Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Evidently, my point was missed entirely.  The racism I referred to was not
>within the story.  I'll buy the argument that the characters in the story
>were, for the most part, not racist.  It's Tarantino's reckless use of
>racist language that *is*.
 
I accept your differentiation, but by saying Tarantino is being reckless,
do you mean deliberately so? Recklessness, like carelessness, implies a
lack of deliberation IMHO, which in turn exonerates Mr T from the racist
label - you can fault him for being reckless with racist results, but
not for being racist. A fine and increasingly unimportant disticntion, that.
 
>the-word theory that Tarantino (noted linguist that he is) puts forth, ask
>a Jewish person how many times he or she needs to hear the name "Hitler"
>before it becomes benign.
 
Apples and Oranges. A better example would be the use of the word queer,
which originally had derogotory connotations but is now a socio-political
term embraced by many who are queer.
 
>falls quite short of being the second coming of Welles that everyone seems
>to think he is.
 
I hardly call this the second coming as well. On the other hand, I wonder
if we're becoming so jaded that *anyone* can be hailed as great - I think
we're afraid of having heroes anymore, since so many of our heroes have
fallen into disrepute.
 
>Look again, folks.  The emperor's not wearing any clothes.
 
No, but that's only important if nudity bothers you ;)
 
 
J Roberson