So now Quentin Tarantino has a new movie, “Django Unchained,” which features depictions of slavery in the U.S. In interviews, Tarantino claims that the truth about slavery was a thousand times worse than that portrayed in the movie. But what’s the point of these depictions about an institution that ended almost 150 years ago? Do liberals actually believe that America is on the verge of returning to slavery, and that they are some sort of heroes fighting a constant battle to prevent it?
If the truth of slavery is of interest to Tarantino, maybe he could address the slavery that is actually alive and well today, not 150 years ago, in places like the Mideast and South Asia. The misogynists in those regions oppress and enslave women that, in the aggregate, creates more misery than anything experienced in America 150 years ago. Perhaps Tarantino’s next movie will be “Dwomen Unchained” featuring women getting revenge on their misogynist masters, but we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for that to happen.
It seems that liberals don’t really object to slavery, but only to a certain kind of slavery: that which is practiced by white males of European ancestry. If the slave owner happens to be anybody else, liberals give the slave owners a free pass. For example, the Washington Post is always ready to publish photos, without any negative comment, of Middle Eastern women, covered from head to toe, as if women in such clothing is perfectly normal
And liberals ranging from Howard Zinn (“A People’s History of the United States“) to Steven Spielberg (“Amistad“) bend over backwards to soften their descriptions of the slavery enforced by non-whites. In fact, for these guys, such slavery is hardly slavery at all. Rather, it’s more like the old Seinfeld episode about the sitcom idea where Jerry gets into an accident and the other guy doesn’t have insurance, so the judge decrees that the other guy become Jerry’s butler.
But maybe liberals are bothered by non-white slavery, in which case their indifference is due to something else, perhaps lack of courage. It would take real courage for Hollywood liberals to stand up against the slavery that exists today in the world (after all, they might end up like Theo Van Gogh). Better to take the cowardly approach and focus instead on the much easier target of ancient American history. Long dead slave owners don’t present much of a threat to our liberal heroes as they strike their poses and pretend to care.
Depicting America’s slave owning past not only is safer for liberals, but provides another way for them to insult anyone who opposes the liberal “vision,” by yet again calling the opposition racists. Let’s see, the syllogism goes something like this: the South’s slavery 150 years ago was racist, red states (which are conservative) tend to be located in the South, therefore conservatives today are racists. Such is the reasoning of liberals.
Let me get this straight…because Quentin Tarantino’s new movie is based specifically on white slave owners and black slaves, you were somehow able to infer the following information about liberals: “liberals don’t really object to slavery”, “liberals will twist their minds into pretzels in their effort to rationalize the practice.”, and that we “refuse to believe that slavery enforced by non-whites is slavery at all.”
Haha. You must be a fan of ASSumptions. A HUGE fan.
Actually I suggested that liberals only object to certain kinds of slavery based upon the works of people like Zinn and Spielberg. Plus there’s the indifference shown by the liberals at the Washington Post which publishes photos of women covered from head to toe in connection with articles, with no comment, as if such dress is completely normal. But thank you for your comment. Based upon it, I edited my post slightly to state more clearly what I meant to convey.