babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Django, the N-Word, and How We Talk About Race in 2013
January 4, 2013 - 12:05am
found this article interesting
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/64541/django-the-n-word-and-how-we-talk-about-race-in-2013
You really need to read it all for the context.
just saw DJANGO a couple hours ago. Best movie i 've seen in a long time.
Also, really interesting article. Totally disagree with spike lee, and especially when he won't watch the movie...you can't vaguely criticize a movie you haven't seen. To me it's much more offensive to make a movie that has slavery in it and not use the word, that totally sanitizes it.
And hearing the word used so casually in the film was what was hit home. what's interesting is that in today's context it seems totally normal for the black actors to say it, but seems really odd when white actors do--a complete reversal from the the era in which slavery existed.
And from a film standpoint, i thought this was one of the more honest depictions of slavery i've seen on film, even if it is as spike calls it a "spaghetti western" (not sure why he thinks that's a bad thing...)
i think spikes just pissed off that he didn't make this movie first and that tarantino worked with pam grier and fred williamson....
Spoiler alert.
Why Django can't revolt
I think the whole Spike Lee comment is just due to the fact (well largely) that him and Tarantino have had a bit of a feud sine Jackie Brown and Lee wasn't a fan of Tarantinos liberal use of the n-word then.
I'm a Tarantino fan, and as much as this film was about black slavery, I don't think it was made to be a commentary on the times. In interviews since Inglorious Basterds, he says he likes to use these moments of history becasue they expose a lot of the history that Americans are so unwilling to talk about and recognize as their own. Setting slavery as a western style movie seems to be another way to expose audiences to an time in history that they might not go and see in another movie (because they "dont want to" "too intense" etc).
The thing that stood out for me the most was that Tarantino tried to submerge the audience in an onslaught of violence, tension and suspense for three hours to seemingly mimic the horrors of slave life. Similar to Addio Zio Tom's approach in Goodbye Uncle Tom (that movie is extensely graphic). The comic relief of the bag head scene was much appreciated for my senses, but even that is obviously cloaked in awfulness.
@milo204 hearing white actors drop n-bombs and just use them as regular words was really unsettling. When I was watching the movie, I kind of wondered the dynamic of all the actors and how each felt to verbally say the word and receive it.
So, how "we" talk about race in 2013 is exactly the same as how "we" talked about race for the past few decades.
As in trying to avoid it?
I think a lot has been projected onto the movie that just isn't there. There are problems with the movie in two parts: as a movie and as a critique and exploration of black slavery.
For me, as a movie, the characters of Django and Hilda are a bit underdeveloped as is their love story, but somehow I liked that you had to go on the faith (as in just believing their story) of their characters. Also, I think Waltz's character could be misunderstood as the hero and anti-slavery champion. Being that he used and stated that he will unfortunately use slavery to his advantage to get Django to help him, and then continues to feel an obligation towards him, paints him as a person who is sympathetic, but still willing to take advantage. And also he seems to get the better of himself in his end.
As a critique on black slavery in the US, I think the movie did little more than to show the abhorrent violence -- in a stylized and still "audience friendly" way -- and show humanity and how humans work when forced into a hierarchy. I feel like Tarantino used the backdrop of black slavery to inform his movie, forcing Americans and other audiences to view the events when they might not have normally, but doesn't go beyond any greater statement than "this happened"
What were you thoughts on the movie Maysie?
While it does sound like a great yarn, I refuse to watch any of Tarantino's pornography of violence. I was glad to read the piece Maysie quotes, as indeed the "Badass N****r" is a fundamentally racist stereotype of hypermasculinity. You'll read a lot of that shit on White Supremacist ultra rightwing racist sites.
No slave revolt in the works (certainly not by women slaves!) Reworking old stories is all well and good, but this reminds me of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, where he writes the REAL Jewish partisans who existed from France and Italy to Poland and Russia out of history, bringing in the Yanks (albeit Jewish Yanks) to off the Nazis.
That's a good point about Inglorious Basterds Lagatta. I remember kind of scoffing a bit (although, I enjoyed the movie for the acting and characters), because of America's history with WWII and their perception of their participation...
I agree with the stereotype of hypermasculinity and have read a few good articles on that as well.
I think my overall "thing" with this movie was, I wanted to watch it as a movie, but it is supremely tied to real life and real life events. It is difficult, not construtive, and impossible to disassociate what is going on in the film from history.
Also, again, it sucks that at this point the only conversation had about black slavery taking place in the media is surrounding this movie, but I don't view this movie as the be-all-end-all critique and exposure on the issue.
I'm kind of going back and forth with the idea of Tarantino exploiting the backdrop, or if it was his way of making a movie and forcing an audience to witness history and events they might otherwise ignore.
