Support NeoGAF

[TelemachusD]

Actually, I believe the Dutch own it. Iirc nigger comes from 'nikker', which was a curse word for 'neger', a valid and non-offensive term for black people in general.

Actually the Romans own it. 'Niger'--pronounced exactly like the n-word--is the masculine Latin adjective for 'black'. Used as a substantive noun it means black man. That particular combination of sounds denoted a black male over 2 millennia ago, and all the similar terms in other languages derive from it. (The modern connotation is not that old obviously.)

 

[Jado]

It's less a racist problem with Hollywood, and more of a "what demographic do we need to represent to make the most money". It is a business after all, and while what you say does happen, I don't think it has the malevolence that you ascribe to it. It's the same reason why silly love stories are shoehorned into action movies. They want as many people (including women) to see it as possible. Yes, it may be silly, but that's how that business works.

Hollywood may do the white savior/white co-lead thing for financial reasons, but try asking yourself why the demographic demands it in the first place (or why non-white characters are occasionally whitewashed for this demographic?) and why they cave in to such demands rather than change the trend with all the storytelling power they hold. We can't do a movie with two black leads. Why? Money. What of it? They won't pay to see it. Why? ...


It goes back directly to racism. The demographic only chooses to accept prominently featured blacks in roles in which they either need to be rescued, reformed, educated, or assisted in some way by whites to kick things off and finally accomplish anything (see Django, The Help, plus other examples below).

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/09/the-10-lamest-white-savior-movies/

In this very thread, we have people throwing excuses left and right how a black character in an otherwise completely fictional, ridiculous over-the-top story (1 vs. 20 shootout!) could pull off rescuing himself and exacting his revenge without the help of a prominently featured white character. It has nothing to do with Tarantino being unable to craft a Schultz-less (or reduced role) story, and everything to do with audience expectations that a white actor be featured prominently somewhere/anywhere on screen as co-hero.

 

[MrHicks]

tarantino's fued with spike lee is hilarious
spike is such a tard

 

[harSon]

tarantino's fued with spike lee is hilarious
spike is such a tard

Tarantino made the dumbest comment out of the two, claiming that Roots was inauthentic in defense of his own film's authenticity in regards to the era.

 

[Jackben]

Tarantino made the dumbest comment out of the two, claiming that Roots was inauthentic in defense of his own film's authenticity in regards to the era.

Spike just loves to get up in arms about this shit for the attention it brings from the press and Tarantino thinks he's the second coming of Christ in directorial form. There isn't a bigger Tarantino fan than Tarantino himself. But I think we all already know this.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Spike just loves to get up in arms about this shit for the attention it brings from the press and Tarantino thinks he's the second coming of Christ in directorial form. There isn't a bigger Tarantino fan than Tarantino himself. But I think we all already know this.

He is

 

[MisterNegative]

He is

No.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

How can you make a movie about African-American slavery and not use that word? It's one thing to say Tarantino used the word gratuitously, it's another thing entirely to say he can't use it at all.

I think this guy and Spike Lee are just upset because they didn't think of this movie idea themselves.
They want to be the ones making movies about black heroes, I'm sure, not some white guy. It's understandable - but also racist - which is why they're using another excuse to attack the movie.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

How can you make a movie about African-American slavery and not use that word? It's one thing to say Tarantino used the word gratuitously, it's another thing entirely to say he can't use it at all.

I think this guy and Spike Lee are just upset because they didn't think of this movie idea themselves.
They want to be the ones making movies about black heroes, I'm sure, not some white guy. It's understandable - but also racist - which is why they're using another excuse to attack the movie.

They're upset because they have a sense of entitled racism themselves. Fuck them and fuck the word they get their panties all bunched up over.

 

[Slayven]

How can you make a movie about African-American slavery and not use that word? It's one thing to say Tarantino used the word gratuitously, it's another thing entirely to say he can't use it at all.

I think this guy and Spike Lee are just upset because they didn't think of this movie idea themselves.
They want to be the ones making movies about black heroes, I'm sure, not some white guy. It's understandable - but also racist - which is why they're using another excuse to attack the movie.

I bet Vegas money that Spike has been wanting to do a slave movie for years but unable to get funding. Cause Hollywood ain't about that.

 

[Usul]

I don't really see how you can "own" a word. No pun intended.

 

[creationtheory]

True equality means no special status for anyone on any issue. Nobody 'owns' a word. Crimes shouldn't be classified as 'hate' crimes. There should be no affirmative action.

 

[TriniTrin]

From now on, tacos are MY WORD. NO ONE BETTER BE SAYING TACOS! BECAUSE ITS MY WORD, ONLY PEOPLE LIKE ME CAN SAY IT!

Lee Daniels, You are too sensitive and an idiot...

