by Dustin Curry
Contributing writer
It is single-handedly the most vile, repulsive word in the English vernacular. It is a word of hate that has tormented an entire race of people for centuries. A word so emotionally charged that some people have died as a result of speaking it.
I would now like to argue in favor of using that word 110 times over the course of two and a half hours.
Quentin Tarantino’s newest film, “Django Unchained” might be some of the most fun I’ve had in a cinema in the past year. However, there wasn’t much surprise when audiences began to criticize the film’s use of the forbidden “n-word.”
The plot of “Django” transports us back to a dark time in American history when political correctness was not the South’s strong suit. It was a time when the “n-word” was simply another term for a person of African descent.
Texts and artifacts of the era show us that this word was not only available, but commonly used by the population. Tarantino’s film, despite being a work of fictitious art, attempts to convey the mood of living in such a time.
Despite the historical accuracy of the dialogue in “Django Unchained,” many members of the movie-going public are repulsed by the writer/director’s choice to use the taboo word an astounding 110 times. In an interview with Vibe magazine, filmmaker Spike Lee announced his plan to boycott the film because he felt that it was “disrespectful” to his ancestors. Not surprisingly, many other potential audience members have followed suit.
My response, however, is this: What is more disrespectful to the ancestors of African Americans—giving a historically accurate depiction of the times they lived in or sugarcoating slavery?
In my opinion, making pre-Civil War America seem any less horrific than it actually was would be much more degrading than using a word that makes people uncomfortable.
We have to remember that this is a work of art that is created to elicit an emotional response. It is here to show us where our nation has come from and where we could be going.
If you censor that—if you try to make art more politically correct—then you lose sight of how miraculous it is that we are more considerate of other people’s feelings than we were even 50 years ago.
We live in a society that has practically thrown the “n-word” out of our daily language. Descriptions of other people are moving away from racially-charged epithets to sobriquets that are much more empathetic.
We’ve moved from racist terms to saying “African American,” “Asian American” or “black” to describe people of certain descent. I wonder, therefore, why we can’t take this political correctness even further.
If you were born in Uganda and moved to America, sure, you’re “African American.”
I believe, however, that if you come from a family of African descent but were born in America, you are simply “American.”
It is with this inclusiveness that we can move further and further away from the horrific times depicted in “Django Unchained” and find the ultimate level of inclusiveness.
It is my hope that someday, we stop referring to each other by racial monikers (no matter how politically correct) and call each other by the “h-word”: human.