I expect I'll see the movie, though I think it is important to remember it is first and foremost an homage to a film style more than history. After all, Hitler didn't get killed in a theatre, That said, I think it would have been pretty weird to not use the word in that movie.
And actors? Well actors are actors, and their job is to act.
But I also think it is only partially true that best way to illustrate the evils of slavery is by amping up the horrific violence. Really, that probably has more to do with recreating the 30 year-old film than the 150-year old story.
William Seward, one of the leading abolitionists who lost the nomination to Lincoln, and served in his cabinet, took a trip to Virginia - then the most powerful state in the union - in 1835. He didn't see acts of murder or mutilation, but what he and his wife did see so depressed and repelled him that he never went south again until after the war was nearing its end.
They met virtually no one on the roads. Other than the houses of the planter aristocracy everything was in decay, and there was no middle class whatsoever. Seward compared it to parts of France he had been to which had suffered through the attrition of war for over 40 years. They spoke with an old blind woman who was set to work alone, doing nothing but turning a wheel in a yard all day, and also passed a group of small, naked children roped together on the way to auction, being led by a slavedriver to a drinking trough, then over to a barn, where they sat down, crying.
Seward and his wife could not stand being in such a place, cut short their trip, and quickly headed back north.
(edit)
Really, I think the horrific violence doesn't hold a candle to the far greater myth of the glory and chivalry in the antebellum south, and that the war was one of northern aggression. In reality, the place was falling apart long before the war.
I really like Louis CK's take on the "n-word"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
I think one of DiCaprio's interviews alluded to his thinking that the movie was constantly "going too far" and that once he became desensitized to a number of things and found himself becoming violent and unfeeling in various moments often not in shooting. One of the prop glasses exploded and his hand was considerably injured and he never noticed it.
Do you have a link for that interview or know who did it? That is incredibly interesting and really makes sense within his portrayal of Candie.
Thinking back on the film, I'm not sure if I can pinpoint any one moment of violence that I was like "oh wow" because as much as it was graphic, it didn't completely show everything, and left violence at times more alluded to as well.
A couple of exceptions: hot box, flashbacks of dog eating; but just seeing the visuals of people walking in chains, being chained up, seeing them with branding marks, was definitely too much, much like the reference to Seward.
Maybe it's a meshing up Seward's reflections and grizzly depictions?
"Nigger" was originally a dialectical form of the Spanish/Portuguese word "Negro" which simply means black in Spanish, which is only pejorative for those who dislike people with black skin, cats with black fur etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
By the way, amon Haitians speaking Creole, it is not a derogatory word, "un nèg" simply means a person (usually a man) and "un bon nèg" is a good person, a Mensch.
As Seward observed, while branding and horrible punishments, including killing, certainly existed to reduce slaves to things and to enforce enslavement on plantations where there were far more Black slaves than White masters and overseers, it was actually relatively rare. Not out of any humanitarian sentiment on the part of the slavers, but simply because slaves were very valuable commodities. There is an old story about a slaver saving a Black slave of his from drowning rather than an Irish day-labourer working for him, because he had paid a huge sum for the slave, and just spent a few pennies on the Irishman's wages.
Of course that doesn't mean that slaves were better off than exploited and discriminated Irish immigrants, for the latter remained free and could better their lot, and not have their families ripped apart (except by exile).
Seward describes the utter dehumanisation slavery meant, and of course with the small children sold off, the denial of the most basic ties between humans.
Since I didn't see the film and don't plan to, I don't know whether Django and Broomhilda experienced the horror of having their children stolen and sold away.
[spolier alert]
Lagatta, no they didn't, but the premise of the film is that they are each sold as punishment for getting married and Hilda's face is scarred so she can no longer work in a home and is reduced to a 'comfort girl' and Django is sold on the cheap cheap.
Oh, that is why they don't seem to have any children, when a slaver would most certainly NOT discourage slaves from bearing progeny - valuable commodities.
Ya. Their backstory isn't really well explained, except that he is the Seigfried to her Broomhilda, which is why Waltz's chooses to help him -- as a German he feels obliged and honoured to help a real life Seigfried.
A lot of people have wrote commentary about how Django and Hilda's relationship is really given enough weight, and I wonder if it is because you have to believe in their love and not see it? That old Hollywood type deal. Also, whether they have children is not directly stated, but I assumed not, and how long they have known each other isn't stated either from what I remember.
I think the film maybe could have benefitted from 20mins of backstory for them, but maybe not. A half-read a really long article on the movie that made reference to the original script, and I think it might have had more details there.
Well, there's a campaign right now about the "R-word", which is "retard" or "retarded" used as an insult. I'd say that there are actually TWO "f-words", one being "fuck" and the other being "faggot". So that makes it hard to even know what someone is talking about if they mention that someone used "the f-word".
Though the "n-word" is obviously a lot more controversial. People will say "fuck" and "bitch" and "cunt" all teh time but will hesitate like made before saying "nigger" and avoid articulating the word like the plague.
