Quentin Tarantino: Slave Profiteer

An exercise in good clean fun or repellent bad taste?

Yeah, I thought I was over and done with Django Unchained, but apparently Django Unchained isn’t done with me yet.

Tell me Quentin Tarantino has the right to make any movie he wants to make and I’ll agree with you (though if he decides to remake Birth of A Nation I’m gonna have a problem with it).

Tell me you agree with Q.T. when he says, “When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either. I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.”  I won’t agree with you, but I’ll concede you and Q.T. have a right to your opinion (though how the storytelling in Django Unchained “rings true” escapes me).

You can even tell me Django is a masterpiece, isn’t supposed to be historically accurate because really, nothing else is either and we should be happy to see so many  Black folks getting work and getting paid to get their asses whipped and fed to dogs.

I’ll even agree with some of that.

“Okay, so maybe slave action figures wasn’t my best idea…”

What I WON’T agree with is I was wrong about my original contention that Quentin Tarantino is a race hustler who thinks he has a ghetto pass to say and do whatever he wants in his depictions of Black people because he’s a hip White guy.   Art is supposed to be provocative, but this is simply exploitative.   Selling slaves as action figures is some SICK-ASS SHIT and you do it only for one reason.  The same reason slavery was put in place:  PROFIT.

Consider the possibilities.  Little kids can play Calvin J. Candie and make Django and Stephen “Mandingo fight” or act like they’re selling Broomhilda or strip her naked and throw her in  just call them “nigger” all day long.   Sic the dogs on that lazy slave’s ass or whip ’em into line.   The possibilities are endless!

This is not bad taste.  It’s not even poor taste. It’s exploitative junk. You’ve heard of war profiteers? This is slave profiteering.  Quentin Tarantino might not sell Black human beings into bondage, but for $54.99,  he’ll sell you a toy of one.    Everybody plays the fool sometime but only a complete fool support a race mercenary who pimps the oppression of an entire race for a buck.

Malcolm X  wasn’t a film critic but he was highly skeptical of the benevolence of well-meaning White folks when he said,  “I’ve never seen a sincere white man, not when it comes to helping black people. Usually things like this are done by white people to benefit themselves. The white man’s primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man’s interest is to make money, to exploit.”

Malcolm  was wrong in lumping all Whites as being motivated by selfish self-interest and he wasn’t thinking specifically of a cheap race hustler like  Tarantino when he made those remarks.

But he could have been.

Too late for Xmas, but right on time for birthday gift-giving.

13 thoughts on “Quentin Tarantino: Slave Profiteer

  1. Myself,I had already was suspicious of the movie.Spike Lee was correct overall and a lot of black people said the dumb statement about him ” Oh he just hating ” or this
    one ” he just jealous because he did not think of it ”
    Another lady made comparison saying has anybody come out with dolls relating to the jews and their holocaust. Her and a few others said they would not let somebody get away with it.
    This slave doll madness is just as bad the slave ankle gym shoes.
    Now ,when somebody get even madder and then decide to do something.
    We will know who lit the fuse to get it all started


  2. Awesome fictional film with oustanding acting and great themes to chat afterwards with others. I can’t wait to see Spike’s take on a slavery revenge film.

    Now with regard to the Django Action Figures Great idea I wish I owned this license and marketing rights!I wish when my kids were young I could have bought these items instead of nonsense like ninja turtles, my little pony, black barbie dolls etc..

    For years Black faces were on products such as Uncle Ben’s Rice to Aunt Jemima’s Syrup etc.Our images reflected excellance and a superior product and sevice!!

    Images of Black slave figures are great conduits for us to educate and informed our children while we elevate them with the truth and reality about life in this place we call America.

    When I was in Detroit I was an advocate for Rosa Parks dresses, shoes, etc..I was an advocate for all of icons to be marketed not just for our kids but for whites but other people of color as well.

    It makes no sense not to market our history, our pain and struggle should not just be a footnote or a photograph just for the rich and ruling class!!
    Our legacy is an asset and Our imgages have value and currency and we should take this historical capital and exploit thier value in the marketplace!


      • He must be and maybe he thinks the money is real too.
        When he talks about value and it being exploited.
        He seems to forget how much money is owed to china for those bonds.
        The images he talk about have made other people rich and the black people where they came from are poor,broke,unemployed and homeless.
        Right to this day Famous Amos cookies are not owned by him the guy who created them.
        So this person is kinda nuts with this idea
        I wonder would he buy and give some kids an uncle tom doll and tell hem to go play game called plantation


  3. Pingback: ‘Django Unchained’ Action Figure Stokes Debate |

  4. Pingback: Django Action Figures: “Oh, No, They Didn’t!” «

  5. Pingback: OCG

  6. Tell me you agree with Q.T. when he says, “When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either. I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.”

    Well, let me parse Tarantino’s statement.

    “When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling…” Who is the “you” for whom Tarantino claims nothing in the storytelling of Roots rings true? He is substituting his opinion about the storytelling for the opinion of… the person he is talking to?… every person? In the first case, I cannot say that I agree with Tarantino because I don’t know the opinion of the person he is talking to; indeed, I don’t even know who he is talking to. In the second case, his statement is absurd and obviously incorrect.

    “…none of the performances ring true for me either.” Since this is (finally) clearly Tarantino’s opinion, I cannot tell you that I agree with him. He is of course entitled to his opinion on the performances in Roots, but the opinion of a White screenwriter and director in Hollywood is hardly the last word on the authenticity of the performances in Roots.

    “…I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time.” Since Tarantino is a screenwriter and director of some 20 years experience, his statement is in bad faith in several ways. Roots was not intended to show or express “everything about that time.” Every movie oversimplifies–that is the nature of movies and indeed storytelling. As you point out, the storytelling in Django Unchained doesn’t cover “everything about that time,” and it of course oversimplifies. (It also makes things more complex–straining the audience’s suspension of disbelief by the contrivance of a female slave who speaks German, just so Tarantino can inject some Wagner references into his screenplay). The last piece of bad faith involves Tarantino’s arrogance–by saying that the makers of Roots “oversimplified… everything about that time,” Tarantino applies that he knows more about that time than the filmmakers behind Roots did. I do not believe that he does.

    “It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.” Again, this is Tarantino’s opinion, and I do not agree. But what specifically did Root’s claim to be that, in Tarantino’s opinion, it failed to achieve? He does not say, and I believe he does not say because he actually does not know. He is, in the words of a great entertainer (something Tarantino will never be, in my opinion), “Talking loud and saying nothing.”

    So Tarantino may have a right to his opinion, but he has no right to ascribe his opinion to others by use of the second person pronoun, nor does he have the right to make statements in bad faith.


  7. These dolls basically are reducing the pain,misery oppression and exploitation of slavery to some type of plastic comedy,joke scenario right in the faces of many black people who are caught up in this being some great entertaining movie.
    I wonder how would any parent in a real honest way explain the house slave uncle tom doll to some kids.


Don't Be Shy...Leave A Comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s