 

[Slayven]

True equality means no special status for anyone on any issue. Nobody 'owns' a word. Crimes shouldn't be classified as 'hate' crimes. There should be no affirmative action.

Not going to happen in our lifetimes.

 

[Enzom21]

True equality means no special status for anyone on any issue. Nobody 'owns' a word. Crimes shouldn't be classified as 'hate' crimes. There should be no affirmative action.

So everything right now is truly equal?

 

[timetokill]

You can't own a word any more than you can own a person.

 

[creationtheory]

So everything right now is truly equal?

Uh... what?

 

[Infinite]

Uh... what?

Not sure what is confusing about what he's attempting to ask.

 

[creationtheory]

Not sure what is confusing about what he's attempting to ask.

The confusing part is why he's asking it.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

So everything right now is truly equal?

The human race is too stupid - it will never see true equality, unfortunately.

 

[Cagey]

True equality means no special status for anyone on any issue. Nobody 'owns' a word. Crimes shouldn't be classified as 'hate' crimes. There should be no affirmative action.

The confusing part is why he's asking it.

You do realize true equality would mean hate crimes and affirmative action do not need to exist.

Alternatively stated, in the absence of true equality, hates crimes and affirmative action are needed.

Right?

 

[Aquamarine]

The human race is too stupid - it will never see true equality, unfortunately.

Truer words have never been spoken. :-(

 

[soundscream]

True equality means no special status for anyone on any issue. Nobody 'owns' a word. Crimes shouldn't be classified as 'hate' crimes. There should be no affirmative action.

Yeah cause everything is on equal footing and there is nothing hindering minorities in this country.

 

[neorej]

You can't own a word any more than you can own a person.

I see what you did there.

 

[creationtheory]

You do realize true equality would mean hate crimes and affirmative action do not need to exist.

Obviously

Alternatively stated, in the absence of true equality, hates crimes and affirmative action are needed.

Right?

I disagree.

 

[Slayven]

Let someone named Django put his name on an application. His chances of getting hired would plummet.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Hollywood may do the white savior/white co-lead thing for financial reasons, but try asking yourself why the demographic demands it in the first place (or why non-white characters are occasionally whitewashed for this demographic?) and why they cave in to such demands rather than change the trend with all the storytelling power they hold. We can't do a movie with two black leads. Why? Money. What of it? They won't pay to see it. Why? ...


It goes back directly to racism. The demographic only chooses to accept prominently featured blacks in roles in which they either need to be rescued, reformed, educated, or assisted in some way by whites to kick things off and finally accomplish anything (see Django, The Help, plus other examples below).

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/09/the-10-lamest-white-savior-movies/

In this very thread, we have people throwing excuses left and right how a black character in an otherwise completely fictional, ridiculous over-the-top story (1 vs. 20 shootout!) could pull off rescuing himself and exacting his revenge without the help of a prominently featured white character. It has nothing to do with Tarantino being unable to craft a Schultz-less (or reduced role) story, and everything to do with audience expectations that a white actor be featured prominently somewhere/anywhere on screen as co-hero.

It is racist, but I don't think it's the kind of overt racism you are referring to here.
More so than probably anything else, it's an in-born psychological trait that we identify most closely with people who look the way we do.
Therefore to sell the most tickets it helps to have actors that reflect the majority.
If the populations of white and black were reversed you would see the same trend happening but with black actors taking the majority of roles.
Or do you deny that people naturally tend to associate themselves and their life experiences more readily with people of their own race?

 

[Cagey]

Obvously

I disagree.

Care to explain why you think those aforementioned programs that exist due to inequality are unnecessary when inequality exists?

 

[creationtheory]

Care to explain why you think those aforementioned programs that exist due to inequality are unnecessary when inequality exists?

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.
It's hypocracy to say 'I'm equal to everyone else so give me special treatment'.

 

[stufte]

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.

So doing nothing to shift the inequality will shift the inequality? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.

If the situation wasn't so bad they wouldn't have to resort to laws. Unfortunately some people are so fucking racist that without being forced to, they would never hire even a small percentage of black employees regardless of their qualities. It may not be fair to legislate who should and shouldn't be hired, but as an even more extreme example take China, where they have a one-child-only policy (limiting your reproductive rights) because their population problem demands a reaction from government before things get worse.

 

[Jackben]

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.
It's hypocracy to say 'I'm equal to everyone else so give me special treatment'.

I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. I say this with extreme restraint.

 

[creationtheory]

So doing nothing to shift the inequality will shift the inequality? Do I understand you correctly?

No you asked why I thought those programs shouldn't exist, not what I think would fix inequality.

 

[Onemic]

lol, this Lee Daniels dude is a dumbass

I somehow can also see this thread spiraling out of control and going into racist/ignorant bullshit down the line.

Edit: ...Guess it already has

 

[stufte]

It's hypocracy to say 'I'm equal to everyone else so give me special treatment'.

