harleyslayjetson t1_j2bynx7 wrote
He wasn’t Fredrick Douglass or John brown but killing that man slavers and blowing up a plantation. That’s direct action baby
Papaofmonsters t1_j2bztgg wrote
Not if it's personal rather than political.
harleyslayjetson t1_j2c5co8 wrote
Hypothetically, if you were enslaved by Calvin candie what difference does it make of his killer did it for personal or political reasons. You free
Papaofmonsters t1_j2c9795 wrote
That doesn't make it "direct action" either. Their freedom is a matter of circumstances beyond their influence or control. Direct action is a political term and Django didn't have an agenda beyond revenge.
spareparts91 t1_j2du9rk wrote
Bro, how does it feel to say the correct answer but immediately contradict yourself and say it's wrong?
Papaofmonsters t1_j2dv6dr wrote
Because I know the definition of direct action and it doesn't include killing people for personal revenge. It has an inherently political element which is lacking from Django's actions.
spareparts91 t1_j2dvzqs wrote
Did he kill Calvin Candie? Directly? Did he burn down the plantation? Directly? Can people have primary goals and secondary goals too? Can you set out to do one thing have just happen to get to accomplish a second unseen goal? Did Django set out to end slavery all together? No of course not, but when the opportunity to end it for a few appeared in front of him... As everyone has stated before it's a revenge movie about a guy trying to save his wife... And get revenge. What's the thing he's trying to to get revenge for? Oh that's right, the whole slavery thing.
Papaofmonsters t1_j2dx6gk wrote
If I rob an armored car and in the process people are able to grab money floating around that doesn't mean it was political act to return money to the people from the bank. I just wanted money.
Django didn't give a shit if one slave escaped from Candieland outside of him and his wife. Sure he killed Candie and Steven but there are dozens if not hundreds of white overseers still on the property to keep the rest of the slaves in line.
spareparts91 t1_j2dxxws wrote
Cope
Papaofmonsters t1_j2dycib wrote
Cope with what? That I actually understand the film's narrative and the character's motivation? Look, it's not like they killed Big Daddy for political reasons either. They killed him because he was actively trying to kill them.
spareparts91 t1_j2dzlwa wrote
Lmao, does Django have to stop murdering white supremacists to look at the camera and say "slavery is wrong. I'm going to end it with a gun". You're a fucking clown for trying to assert that Django is completely fine with slavery. Anything you say to imply this is just proof you're arguing in bad faith. Do you just not want one of the themes of the movie to be slavery is bad? Are you bending over this far backwards to make this argument for some other reason?
Papaofmonsters t1_j2e0745 wrote
Slavery being bad is not the topic of discussion. It's about whether or not what Django was doing was direct action.
I'm not saying he's fine with it. I'm saying he doesn't care beyond getting his wife and getting the hell out of Dodge.
Human trafficking is bad, but in Taken Brian Mill's sole objective is to get his daughter back.
spareparts91 t1_j2e1qg1 wrote
No, you're the one arguing about direct action. The thread is "is Django an abolitionist" you're twisting the argument again and again to fit you're belief. Can I ask you this.
When the movie is done is Django's wife free? She is still property. He just killed her owners but someone else would just claim ownership. All of those slaves Django doesn't free but let's go peacefully; why? Their witnesses to his crime of murder and theft. If his goal is ONLY to save his wife and get out of doge as you claim, then why leave witnesses? Why let himself be known?
Using Brian mills from taken is such a disingenuous connection. Did Brian mills grow up as a human trafficking victim? Did he spend 30+ years being brutally abused in every way a human can be, only to have the chance to confront one of him and his wife's abusers? You're acting as if slavery doesn't play into the story about slaves killing their masters. If slavery had nothing to do with the story then why set the story in the south, during slavery, from a slaves perspective?
Maybe you're right. I'm stupid and you're smart. You understand film themes and I watch pretty colors.
Papaofmonsters t1_j2e2cuf wrote
>When the movie is done is Django's wife free? She is still property. He just killed her owners but someone else would just claim ownership.
Candie sells her to Schulz.
>Their witnesses to his crime of murder and theft. If his goal is ONLY to save his wife and get out of doge as you claim, then why leave witnesses? Why let himself be known?
Do you expect him to murder everyone on the plantation?
spareparts91 t1_j2e3a4g wrote
If his goal is to get out of dodge, than YES! You would leave no witnesses.
Dude, his goal is to save his wife from what again? From being a slave. Django was unchained from what again? Being a slave. Did he accomplish his goal directly or indirectly?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments