Which seems to boil down to one of the popular criticisms on both sides.

>"I wonder if I made a movie where a black man rapes jewish men
>and women and says kike over 100X but dies in the end would it
>be acceptable."
>
>
>I can't say I don't see his point...

The problem is that this is the same point that the 'oh, it wasn't so bad' slavery denial crowd has, lol.

SLAVERY WAS VICIOUS AND SHOULD BE FUCKING HARD TO WATCH ON SCREEN.

Now, we can argue that Tarantino making it the backdrop of one of his set-pieces might be in bad taste...THAT's a legit gripe(or not, we will have to wait and see). But you know would would be in WORST taste? Watering it down.

I better see slave masters being as DESPICABLE as possible. That includes throwing the N word a million times, raping women, beating/mistreating/killing slaves. No matter who directs it; it should be offensive to watch no matter what the genre/purpose.

Having the slave masters simply being 'mean' to the slaves misses the whole point, because then people start to forget...

I mean, look at the comment section linked above:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/django-unchained/review/399663

You've got people INSISTING slavery wasn't bad and that their masters were kind/they wanted to live with them, LOL.

Like I said above, having it as a backdrop in a Tarantino action romp may be in bad taste. But if they have to use it, it better be fucking vicious. Anything less would be like having friendly Nazi guards trying to prove underneath it all 'They are really good people!' since everyone wants to make a Jewish correlation with this movie (and it's really apple and oranges)

It's like people want to forget the past.