gradientlair:

Many Black men worship and argue in defense of Django Unchained because they perceive themselves (vicariously) through this film as finally having “equal” access to patriarchal power as White men, who patriarchal Black men ultimately admire, while being able to kill White men, who patriarchal Black men ultimately despise. This emotional and sociopolitical binary of admiring the power a White man has and how he uses it, but despising White men who oppress them and keep them from this power is what fuels the energy of the defense of this film that some Black men have. This same patriarchal power structure is what many Black men personally seek to emulate (or protect, when it already exists) among Black people, and have convinced themselves that it is liberating for us as a race, despite the fact that it clearly is not. (Such power requires domination over Black women through sexism and misogynist acts, and of course, disdain for all that is perceived as “feminine,” including gay Black men. I alluded to this in #5 of my post, 7 Attacks on Feminism). When Jamie Foxx champions this exact thing (i.e. mentioning getting to kill White people, when he was on Saturday Night Live), it moves such thoughts outside of film and into life, though such championing isn’t needed since cultural production already impacts life in a multitude of ways.

Kerry Washington has alluded to the fact that “Broomhilda” is a feminist role since Black women are denied the “femininity” of being a “damsel in distress,” instead of her seeing that it is most certainly sexism that fuels such a role, off screen and on screen, and it being denied to Black women while given to White women is a product of the hierarchy that White supremacy creates, but is still a sexist construction for White women. It is not feminist. (As I’ve mentioned before, Black women have to be careful about assuming acquiring a status or something that White women have as “feminist,” especially if it is STILL sexist, and only denied to us because of White supremacy.) However, instead of processing this “damsel in distress” role (and a “damsel in distress” is still “free” [despite being subject to sexism] not a slave; slavery complicates this construction even further) as the feminist empowerment that Kerry suggested, many Black men see it as the sexist role it is…and they like it. They see no womanly empowerment here. And, they are pleased.

“Django” becomes “free” and “equal” (and even the subject of “equality” is up for debate, as many essays on this film have clearly illustrated how it’s more of a White man “civilizing” the “brute” by teaching him a “manly” trade so that they can perform patriarchal masculinity and violence together; he’s still being “saved” amidst an unequal power dynamic) to White men in this film in some Black men’s minds, is able to exert “power” in the form of violence against White men, and the Black woman is still subservient, less than, and needs to be “saved.” If this isn’t a heterosexual patriarchal Black man’s fantasy come true, nothing is. They will not see this film as degrading. It’s their dream. They feel affirmed…heroic even. Heroism itself is usually a patriarchal construction.

It doesn’t matter how dangerous this is, how toxic, how ahistorical, how ludicrous, nor how disrespectful and grandiose Tarantino acts about this. His interviews (and I favoritied some tweets by @sisterprofessor revealing the sheer disgust of one of his interviews) about the film have been one sociopolitical car crash and White supremacist affirmation session after another. It doesn’t matter to these Black men who idolize this film. They see him making the film as White approval of Black men, which is what they desire, as they battle internalized White supremacy. They see “Django’s” actions as “equalizing” within the film, which is also processed as White approval. It doesn’t matter that the real White supremacist hierarchy that exists in the film is replicated in real life, as the White men in the film are slathered with award nominations and the Black cast is not. One Black male fan of the film even suggested to me that “anyone” could play the Black roles. He…didn’t see the problem with this suggestion when juxtaposed to the honors bestowed upon the White men in the film. This film is so critically important to Black men yet the characters that are Black are disposable, could be “anyone” and don’t deserve awards? Slave masters in films deserve awards. Slaves do not. Black men don’t see the parallels to life here? The worst part though? The Black men so eager for patriarchy’s version of “equality” on screen and off, literally defended the White performances as “Oscar-calibre” and the Black ones as not worthy. They…didn’t see a problem with this. White men didn’t have to convince them of a thing for this film; internalized White supremacist thought took over. This film is so powerful and affirming to them, “Django” is a hero to them, a Black man finally had patriarchal power, “equality” with White men, to both idolize and kill them, a Black woman was finally the subservient role they dream of…yet…no one Black deserved an award? (To be clear, this work isn’t award-worthy to me; I’m just stating its interesting how it’s so “transformative” for patriarchal Black men, yet they’re content with the actors being disposable and ignored, on top of the other problems with this film that I’ve mentioned.) They see no conflict with this. And this…is why this film is destructive….the most destructive I’ve encountered in a few years.

