Interesting last line, not sure if I agree with it. Here is why.
There were a lot of family bonds on plantations, there were also a lot of suicides and matricides as well; because of this, I would agree that a counter point that love (be in self or maternal/paternal) can sometimes override one's own survival instinct which is why you have so many parents killing and dying for their offspring.

In the historical context of slavery, mothers would rather kill their children than have them subjected to a life of slavery. I do believe that there may be elements of survival of self in there as well, but I do not believe that survival is the first law of humankind.

As I said before, very interesting point and for sure it has given me food for thought.
Originally Posted by kayb
Well, that was the case in Beloved, but there were many, many more slave mothers who reconciled themselves to the fact their kids would be slaves, too.

No one is saying slaves didn't have the capacity to love. Just that it would be naive and unrealistic to think Django was going to roll up to Candyland and, feeling so overcome w/ empathy and cameraderie for the other slaves he met there, would have jeopardized his own position to befriend them.

Without Schultz, Django had no power whatsoever and had nothing to offer anyone.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
I would agree but....

1) He went above and beyond belittling them. That almost ruined the mission (as they were on the horses coming in to Candyland, right before the incident with the fighter and the dogs). Am I forgetting something? I get that he was trying to show how he was a black man doing a horrible job but what he did was unneccasary. Did this help the mission at all?

2) it would have cost him nothing to say something/assist those also on his way to the mines (after he blew up Quentin)

3) In one scene he is saying that a black Mandingo trader was a horrible person, but in the next scene he is being the worst kind of Mandingo trader. In my opinion, that means he was aware and had the capacity to care for another slave.
Originally Posted by scrills
But hadn't Schultz like beaten it into Django that he wasn't to step out of character. That he had to be convincing and he ought to play the role in a certain way. That a Black slaver had to be like scum of the earth? If Candy suspected differently, then the plan wouldn't work.

Why would he step out of character and risk messing it all up to befiend the other slaves.

The moment he let his guard down and Stephen (SamL Jackson) caught on...what happened?

The dog scene bothered the doc, but Django, nope.
Originally Posted by scrills
Django might have witnessed attacks like that before. Plus, he had to stay in character.

In the scene on the way to the mine, I think I just wanted Django to seem as smart as the doc was in the first scene. The doc was smart. The doc cared. The doc grew. Why not Django (in ways other those that were violent)?
Originally Posted by scrills
Not sure what you mean.

But I don't think you can compare the reactions of a free, White, educated dentist-turned-bounty hunter to a brutalized slave. I woud expect the slave to stay stonefaced about a lot more things than fancy pants.

(Jamie and fancy lol)