I don't think anyone is saying that. Like.. at all. No one is asking or receiving "special treatment". It's like saying that we should say FUCK YOU to those bound to wheelchairs when they ask for wheelchair ramps. It's not special treatment, it's inclusion. As a society we should all "just get along", but that's not how it works in real life.

And fuck the term "special treatment" I hear that term all the time when it's applied to the LGBT community. Mostly out of the mouths of assholes.

 

[Enzom21]

Uh... what?

What don't you understand? Is there still inequality(other than white people not being able to say nigger without consequence)?

 

[BIGWORM]

As a black person, I believe Daniels and Lee are overreacting, and that they've both missed the point of the movie. They need to get over themselves.

 

[Slayven]

As a black person, I believe Daniels and Lee are overreacting, and that they've both missed the point of the movie. They need to get over themselves.

I think they need to see how media playing them. No one wanted to talk to him about Red Hook Summer, but they were micced and ready for some Django shade.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

"Our word"? Wasn't it the white man who made up the word?

 

[OrlanisWorks]

lol, this Lee Danioels dude is a dumbass

I somehow can also see this thread spiraling out of control and going into raicst/ignorant bullshit down the line.

That's what I'm currently observing at the moment.

On the topic: He has the right to be offended and I have the right to not give a flying pig's ass. History was history. Why go to capture a part of the past and then avoid completely a very important theme that was present during that time? Django was telling a fictional tale in a non-fictional setting with plenty of non-fictional elements. One of those elements was the term "nigger", heavily involved with the belief that slaves aren't really people, and I honestly don't care who of what race wrote the script and used the terms. If you want to capture some of the reality the world experienced at some point, why the hell not go in with as much accuracy as you possibly can?
Avoiding the word would be like making Saving Private Ryan's D-Day landing without the blood and guts. It would lose much of its impact. Maybe not the perfect analogy, but hopefully you understand.

The guy can go ahead and be mad a Tarantino. He seems to be overreacting, but I don't give a shit.

 

[FStop7]

I heard an interview with Allen Hughes a few weeks ago in which he also expressed some displeasure over Django. I think he also mentioned something about Denzel Washington having said something to Tarantino about the way he threw around the word 'nigger' in Pulp Fiction.

 

[Camp Lo]

Our word, huh?

He can keep it. I don't mind.

 

[BIGWORM]

I think it's about time to start back-pedaling out of this thread...

 

[Cagey]

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.
It's hypocracy to say 'I'm equal to everyone else so give me special treatment'.

I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. I say this with extreme restraint.

Jackben is right.

creationtheory, I think you should read this book, for starters. You need perspective on how policies today that assist historically disadvantaged groups being demonized as "special treatment" in the "unfair" sense is utterly ridiculous.

When Affirmative Action was White, by Ira Katznelson.

EDIT: if books are too much..

 

[Htown]

Society needs to change but laws that underscore our differences aren't going to push us in the right direction.
It's hypocracy to say 'I'm equal to everyone else so give me special treatment'.

You do realize affirmative action programs attempt to level the playing field, not give special treatment, right?

 

[creationtheory]

You do realize affirmative action programs attempt to level the playing field, not give special treatment, right?

That's what it attempts to do. My main problem is that these policies are treating the symptom but not the cause. I'd rather see policies that incentivize multicultural neighborhoods, somehow discourage (criminalize?) indoctrinating your children with racism, provide headstart programs for every child. Those policies wouldn't provide any instant gratification but they aren't so short sighted.

 

[Ken Masters]

I don't really see how you can "own" a word. No pun intended.

Then go start using it then

 

[timetokill]

I see what you did there.

<3

 

[captainnapalm]

This thread appears to have morphed into a larger debate on racism and racial politics in general, and not whether Tarantino is in his rights to use the n-word or depict racism. These are really two completely separate issues.

 

[Jackben]

I think it is in Tarantino's right to use the word in the method he has chosen. But whomsoever uses it has to accept the responsibility and weight that goes along with it. Spike & Daniels think he has used it inappropriately and disrespectfully, which is also within their rights to believe. I think they are a bit misguided but considering this is Tarantino I'm also not surprised as he is somewhat of a cunt and has already said some dumb and completely unnecessarily inflammatory shit about it in his defense.

My question I suppose is how they would have approached the film (or if they would have attempted it at all) had they been in Tarantino's privileged position. I wish we had the opportunity to find out first hand rather than theorize but Hollywood is what it is. I feel like the underlying message here is that they are angry and disappointed they weren't given a chance to do this while Tarantino was and is flaunting it somewhat shamelessly which gives the vibe that he thinks Django is some kind of masterpiece of Civil Rights cinematography. It's very entertaining and has inspired some great dialogue but I feel like Tarantino will never get the reality check he sorely needs.