I do not agree with the generalisation that slaves could not be trusted to have each others back. This essentially says that the concepts of friendship and loyalty was completely absent from plantation life. It reduces slaves to what they were seen as property. All of whom lacked the basic capacity to trust another human being and fight for them if needed.

To use the Mandingo fighting seen as an example is not sufficient. This was a situation of fight or die, which was demonstrated later in the movie. If I was tasked with fighting to survive and having to kill another man to do it I sure as hell might. I'm not going to stand there and go, "but he's just like me."

We also need to remember that these fighters were from different plantations and therefore probably never knew each other. I'm sure there was some degree of solidarity for the fact that they we both slaves and that one of them had to die, but I liken it to the gladiators, someone had to die but that doesn't mean there is no sense of apology for having to kill you inherent to the process.

Essentially, that statement just not sit well with me. it's just like we are trying to reduce every single human being to rational, self interest, profit maximising agents, ignoring the intricacies of the psyche.

If we are talking about Django himself, I may have to sleep on that analysis some more. Thelio raised an interesting point that I need to flesh out before commenting on it.

But I do agree with the "pawns" part.
I ain't thirsty. There's plenty of fish in the sea, but I don't want all of them, can I have some standards? Or do we just have to settle, for someone's who meh and will do.

Last edited by kayb; 01-14-2013 at 10:07 AM.