Well what would he do?
In order to really know the answer you must watch the movie. Django Unchained will probably go down in
history as a “cult classic,” despite the reckless and wanton violence portrayed
during a time when the nation and the world could use a little peace. I’m not mad at the violence in Django this
violent behavior is not new in America.
America has never had a history of peace so there is no need to start
adopting a peaceful persona when the discussion of slavery arises. The fact is that slavery was brutal and
painful and not nearly as fun in practice as the few scenes of laughter
integrated into Tarantino’s film. The
violence is and was raw, naked and unrestrained in its description as well as
its practice.
I’m so afraid that young people will get this idea in their
heads without critically thinking about What Django would have done. Personally I believe it is an attempt to draw
minorities in to their own demise. White
people know what Django did if they watched the movie. Channeling such an epic episode in history is
not just dangerous for them. It is
dangerous for minorities more. Who the
hell do you think will be, “shot down in the street like a dog,” if the
presence of a gun is even SUSPECTED. Who will go to jail and ultimately lose
their right to bear arms FIRST should the letter of the law not be
followed? History is our teacher with
respect to those questions.
Yes black people were chained together and families were
split apart! Yes married people in love
were forced to watch each other being sold, beaten and raped. Newly freed black people in fact did try and
find loved ones after they gained freedom from their captors. Husbands searched for wives, mothers for
children. Some with success, others were
not so fortunate. Family is a central
part of the African experience. The new
things we witness with regards to father’s not being in the lives of their
children are problems and issues forced on black people rather than the status
quo as others would have us believe. The
marriage rolls also swelled with black people who now had the right to marry
each other (and no one else). We are family oriented people by DNA. Oh you may not see it on tv but our gang
culture, fraternities and sororities all center around a familial bond and camaraderie. Only the activities augment the viability of
the organization if it be BLOOD,CRIP, GANGSTER DISCIPLE, or ZETA PHI BETA the
list goes on and on. What idiot wants to
remind black folks of that episode and chapter. None other than a mastermind
seeking to further enslave you. Remember
that.
WHAT WOULD DJANGO DO? It is important that before asking
that question with regards to our 2nd amendment rights and remedies
the movie be critically examined.
Probably far more than I care to take the task. My preliminary findings as I’ve observed.
Django carried a gun and followed the law. What a blow to gun activists who may try to
persuade young minorities to wantonly mass murder without pointing out the very
specific facts.
Yes initially every kill Django made was attached to a
bounty warrant. There is not much need
to go into what all that means. Django
was acting as a law enforcement official.
When Django killed outside of the bounds of the warrant it
was in protection of his family. Not
because someone disrespected his colors, or stole his tv, or screwed his woman
or scratched up his ride. He did not
shoot because his sneakers got scuffed at the club. I’m really angry because these “gun
appreciators” are really trying to pull in my young brothers and sisters with
some false and preconceived notions.
Django did not kill other black folks unless they had been
instrumental in helping white people subdue black folks. Samuel L… Uncle Ruckus…
need I say more?
Django gunned down white men and women who were his captors
and with style and finesse. CAPTORS… not
passersby… he was able to hold his steel even in the most aggravating situations
until the outcome could be balanced in his favor.
DJANGO HELD HIS PIECE…
Let’s be clear when we are asked WWDD.
No comments:
Post a Comment