Mediaboss Marketing

When banishing politically incorrect language can hurt the dialogue of tolerance and acceptance.

Being a fan of Quentin Tarantino, I was obviously excited for the release of Django Unchained. I am one of the many who saw the film and enjoyed it thoroughly. Being a fan of Quentin Tarantino, I also know to expect controversy following the release of any of his films. Of course, normally, Tarantino controversy surrounds his portrayal of what he calls movie violence. Django is different, though, because it centers on slavery in the United States. More specifically, the film caught flak for its frequent use of a certain n word.

Let me say first that Im not looking to comment about racism in America, or to evaluate Tarantinos film and/or its portrayal of slavery in any way. Instead, I want to remark about how the films recent controversy brings to light an issue with the way our society handles so-called hate speech.

Take a look at this clip from a recent interview conducted to promote Django Unchained. In it, the reporter attempts to ask Samuel L. Jackson a question regarding the infamous n word As you can see, Jackson essentially shoots down the question because the reporter just cant bring himself to say the word. You know, the n word. The one that rhymes with bigger.

Now there could have been many reasons for Jackson to respond the way he did. Press junkets, after all, can be pretty grueling, so perhaps he was just looking for an opportunity to mess with the guy. But I contend Jackson instead wishes to prove a point, that point being that (*gasp*)its OK to use hate speech within a certain context. Yes, we tend to shy away from some words because, over time, they have been used to express anger and hatred, and have subsequently become symbols of hatred and intolerance. Thus, logically, suppressing use of the word should help suppress that hatred, at least to an extent. Human beings think in language, thus, by influencing language, you also help influence thought.

Furthermore, when society frowns upon use of these terms of hatred, it also demonstrates a disapproval of the hatred they represent. All of this is true but to a certain extent. I contend, and I think Mr. Jackson would agree with me on this, that suppression of language can go too far, to the point that it interferes with honest, meaningful dialogue.

Let's say the interview above had gone differently. Say that the reporter had been bold enough to look Jackson in the eye and use the n word out loud (which would no doubt take guts), exactly what would have happened? The interview would have continued, and the two men would have hopefully had a meaningful discussion about the word itself, and the role that it plays in both the film and our society as a whole. Theres no hatred or animosity in that discussion.

On the contrary, its those kinds of conversations that help bridge the gap of racial relations in this country and ultimately help heal the damage slavery has done. But, because there is such an elephant in the room, conversation goes nowhere. Even if Jackson had decided to answer the question, the elephant would remain.

The reporter would still feel the need to walk on eggshells around the issue.

The gap would still exist.

See the article here:
Op-ed: Django, The N-Word, and The F-Word