Is District 9 Racist?

"Or would that have been acceptable because it reaffirms your own concept of evil being WHITE?"

I never said or even insinuated this. All those countries and cultures that you mentioned were not in the movie either. What was depicted in the film were of a specific nationality, Nigerian. There were many who found their depiction offensive. There were was only one characters of color in the film that was not a thief, murder, or "voodoo" practitioner.

BTW, "voodoo" is an ancient religion derived from Ifa and even older religion. It does not involve the eating of human (or alien) flesh. Yours (and the film's) depiction of the religion was crude at best and racist at worst. Have you ever thought of what Catholicism looks like to the outsider, the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood every Sunday? No one (I would hope) would think of these people as being cannibals.

There are things that go in this world that are unseemly. The power of films is to communicate ideas. The power of the internet is to discuss them. So let's get on the same page. "Brutal, murderous witchcraft (or satanism)" is NOT a fair description of the religions of these cultures anymore than it is a description of what Christians are practicing.

Colonization is no excuse for African ethnic violence. Tribal warfare has been a signature feature of African culture since the dawn of time. It is the stone around the neck of African countries and that curse has been exported around the World, enjoying the diaspora of immigrated Africans. South Africa under African rule will slide back into a state barely above the stone age, as a result of failure of political leadership. Every African leader attempts to blame European colonization as the reason for a failure in leadership. And the people are eager to find a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. Zulu's displaced the original inhabitants of South Africa, so they are just as much an intruder as the Boers.

It was a movie that was attempting to make social commentary on racism and oppression. I think that it was cool that they were trying to do it in the format of a kickass action flick. I think that was the point. It got people in and hopefully got people talking about the points it was bringing up. I think it's a waste to just passively sit back a think nothing more about it.

An open rebellion wouldn't have gained the aliens anything, it would have only guaranteed their eradication. Plus most of them were too fucked up on cat food to be productive.

Thanks Roxy. You are correct in stating that Nigerian immigrants to S.A. are despised and hated by most of Zulu origin. They have been murdered and burned out simply for being Nigerian.

These are some good points. Some of what I was thinking of when I wrote this post. It was very interesting to me to find how people misread what I wrote about the film and jumped to some very disturbing conclusions.

I think the film was attempting to be an action flick that makes social commentary. A Difficult balance that I think overall they handled well. Though there places were they lapsed into a kind of stereotyping that seemed to me unnecessary.

I just going to assume you are not speaking to me and to someone else, right?

Yeah, I meant for that to be a reply to another post... duno what happened.

It's not your "dose of truth" that is the problem, it's the way you are conducting yourself that is. Chillax.

DeliaTheArtist, well said. And that's all I'm saying. I hope that there will be another scifi film set in Africa soon. There are so many books that they could base it on. I hope that "My Soul to Keep" will be made into a film. Although, I'm not sure how they could do it.

You make an interesting point on your blog- where there any female aliens? I didn't even realize that!

Also, I'd love to see some movies set in Africa with some positive role models. Like I said, I think the only reason "The Nigerians" were portrayed that way is because they were essentially the "bad guys" to pretty much everyone- aliens and humans alike. And while they and the witchdoctors may portray an ugly stereotype, the sad thing is there are many ugly things still going on in Africa and other parts of the world. Also, at the end of the day, we have to remember that it's a fictional movie, and the use of slightly stereotypical or historically inaccurate characters are just devices to push the story along. For example, the Nigerian leader wouldn't have wanted Wilkus's crazy arm if the witchdoctor woman hadn't convinced him to be eating alien parts. It makes sense in the context to the movie even if it's a little off base- then again, someone posted the video about albino africans in this thread- it's very frightening and disgusting to think that kind of behavior really does exist!

I understand your point. But just to put a flip on it, what if the "slightly stereotypical or historically inaccurate characters" were women. What kind of behavior would have been considered stereotypical? How would women take it? Just saying.

Overall good points though.

You need to settle down in the way you are talking to other users. Current is a place for discussion and while a heated argument is one thing, cursing at people and being really hostile is another. Take a deep breath and relax; you're points aren't made better by acting that way, in fact it lowers your credibility.

Just who are you? What's with your sympathetic bullshit? This article shouldn't even be here. True progress can't be made when people cry racism the second they see something they don't like.

I asked this girl whether she thought the portrayal was wrong, I asked her whether she would like to raise children in Nigeria. I presented many ways for her to actually defend her claims but she never did. Her title is an attention grabbing stunt, and she is an ignorant racist for doing it.

I don't need to be polite to be credible. This isn't politics, we are not in school, this is not a fucking debate house.

If you want to defend her, then I suggest defending her. If you want to support me, then support me. I don't need your lesson in etiquette.

theracecard... you are right you are not in school and you can act as you wish, you should remember that anytime you yell at someone it is just going to get their back up though and they will not listen to what you have to say... this is psychology... science set in stone... if you want to yell for the sake of yelling, go for it, but if you want to be heard calm cool composed dialogue is the route you should take.

"I don't need to be polite to be credible." Maybe not, but it helps.

