. The excessive use of the “n-word” did not bother me and I’m black. It only made the movie more realistic. If it bothers people I would advise them to steer clear from this movie. Otherwise, it makes no sense to run away from the reality of our history. There was also a very good storyline to the movie. It was not completely about racism and slavery, it was a love story and I think some people were blind to that because of the setting of the movie.

    “Mandingo fighting” is something that may or may not be true to history. Historians say that it would be irrational for slave owners to partake in this because that is like destroying merchandise. I counter that cover up with this: 1. Slave owners, should this whole thing be true, probably realized the fights made them more money then they were losing if one of their slaves happened to die. I feel that if they were making money off of it they would do it at the expense of their slaves. The slave owners portrayed in the movies were rich, what harm would that do to them?

    Django Unchained was a movie that many people probably were not mentally prepared to see. Whether people felt persecuted for what their ancestors may have done in the past or from underexposure to the truth of our history, I understand why somebody white may feel uncomfortable with the movie. but it is just history. Nothing was directed at anybody.

Pingbacks

  1. Paletleme Amirliği – Nisan 2013 | Emrah Göker'in İstifhanesi

Leave a Reply