I previously said that I was done discussing this film as I wrote a rant about it a few weeks ago after I myself was attacked by Black men for not worshipping this film AND for critically thinking about media in general. But, I really had to think about the film on a deeper level and what creates the blind worship and loyalty to it by so many Black men, as more and more have attacked me over it. I’ve encountered Black women who insult anyone who critically thinks about media, in general, and specifically this film, but overall, it’s primarily been by Black men for this film. If Black men aren’t going to critically think about race and gender, let alone White supremacy and its impact on media AND are going fight to silence media critique, they’d be easily swayed and taken in by this film. This propaganda, collection of dysfunction and patriarchal ideation portrayed as a film is a soothing balm to unsatiated patriarchal desires that Black men have, finally fully realized on screen. It’s the power, the revenge against/”equality” with White men, and domination over Black women that they desire. Is it transformative and liberating to Black people though? NO.

Critically-thinking Black women and men shouldn’t be surprised by this, after all. I no longer am. Disgusted? Sure. Tired of White supremacist capitalist patriarchy and its intersection with Hollywood? Sure. Fully aware that some Black people believe that Black people should applaud what they think is White approval and also adamantly refuse to critically think about media? Sure. Even more aware that ignorant labels will be applied to Black critical thinkers, labels such as “pseudo-intellectual” or “fake militant” or “fake conscious” for daring to critique what a White man has made? Sure. (Some Black people seem to have zero problem with White people critiquing and disliking the film though, which of course is typical.) Aware that some Black people think telling some Blacks “well don’t see the film then!” means they think this propaganda film won’t affect culture itself? Sure. Aware that some will use the silencing tactic of “well make your own $100 million dollar film then!” as if even if I could, and did, this film’s issues wouldn’t evaporate? Sure. Surprised though? Nope.

I now expect the deep, oh so deep ignorance from some Black people that will read like: “who cares what you think, Tarantino is laughing all the way to the bank!” Well of course he is. White men have had hearty laughs at our expense for centuries. Even Black people who now create cultural products to also reaffirm White supremacy “laugh all the way to the bank” too. Interesting that our culture, our traditions, our experiences, our history, our families, our friends, our music, our marriages, our legacies, our love, are one big White supremacist capitalist patriarchal joke and honestly, I hear Black people laughing as hard and as loud as Whites are.

Don’t mind me though…I’m not laughing. Not at all.

This propaganda, collection of dysfunction and patriarchal ideation portrayed as a film is a soothing balm to unsatiated patriarchal desires that Black men have, finally fully realized on screen. It’s the power, the revenge against/”equality” with White men, and domination over Black women that they desire. Is it transformative and liberating to Black people though? NO.

Tarantino played to those very desires deliberately. I used to think Tarantino didn’t make this film with a black audience in mind, but now I’m confident he did. Tarantino scored the final plantation house shootout to Tupac for a reason. He named Broomhilda “von Shaft”for a reason. He crafted a film that he thought would appeal to those patriarichal fantasies that he thinks are cornerstones this black culture that he is so fascinated by.

So if any of that mess resonated with you, if you didn’t find any of it unsettling…

gradientlair:

1) As sob stories. I do not know the financial histories of the parents of any White Olympic athletes. Not one. For Black athletes, it seems that the media places it central to their bios…if they even get biography videos made of themselves (while many White athletes have them made, and they’re cycled over and over). I’ve watched so many interviews with White athletes after a win as well. Rarely is struggle/hardship alluded to and even accomplishments exterior to the Olympics are mentioned (i.e Matt Lauer reading off a laundry list of degrees/professions of the [all White] women’s rowing team who won gold versus mentioning their socioeconomic statuses or parents’ struggles.) Maybe absolutely no White athletes or their parents have ever had economic or familial struggles. Racial economic differences are large. However, there is still more to who Black athletes are than their parents’ paychecks. If we aren’t focusing on the wealth of White athletes then the poverty of Black ones need not be the core element of a bio or interview. The media is desperate to connect Black athleticism to muddling though poverty and “innate” physicality, and never the multitudes of things that makes Black athletes great. This isn’t to say that IF they’ve struggled, those experiences don’t matter or should be a source of shame. But if every Black bio is about a checkbook, it’s not a bio, it’s a balance sheet. Besides, I know the true reason why this is done—to set the place to invalidate the experiences of the everyday non-celebrity Black people with the sinister “well they won something despite being poor so why are you all complaining?” versus “why does poverty exist and how can it be alleviated to improve Black lives?” It’s a subversive way to promote racial/socioeconomic victim-blaming.

