Red

Red is the touch of the reaper,
and the kiss of a princess,
warm like blood,
but cool like ice,
the truth of death and the death of truth,
the setting sun and the rising moon,
the violin player and the reaper's song,
the Northern Wind and the Grapes of Wrath,
genocide and suicide.
It has the taste of blood as well as wine,
rotten meat as well as fresh.
It gives me the smell and feeling of death,
but red is also the color of life,
for each generation that comes and goes
another comes to take its place.
So red is not just the reaper's mug,
or the snow that covers the dead,
it is the core of why we are here,
it is life itself, or so I fear.

Setting the Tone of 1858

“They ain't never seen no nigga on no horse before.” That line perfectly sets the tone for the historical setting—pre-Civil War America—of Quentin Tarantino's 2012 film, Django Unchained. While the film does not contain any historical figures, it does an excellent job of portraying the time period. For example, throughout the film whites—with the exception Christoph Waltz's bounty hunter character—look down on Django because he is black. Though this does change somewhat when Django assumes the black slaver character, it is still subtly there. During the films time period a majority of whites in the south would have looked at blacks the same way, just as the previous generations had. The film does not touch on racism being taught; it might have felt out of place considering the plot.

One controversy the film has gathered is the repeated use of the word nigger. Film director Spike Lee is one of this aspects biggest critics, even though he admitted to not personally seeing the film. His criticism seems to come down to the fact that Tarantino is white; sadly, I feel that if Tarantino were black, Mr Lee would not have this problem. Personally, I feel the repeated use of the word fits the context of the period. Though I am sure not all of them used it, I find it hard to believe that plantation owners who figured themselves superior to their black slaves would not address them with the word nigger. To not even use the word once would be an insult to history.

I was surprised to see the study of Phrenology make in appearance in the film. Like the language, I felt it fit the context of not only the period, but of the character who brought it up. Calvin Candy is the archetypical southern plantation owner without being too stereotypical—partially due to Leonardo Dicaprio's outstanding performance. Calvin's monologue about Phrenology shows not only how twisted his mind is, but how far slave owners would go to justify their system. It is one thing to think hate, but it goes to another level when you try to justify it with biological science. I feel pity for the people who believed in Phrenology, and even more for those who still do.

Another controversy surrounds Samuel L Jackson's character, Stephen. In the context of the film he is the head house slave. Acting wise, the character comes off like the old happy slave, Uncle Toms Cabin stereotype. On the outside this might be offense, but after watching the film twice I noticed something about the character: the Uncle Tom routine is a facade. Twice during the film Stephen drops the act: once when he's talking to Calvin Candy in private, and once during the climax when only Django and himself are left in the house. From this, my interpretation is that Stephen is the evilest character in the film. He acts all joyous and over-the-top in front of the other slaves and plantation workers, but behind closed doors the real Stephen—one molded by his position and the slave system—emerges. Racism is bad, but self racism can be just as bad.  

“The United States—A Black business.”

The political cartoon I chose is entitled “The United States—A Black business.” It depicts two Americans—a northerner and a southerner—standing on opposite sides of a black male slave. The slave is holding a map of the United States, tearing it in half along the North-South border. Based on simple knowledge of United States history, one can see that the cartoon is satirizing the geographic and political boundaries of then present day America. The position of both men represent the North-South geographic positioning. The way each man is dressed helps the viewer identify which side they represent; the writing on the map helps even further. The tear in the map is a representation of the political friction between the two sides, the issue embodied in the slave; his position between the two men adds to this interpretation. The southerner is also holding a rifle—perhaps a reference to the south's honor system—almost like he is daring the North to take away or restrict slavery.

The satire makes more sense—and in an odd way is also funnier—when one reads documents from the time period. “The Insurrection” by William Lloyd Garrison—an article published in his magazine, The Liberator—and a private letter by James Henry Hammond to the Free Church of Glasgow are two examples. In his article, Garrison—in a break from the abolitionist tradition of his time—called for the immediate abolition of slavery. Garrison did not just blame the South for the institution; he blamed the nation as a whole. “Wo to this guilty land, unless she speedily repent of her evil doings. The blood of millions of her sons cries aloud for redress.” By allowing slavery, America was violating one of the main principles it was founded on: freedom. Only by abolishing slavery would the nation repent. Garrison also attacked his opponents who accused abolitionists of instigating slave rebellions. “The slaves need no incentives at our hands,” he said. “They will find them in their stripes—in their emaciated bodies—in their ceaseless toil—in their ignorant minds—in every field, in every valley, on every mountain top.” Slaves did not need to hear the speeches of abolitionists in order to desire freedom; their treatment under the institution was inspiration enough. Abolitionist words merely stoked an existing fire.

Hammond was Garrison's polar opposite: a public defender of American Slavery. This comes across clearly in his June 1844 letter, as well as his justifications for the institution. Hammond claimed that giving slaves their freedom was a terrible idea, comparing their current condition with that of the poor people of Britain. “Can you say that this sort of freedom—the liberty to beg or steal—to choose between starvation and a prison—does or ought to make him happier than our slave...” Hammond argued that American Slaves were better off under the institution than the free people living in Britain. Even if their destiny was out of their hands, American Slaves did not have to worry about food or a place to live, something a lower-class British subject would. Freedom would merely be a burden to a Slave. Near the end of his letter, Hammond also compared the condition of a slave with their free counterpart living in Africa. “Look at the negro in Africa—a naked savage—almost a cannibal, ruthlessly oppressing and destroying his fellows...see him here—three millions at least of his rescued race—civilized, contributing immensely to the subsistence of the human family, his passions restrained, his affections cultivated, his bodily wants and infirmities provided for, and the truth religion of his Maker and Redeemer taught him.” Here is where Hammond's belief in racial superiority shines through, as well as the American-European belief in cultural superiority. By his logic, a black has to be enslaved in order to realize his or her full potential. Slavery brought them culture; before that they were no better than chimpanzees.

Garrison and Hammond each represent the majority view on slavery in both areas of the United States. This clash of polar opposite viewpoints is represented by the tear on the map, a tear that only continued to grow and eventually resulted in Southern Secession and the American Civil War.