There have been some interesting posts arguing that District 9 is a racist film because of how the Nigerians are presented.
The gist of the argument is that the Nigerians in the movie are presented as exemplifying many of the worst racist slurs against Africans. To be specific, their leader is presented as a cannibal and the women are presented as sexual degenerates.
While the movie does present the Nigerians in a rather unflattering way, it also presents the white folks in a rather negative light. There are the corporate types who care only for money and are willing to permit the most wicked deeds for profit. There are the evil scientists who are also willing to do anything. Is the eating of the alien flesh any more horrible than the experiments conducted upon it? And, of course, we have the brutal and violent military guy.
Interestingly, I suspect that most people would say that these folks are stereotypes of their roles (corporate bad guy, scientist bad guy, and military bad guy) rather than being racial stereotypes. After all, one might argue, you could have a black guy as the evil corporate bad guy, an Asian as the evil scientist, and a Hispanic as the military bad guy.
In reply, white folks can also take the cannibal role. When I saw that the Nigerian leader wanted to eat the aliens to get their power, I thought of the movie Ravenous. I also thought of Silence of the Lambs.
Naturally, it can be said that the cannibal stereotype is a racist stereotype specifically against blacks because of the history behind it. Of course, it can also be said that the evil corporate guy, the scientist bad guy, and the military bad guy are also racist stereotypes about whites because of the history behind them. After all, they stand for the alleged great evils of the white West: corporate evil, science evil, and military evil.
While folks will focus on the appearance of racism against blacks, the fact that the filmmakers also use the stereotypes of Western white evil might indicate that they are not racist, but merely lazy and unoriginal in regards to their secondary characters.
Another interesting possibility is that the use of such stereotypes was actually an attempt to make a point against racism. After all, the alien “Prawn” were presented as manifestations of many common stereotypes about blacks and other minorities (being stupid, violent, lazy, sexual degenerates and filthy). The Nigerians were also presented in the form of racist stereotypes as were the white corporate folks. Perhaps the movie was attempting to get the audience to think about all the various hateful stereotypes being presented. If so, the claim that District 9 is a racist film would be an ironic one.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
The movie depicts the Nigerians as cannibalistic, violent, hateful beings. When they use these traits against less powerful beings that would appropriately be considered racism. As represented in the movie the whites (citizens, corporate leaders, the whole kit and kaboodle) are racists to one extent or another. The movie ( just as any “self- respecting racist” would) makes them appear without exception selfish, prideful, hateful, envious toward Nigerians, aliens, and any other being they deem inferior.
Do any of the racists described above come out looking like “good guys”? The answer: “No. They weren’t meant to. They come out looking(at least)like ignorant repellent asses and (at worst) like hateful, useless, scum-of-the-earth bastards. That seems to me to make the film anti-racism and anti-racist, and to underscore the point, the movie itself unrepentantly presents the objects of its wrath from a racist p.o.v (i.e. ‘all’ whites and ‘all’ Nigerians are racists). Only Wikus (who is no longer technically a white human) , the escaping alien Christopher, the child, and the remaining interned aliens–they are, after all,the ones being oppressed– are afforded any degree of sympathy at film’s end. And even then, we don’t know how the aliens, once they’re freed from their oppression three years down the line, will treat the “inferior?” human race.
As one of the posters on ‘pageslap’,the site you linked to under “interesting posts”, pointed out, this is satire. Satire is an arena where the satirist has no obligation to paint characters in three dimensions. He has no obligation to be fair. No obligation to stick to the truth to get at the truth.
——-
I’m not sure how a work that depicts racism in an appropriately bad light from so many angles is considered somehow racist. Mr. X, a white man, hangs a black man because, in his own words, “I hate n—–s”. I call Mr. X a racist. But I make the judgment based on a set of facts, not merely on the basis of grossly misinformed assumptions about his skin color. Yet “some” would say I’m being a racist against racists. Sounds like more than irony going on there. Sounds to me like a not-too-wily attempt to devalue the word “racist”. Undercut its power. Give it less negative force. And make the practice and its practitioners just a tad less repugnant. Good luck with the latter.
It seems by you article the only way not to be racist is to use the opposite of every stereotype. The execute a magnificently careful dance around all racial issues. Might as well just use cartoon animals. 🙂
Actually, the best way “not to be racist” is to not “be racist”.
Start with good working definitions of racism–not the politically corrupted and devalued forms that are applied by those who’d rather have the term disappear so they could go about their happily racist ways– and work from there.
“racâ‹…ism
 
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
The following isn’t a “magnificently careful dance”. It only has four steps.
1/ You don’t adhere to “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.”
2/ You don’t think “that [your] race is superior and has the right to rule others.”
3/ You don’t support or foster “a policy, system of government, etc. based . . .on; discrimination”
4/ You don’t discriminate against, hate, or show prejudice against “another race or races.”
Voila. No faerie dust or magic potions or wizard’s chants needed. You’re not a racist.
Nah, that would be species prejudice.