2) As “different” from other Black people. I view this form of enlightened exceptionalism as objectification and “othering.” They portray them as so different from the community and population that they are a part of and not as a way to truly praise them, but to diminish Blacks as a whole. (This actually applies to any Black public figure, not just Olympians.)

3) As followers or “weak-minded,” even when they succeed. The disgusting way the media has consistently tried to minimize and erase Gabby Douglas’ contributions (even when her scores soar) to US Women’s gymnastics has been well documented by many amazing bloggers, prior to her all-around GOLD MEDAL. After, that GOLD shines brighter to me than any garbage narrative perpetuated by an incompetent yet predictable sports media force.

4) As just another member of war torn countries. The NBC sports commentators’ prejudiced comments about various Arab nations, African countries and Asian countries during the Parade of Nations of the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics made me angry and distracted me from having a good viewing experience. They mentioned pestilence and war in these regions without mentioning how several European nations, especially the Olympic host countries of Great Britain, are historically responsible for much of it, and how the United States currently profits from it. It would have been fine to simply discuss…I dunno, the athletes? But no, painting brown people as savages as if war is arbitrary and not connected to a larger sociopolitical picture is much more fun for those who frolic through the fields of White privilege.

5) As “innately” physical (which connects to centuries old stereotypes of brutishness) versus as ones who also work hard and use the mental acumen of focus and strategy to contribute to their performances and competitive spirit. Sports are NOT just physical…for any athlete, of any race. It doesn’t matter what sport I watch, Olympic or not, the “natural” physicality (and objectification in relation musculature and size) of Blackness is central to any sports commentary. Rarely is Serena’s mental game that contributes to her success mentioned (as the obsession is ALWAYS about her physical power/size), yet it is always mentioned for White tennis players.

6) As de-sexualized, “masculine” and aggressive, for Black women athletes. John McEnroe made a disgusting comparison of Misty May Treanor and Kerry Walsh to Serena and Venus Williams, saying that the former “out classes” the latter. He also compared their wardrobes. THEY DO NOT EVEN PLAY THE SAME SPORT. Volleyball and tennis are not the same sport. Furthermore, in relation to skimpiness (which he mentioned), NOTHING anyone wears in tennis will ever be as skimpy as volleyball. The hyper-feminization of the volleyball stars because of their Whiteness conforming to Eurocentric ideals of beauty juxtaposed to the consistently negative racialized sexist perceptions that are hoisted on to the Williams sisters is a part of a consistent theme in sports (not that White women should even be applauding this hyper-sexualization). His comparison simply was not even needed in the conversation. The Williams’ aren’t the only ones to be portrayed this way. It’s common outside of the Olympics with Black women athletes.

7) As simply not as important as White athletes. Often even White failures are privileged over Black successes, in terms of media coverage time allotted, and the ways the narratives are shaped. Furthermore, Bob Costas (I despise him—condescension and White privilege are his favorite hobby and interest above sports it seems) tried to minimize Gabby Douglas being the FIRST Black female gymnast to earn an all-around Gold Medal. It IS a big deal. Very few Americans, even White, are in that club. IT IS A BIG DEAL. And, he tried to imply that social barriers have evaporated or if they exist, it’s only because how people (minorities) view themselves. (Yeah…it’s low self-esteem, not microagressions, institutionalized racism and overt racism that’s the biggest problem. Please. We most certainly are not past social barriers.) And of course, he had the disgusting smirk on his face (as he said this) that he has whenever he’s trying to be disrespectful in a subversive way. Truly disgusting. Remember 2008? That’s when the first Black President was elected. We are not that far or removed from Black firsts. There are many more to achieve and they will be given the respect and honor due to them by us, regardless of the resistance, White privilege and bigotry of the media. As I tweeted last night:

Gabby’s win makes the White privilege and incompetence-slathered NBC commentary worth dealing with.

— Trudy (@thetrudz) August 3, 2012

I am not able to watch LIVE feeds during the day, or I would look for a stream from another country to watch. I…honestly wish I could afford to attend Olympics. The commentary is only for TV viewers. I would love to see the excellence of these athletes LIVE, and WITHOUT the unnecessary veil of media incompetence, White privilege, and bigotry clouding the view and turning stomachs.

textbook.

(via ethiopienne)