D'Jango Unchained: Nigger, Do What You Feel

D'Jango Unchained has to be one of the most divisive films in recent memory. For every negative comment pertaining to the script, content, and premise there's an opposite or indifferent point of view. No matter the stance, it seems a constant to look down upon those that do not agree with the writer's opinion.

It seems that whenever there's an issue to be addressed concerning the nature of Black America, the elite Blacks come out with their dictionaries to explain why everyone should pay homage to the plight of the Black man in America. Multi-syllable words are use to educate the educated on the complexities of the Black American experience. It would seem as if these experts in Blackness are convinced that the race lacks diversity of thought and are motivated by one goal only.

Since the beginning of Black history, we have always sought out different means to an end just as with this D'Jango issue. Look at the "Black leaders" of throughout history. Marcus Garvey was convinced that the aim of the Blacks was to move back to Africa. Malcolm X felt that the Black man should demand respect and equality "by any means necessary." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. felt that the best approach to equality would be achieved through nonviolent persistence. These are only 3 views during post-slavery America; all had a following. Logically, one can deduce that Blacks were torn on a "best practice" to gaining respect and equal treatment. Why should today be any different?

This brings me to today's debate. Spike Lee's stance is somewhat respectable considering that he is a film maker who is tasked with putting ass into seats. He may not want to compromise his view of cinematic quality (although that is highly unlikely) to sell movie tickets. It is the nature of business to shun the success of competitors to increase profitability. In true Negro Highlander fashion, key Blacks took sides in order to fire shots at one another. This trickled down through the masses of individuals throughout the race. Some debates can be considered of intellectual value while others are just as this post, menial and insufficient. Either way, no one wins, and many lose.

The movie is offensive to our ancestors. Oh really? We have constantly been lead to believe that our ancestors are these strong willed individuals that stood for right and good; they were wrongfully oppressed; true, but that does not automatically make each one of them this figure of virtue. In our own families, we have relatives that have no interest in carrying the torch for the Black man in the ongoing struggle for fair treatment. There are those in our society today that could give two fucks about how their actions impact the way their race is viewed. It's no secret that there were those that lacked the will to pursue independence after the chains of slavery were lifted. They clung to the old system because they were conditioned that way. Even though this is an effect of the divisive destruction of the institution of slavery, it permeates down into our culture today. These weakened people did not die off; their legacy has been passed on; therefore, they are our ancestors also. How offended can one be of an institution that he/she was afraid to leave?

The term "nigger/nigga/niggar" is too much in the movie. First, I find it hard pressed to tell any tale of slavery where the word is not used. Beyond that, it seems that Blacks own the right to the slur. Racism exists in more ways than a word; why are pro-Blacks so hell bent on taking this obvious proof of the hypocrisy of American tradition? A country that was founded upon the principles of freedom for all men as long as that man is of European background and of the lighter shade is known for spewing such a word at men, women, and children who have the same anatomical features but with darker skin tones. The same country that fought to be free from a "tyrant" decided to consider these people as property. A country that sought to be the great by expanding from one ocean to another but could not accept the fact that 60% of slaves were considered as part of the population for representation purposes even though they had no civil rights. This country that prides itself on being the greatest on the face of God's green Earth cannot even come together to accept the fact that half-Black half-White man, who won a seat to the executive office by the means drawn up in the Constitution, is capable of doing his job sole based on the color of his skin. This great land that is known for Truth, Justice, and the American Way is also the home to the word "NIGGER." Am I the only one that sees the beauty in that?

As for the people that are proponents for the film, please allow those that have an opposing view have their opinions. For wrong, right, or ridiculous, it just an opinion. There's no need to convince someone to see a movie that they have prejudice against; I contend that there will be nothing said or viewed that will change their minds. There are also people that have no stance on the topic; they may or may not venture into a theater to see for themselves. Enjoy the damn movie, and quit seeking out people to debate over the historical inaccuracies, script writing, and so on and so forth. Everything is not made to be consumed by everyone. Outside of basic scientific needs, everything is extra credit.

As I rush to my close, I can't say that this movie offended my ancestors. I'm quite sure they were enslaved, but I cannot say that beyond a reasonable doubt. It's likely that my bloodline was never in bondage although slightly likely. I love how all these niggas are certified genealogist just because they put together a family tree that goes back more than two generations. For all you know, your great-great-great-great grandpappy was a masta blowin', dirty mackin', backstabbin' nigga hater or like Stephen.

I digress. Carry on with the useless banter that fuels my life. 


Hey Spike, didn't you have Samuel calling a group of college kids a bunch of muthafuckas at a chicken joint in School Daze? He didn't call them nigga so I guess it's cool.

Where was all this back and forth following "Stinkmeaner Strikes Back" episode of Boondocks? Is it because Aaron McGruder is Black? I guess that's why Red Tails got a pass too.

Speaking of Boondooks, isn't D'Jango Unchained a spaghetti western take on the Catcher Freeman story with a twist?

Diversity of Thought

Warning: This post will ask you to question everything you have ever been taught. The subject is very sensitive among many, and if you are a defensive type, please do not take this the wrong way. This is not a case of shaken Faith but one of someone noticing what's really going on.


Here's a dream I had recently:

There were seven influential individual that were viewed as good an wholesome people. For the most part, they were friends and worked together to solve their problems, overcome enemies, and support the weak. One by one, they all began to be influence by their own interests. Although they acted as individuals rather than a team, I considered their actions to still be in line with the original goal of the group.

 I observed how the main enemy actually represented a neutral view rather than wickedness that I once believed through my interaction with the friends. Slowly, I began to notice how the group never overcame any problems but pushed their issues on to others. I finally saw that they were not supporting the weak but ostracizing people that did not share the same motivations as these seven friends. The divide among the members continued to show the truth in the character of each as well as their good intentions.

 The end of the dream contained images of a war and the bodies of fighters as well as civilians that were considered as collateral damage. Context clues would suggest that the individuals were world leaders of sort. The enemy they fought was the idea of personal freedom and was represented by a woman draped in a navy blue from head to toe only revealing her mouth. The casualties that I witnessed were not faceless souls but people that I have known or know in life. I jumped up as the images of destruction continued to flood my mind.

 I wish I could understand my dreams and their origins on most nights. This particular one came rather easy through images and the dialog that I recall. The clues that led me to understand that the friends were world leaders also introduced me to the idea that their friendship was rooted in a religious belief. The growth and interpretation of that belief is what caused to act on individual goals. I found it interesting once I gather my thoughts because I went to sleep thinking about ways to convey this thought.

I have been raised to know that only one way of living is the "right" way to live. There is only one "true" believe. All others will not grant one happiness. Throughout life, I have noticed how that one way is viewed from so many different angles and that only one of these angles are actually correct though. This one tree of life has sprouted many branches, only one of which will grant the Perfect Fruit, and has many roots, only one of which was sprouted from the original Seed. 

During my Papa Smurf phase, there was this one particular church that was a pillar of influence in my small community. The day came that the long time pastor stepped down, and the members were faced with the decision of finding a replacement. There two major opinions for the future of the institution that could not be resolved to the point that a whole new church was established. What could be so unresolvable that would cause people to invest their time, money, and effort (none of which will have much tangible return) on such an undertaking? Pride? Dignity? Faith?

I have lived in the Bible Belt for most of my life, and the one consistent fact is that there are churches everywhere. No matter how scarce the population, it is not uncommon to see multiple places of worship within a few miles of one another. All seek to worship The Almighty while remaining open to new souls. Each church was founded on a particular set of principles and may be governed a central body. One may ask why are there so many different institutions serving the same purpose in such small communities; the answer to which is the interpretation of teachings. Some people try to downplay this diversity of thought, but the differences are enough to poke holes in the belief structure of the religion altogether.

As time passes and people die, few will remember the beginnings of the institutions and will romanticize the motivations of the founders when in actuality those emotions were rooted in a difference of opinion that could not be resolved. My mind cannot help but make the jump to the formation of organized religion on a holistic level. The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic views of worship are so similar that they can all be separated by a simple difference of opinion by a close group of friends who became influenced by personal goals. The translation of ancient languages can easily be shifted to support these difference. People often glaze over this fact all while perpetuating that this is a game of everlasting life vs. eternal damnation. Siding with the wrong side could be soulfully fatal; being neutral is just as bad. 

These games of opinions have made people put their mortal lives at stake as they have been used as a driver of wars. These lives have been sacrificed to support a diversity of thought because in some cases, they are afraid to develop their own or challenge the status quo. Here's something to think about...What if we're all wrong (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc) about what is expected of us?  That's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.