Welcome to our newest Adliberace Original Series Is He Eating?, where we use our powers of deduction, induction, and seduction to arbitrarily decide the successfulness of people far more successful than us.
Editor's Note: Should the subject of our Pulitzer Prize-winning series be a woman, the necessary changes will be made to the title. I got you.
Got it? Get it? Good.
Our first subject is Tank.
Subtle implications of racism and slavery in Django
Up to this point in time, all the reviews I've read about Django in terms of it's "racist" and edgy portrayal of slavery have mainly revolved around the use of gore and accuracy in depicting mandingo fighting. A few have mentioned Leo Dicaprio's discomfort in using the n-word so profusely and etc.
I will focus solely on one scene from the movie for my basis in evaluating Tarantino's depiction of slavery. It stood out to me because it served no significant plot device, but rather strictly character deveopment.
As Django and the dentist were on their way visiting Candyland, Django assumes the role of a slave owner, to be the advisor for the dentist in picking a quality fighter. As they are walking, Django gets some sass from one of the slaves, and so he lashes out. Nothing substantial up to this point, but the dentist gets out of the wagon and pulls Django aside. He tells Django that he's being too harsh, and not to lose himself in the role. Django replies that he's got it handled, but the expression on Jamie Foxx's face was what really drew my attention, because for a moment it felt like Django was already lost in the role.
Using the cover-up of "I'm just playing what a slave owner should do, and that's be abusive towards slaves" only made the underlying point clearer for me. Slavery was not about ethnicity, it was about property. The fact that Django lost his cool going off on his power trip is exactly what slavery did to white men, power is a drink many men want and few can handle. So then is it really racist that slavery happened? Sure it could be, but I'd claim a power dichotomy is far more plausible than an ethnic disdain. If anything, the cultural distinction only came into play after the colonialists became accustomed to treating slaves as property.
Historically speaking, slave trade in Africa during the colonial era weren't seldomly operated by white europeans, many of the local slave traders were native African. I don't see what could compel someone to betray his brothers and sisters other than the allure of greed. You can't possibly argue that one African man was a white supremacist before white supremacy existed, and thus decided to sell off tribes of people for slavery, all for the glory of the white man. I'm not going to properly cite historical references, you can do the research yourself (i.e. I'm making this up so you believe me, but if you believe that, find out for yourself).
I'm going to say something radical here that will likely piss off a lot of Americans. I don't think Lincoln solely support abolishing slavery on humanitarian grounds. Before the civil war began, slave refugees from the south typically found work in the north in city factories. They were becoming a valuable labour source. I think Lincoln did it for the money. Because the second slavery became abolished in the south, the north would be benefit from a huge influx of labour, propelling economic development and close the gap between merchants in the north and the slave owners of the south (Calvin Candy being a prime example of the extreme wealth derived from zero labour costs). Well, maybe Americans won't be so pissed off afterall, Lincoln was just following the American Dream. Ain't nothin' more important than the mula, hallelujah!
So if my interpretation is correct, Tarantino is depicting slavery and racism as causal links. With slavery leading to racism, whether or not you want to argue that, at that point in time racism alone drove the abuse of slaves, is up to you. All I'm claiming is that if anything, Tarantino is lessening the impact of racism on slavery. Tarantino is presenting slavery as a power dichotomy, so then I guess it's not the white man's fault that blacks were mistreated. It's because they were slaves and they happened to be black, and that's why racism started. Tarantino wants to say that if it were the blacks who were slave owners it'd be the same thing with whites being oppressed. I think he's got a point there.
But I don't think Tarantino is that eloquent. Frankly I think this interpretation vastly surpasses the artistic ability of Tarantino's entire career. Nevertheless, Christoph Waltz's acting in Inglorious Basterds earned my respect. Let's appreciate Tarantino's superficial depictions, and that he wanted "slavery to be realistic, and gruesome so that we never forget its horrors" [I'm paraphrasing but it's off some interview with some low credibility reporter, it's not even worth citing.]
But if you ever want to suck Tarantino's dick at a party and go off on how great of a director he is, the above points are all yours.
Cheers,
The Prince.
I will focus solely on one scene from the movie for my basis in evaluating Tarantino's depiction of slavery. It stood out to me because it served no significant plot device, but rather strictly character deveopment.
As Django and the dentist were on their way visiting Candyland, Django assumes the role of a slave owner, to be the advisor for the dentist in picking a quality fighter. As they are walking, Django gets some sass from one of the slaves, and so he lashes out. Nothing substantial up to this point, but the dentist gets out of the wagon and pulls Django aside. He tells Django that he's being too harsh, and not to lose himself in the role. Django replies that he's got it handled, but the expression on Jamie Foxx's face was what really drew my attention, because for a moment it felt like Django was already lost in the role.
Using the cover-up of "I'm just playing what a slave owner should do, and that's be abusive towards slaves" only made the underlying point clearer for me. Slavery was not about ethnicity, it was about property. The fact that Django lost his cool going off on his power trip is exactly what slavery did to white men, power is a drink many men want and few can handle. So then is it really racist that slavery happened? Sure it could be, but I'd claim a power dichotomy is far more plausible than an ethnic disdain. If anything, the cultural distinction only came into play after the colonialists became accustomed to treating slaves as property.
Historically speaking, slave trade in Africa during the colonial era weren't seldomly operated by white europeans, many of the local slave traders were native African. I don't see what could compel someone to betray his brothers and sisters other than the allure of greed. You can't possibly argue that one African man was a white supremacist before white supremacy existed, and thus decided to sell off tribes of people for slavery, all for the glory of the white man. I'm not going to properly cite historical references, you can do the research yourself (i.e. I'm making this up so you believe me, but if you believe that, find out for yourself).
I'm going to say something radical here that will likely piss off a lot of Americans. I don't think Lincoln solely support abolishing slavery on humanitarian grounds. Before the civil war began, slave refugees from the south typically found work in the north in city factories. They were becoming a valuable labour source. I think Lincoln did it for the money. Because the second slavery became abolished in the south, the north would be benefit from a huge influx of labour, propelling economic development and close the gap between merchants in the north and the slave owners of the south (Calvin Candy being a prime example of the extreme wealth derived from zero labour costs). Well, maybe Americans won't be so pissed off afterall, Lincoln was just following the American Dream. Ain't nothin' more important than the mula, hallelujah!
So if my interpretation is correct, Tarantino is depicting slavery and racism as causal links. With slavery leading to racism, whether or not you want to argue that, at that point in time racism alone drove the abuse of slaves, is up to you. All I'm claiming is that if anything, Tarantino is lessening the impact of racism on slavery. Tarantino is presenting slavery as a power dichotomy, so then I guess it's not the white man's fault that blacks were mistreated. It's because they were slaves and they happened to be black, and that's why racism started. Tarantino wants to say that if it were the blacks who were slave owners it'd be the same thing with whites being oppressed. I think he's got a point there.
But I don't think Tarantino is that eloquent. Frankly I think this interpretation vastly surpasses the artistic ability of Tarantino's entire career. Nevertheless, Christoph Waltz's acting in Inglorious Basterds earned my respect. Let's appreciate Tarantino's superficial depictions, and that he wanted "slavery to be realistic, and gruesome so that we never forget its horrors" [I'm paraphrasing but it's off some interview with some low credibility reporter, it's not even worth citing.]
But if you ever want to suck Tarantino's dick at a party and go off on how great of a director he is, the above points are all yours.
Cheers,
The Prince.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)