I find the whole "refusing to say a word" (like the guy interviewing Samuel L. Jackson) completely ridiculous. We all know what the word is. Avoiding saying it doesn't erase the concept. Like I always find it weird when a newspaper or magazine is quoting someone who cursed and will print something like "Dick Cheney told the senator to 'Go f--- himself.'". Like, okay, we know that F followed by a bunch of random dashes means "fuck". If you're gonna put the idea of "fuck" into the story, just go ahead and say "fuck" instead of the dashes, cause it's the same f---ing thing at the end of day.
There's a huge difference between calling someone a slur or referring to someone by a slur than there is in discussing a slur, quoting a slur, etc. I'm Jewish. If someone calls me a "kike", we're gonna have a problem. If someone wants to discuss the entymology of the word, quote the word, etc. fine. Have at it. You don't need to call it "the K-word"
Or if someone makes a movie featuring an anti-Semitic character who uses the word or insults Jews, etc. , fine. It's either a historical representation or it's a fictional narrative. Quentin Tarrantino's last movie "Inglorious Basterds" dealt with Nazis and there were lots of swastikas in the movie. Is the swastika an offensive symbol? Of course it is. But there's a big difference between a bigot spray painting one on my family's front door than with a director using it in a movie about Nazis, who used it as their symbol.
The Root magzine has a long interview between Tarantino and Henry Louis Gates jr.
http://tinyurl.com/azaumh8
In that excerpt, they discuss the concept of a "white saviors". Haven't read much of it, the old attention span ain't up to it these days. The five pages there are just one part of the series.
The L Word
Do you mean "lesbian"? That is only insulting if used by a homophobe to denigrate gay women, or women ASSUMED to be lesbians because of their dress, behaviour (athletic, etc.) Or by some macho ijut to a random woman who doesn't want to sleep with him...
The slang "lezzie" is derogatory, and I've never heard lesbians use it in the positive way I've heard gay men use "fag" or LGBTQ people use - and reclaim "queer".
Obviously we have different slurs in French...
The L Word is the name of a TV show, which is why the words were capitalized.
No the mods don't allow that offensive slur and your above post has been modified as such. As the referenced post, it is in regards to a bigger issue that the moderators are working on and the posts will reflect that.
Please don't be antagonistic with names and language. Also, please don't assume everyone is aware of pop culture references and receive and treat reactions as such. Thanks.
And as a fun fact, the L word was primarially filmed in Vancouver and the ladies used to come into the restaurant I worked in all the time. They are super pretty.
A lot of the scenes were filmed in the HEU building which means the show helped that, mostly female, union's bottom line.
Careful!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrvDwIw5is
Yes. Portlandia always nails it.
Sometimes when I talk I feel like this, but I just generally don't have thoughts of my own.
Okay, let's move on from the Portlandia and tv references back to the Django, N-word, and how we talk about racism stuff
.
Here is an interesting live discussion on Huffpo via Racialious surrounding Janell Ross' “America’s Understanding of Emancipation Proclamation On Its 150th Anniversary Too Simple For Country’s Own Good.” They are discussing initally the idea that lots of American's believe racism has been solved because of things like the Emanicipation Proclamination (because slavery is done! no), there is a black president etc; but that 400+ years of systematic racism and slavery cannot be solved by one moment, one day, one year.
Cross posted with you . THis should sort out the chronology:
(edit)
I can see how this movie revived this language debate, but even from some of the articles posted here, the problems some have are as much to do with attitudes and expectations as with the language.
In any case, I don't see the debate over what is acceptable and not acceptable language being resolved anytime soon, because there are no rules that everyone can agree on, even within so-called progressive camps. And it's not going to be solved by banning words anyway.
From what I have watched already it is really well moderated and discussed, and serves to debunk a lot of the historical inaccuracies around slavery and freedom as well as present day issues and concerns with racism.
Ya, there needs to be understanding of the implications of language and the history behind words. Words change intent based on the user, and also provide subcontext sometimes regardless of intent.
I think the n-word falls under the category of 'reclaimed words' much like the f-word seems to try to fit into that category.
Also, I think a lot of people who use the above statement as an argument of reverse-racism (guh) need to check their privilege, ya know.
.. and the fact that there are philosophical differences regarding many different aspects of what is and is not acceptable. Not everyone sees those words as reclaimed.
Not to mention what is and is not possible, and the effectiveness of education as opposed to banning. Personally I don't think it is a given that everyone, having the same understanding and experience, is going to come to exactly the same conclusions about this.
Django Unchained might seem obviously problematic (to some) in that it is satirical. I think the lines might be a bit different in the debate as it applies to To Kill a Mockingbird, and not just the fact that much of that debate centred around letting it into schools. I have read strong arguments on both sides of that issue.