Their reply is simple: “Tarantino is just trying to lay bare the grisly truths of slavery and the social and cultural norms of the time. And I know they sure as hell said ‘nigger’ bunches of times, so it makes sense that all the characters say ‘nigger’ bunches of times. He’s making us swallow a bitter pill all for our betterment.”
Of course, one might then wonder whether “motherfucker” was also a part of nineteenth-century Mississippi parlance, but no matter. I say let the “nigger” — happy whites like Tarantino have their fun. He’s just one of those kids in my American history class, once we got to discussing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in English. They always found the most the “nigger”-laden passages in the book to read aloud and each utterance had the word hurtling excitedly off their tongues.
It’s a shame, because the history of North Atlantic slave revolts offers up a lot of interesting material. Try this: “For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen.” That’s Boisrond-Tonerre, Jean-Jacques Dessalines’ aide. Tarantino certainly couldn’t write that. Nope, we just get a fairly lackluster ending instead. Django kills some more white folks, blows up the plantation house all by himself, and then does a little dressage on his pony before heading off with Broomhilda.
There’s nothing remotely Fanonist about any of the film’s violence. No suggestion of solidarity or collective action. Nope, just one nigger in ten thousand.
Recently read this article. It is very well written and I like whenever Tarantino is crucified for just being a cokehead racist scrambling to be considered an IDEA man.