"I don't need your lesson in etiquette." Obviously you do. As for "who I am", I'm a Current community member who loves the site and wants it to maintain it's dignity. Current.com has Terms of Use and Community Guidelines. Do you know what the FIRST community guideline is?

"Be respectful."

You're the ignorant one here since you seem to think portraying nigerians as savages is wrong.

No one cares if you're defending the film. You seem to think that it's racist: It's not. You seem to think Africa isn't a violent, backwards, disgusting place: You're wrong.

booksellergirl: Dumbest user on Current.

If/when you have children (God fobid), ask yourself whether you'd like to raise them in Nigeria. (They're a clean, industrious people who treat others with respect, right?)

It can sort of drive you nuts. I almost always read the entire "source material",....and most of the comments,..(up to a point).

hey booksellergirl. I now see what you're saying, but I did read your post and totally did not get the message you were trying to convey. Yeah, people are being flamey and awful, but I think that going hard on the defensive hasn't helped. Rather than being like y'all didn't read my post! You could have tried to communicate your point in another way. In the future, that would be more helpful and less flame-baiting!

papermakesplanes: Thanks :o)

I will step in now, as the personal attacks are well out of line. I believe the movie was using Nigerians, as a focus on the prejudices that many off us have toward people, different from ourselves. Nigerians just happened to be the tool used by the movie maker.
Of course, Booksellergirl, as an educated Nigerian, would feel offended by the narrow representation of Nigerians as, thugs and JuJu men. I have lived in Nigeria for 4 years and I am pleased to say that I have always been treated well, except for a few minor issues with immigration. The Global perception of a country populated by 419's and criminals is incorrect. By and large most Nigerians are hardworking, Christian/Muslim, family oriented people. They tend to be more social than most Americans and Europeans, drink less alcohol, and never forget your face or name. But of course the good Nigerians do not get recognized because that does not sell newspapers. There is a criminal element, particularly among the elite or politically powerful, just as in any other country. There are pockets of ignorance in the villages where belief in JuJu still exists and even among some University graduates (cult members). I apologise, Booksellergirl, for the insults of clueless people. And to all my friends at Current; a little thought before posting is warranted.

Thanks, MoonLoon. Also, I'm not Nigerian.

I wasn't referring to you. It is simply a fact that some will look for controversy where there is none regarding the movie being racist even though it depicts true conditions in our world.

"There is plenty of controversy."

No, there isn't.

Ares: Yes there is. Plenty of article on this. More coming. I think we are on two different worlds. Lots of folks are discussing this. I think that's a good thing.

Nicely put...

I think you may have mistaken the meaning of the word speciesism... the term was coined by Richard Ryder some time in the 70's, he was a psychologist, and the term was used to describe racism by physical differences... it has noting to do with animal rights one way or another...

The scientific meaning of sentient is an organism that is aware of its being, and the related implications... neurologically that is a higher functioning of the frontal lobe... which dolphins, gorillas, and elephants all have at least comparably developed frontal lobes to humans (the frontal lobe is the impulse control center... it is the morality center of the brain). From there the make up of the brain in these other animals is far different from ours, and in many functions they are far more proficient than humans are... meaning that they are equipped in certain aspects to have a higher mental capacity and are in fact more intelligent than humans in those regards. So you have animals that have higher mental capacities than humans in many regards yet they are slaughtered to near extinction without ever being understood or worked with...

If you throw the animal rights garbage out the window... that is still stupid, there is a lot that can be learned from these animals that will not be learned if they are exterminated... just like the problem with the aliens in District 9.

Do yo see my point now?

I do not think you are giving lucidstone enough credit animalia_libero... lucidstone is an incredibly intelligent person... just relies on scientific facts more than emotion... just like me really.

Oh... and most animals lack frontal lobe development... dogs have the mental capacity of about a 2 year old.. and those are the smart ones like Labrador retrievers... beyond that animals do not eve quantify on the same scale as humans

First, I had absolutely no idea that you had a degree in psychology... I will stop explaining things in baby terms then.

I am well aware of the what the frontal lobes capacities are, that is why I referenced them as what defines a sentient being... sentient being the ability to calculate societal value and make cognizant decisions based upon that higher function. I never once claimed that cognition had anything to do with intelligence... in fact I singled out intelligence as being the higher functioning of separate individual neurological landmarks.

As a psychologist you should also be familiar with the difference between raw observation and explanatory inferences. If you think the magic number seven is a defense of the squirrel and his nuts you are quite deluded... you are not taking into account predictability, nor are you taking into account that working memory v. explicit and implicit long term memory. You are making these assumptions based on a raw observation without any regard for neural measurement.

If you would like to carry this debate farther into the realms of explicit conscious and implicit unconscious, I am more than game for it.

Did I mention that I know a whole hell of a lot about this stuff ;D

I completely forgot to address the dog having the social intellect of teenagers. The distinct observation was made by a psychologist a number of years back that a particularly smart full grown dog of theirs and their two year old would often bicker over possession of toys... which is distinctly a developmental stage... the dog was full grown though, they set up a number of tests that pretty conclusively proved the hypothesis... I will try to find the study for you later, I have to run right now. I would like to see this study that calculated the mathematical abilities of a dog... such tests in humans are incredibly inaccurate until the age of 5 or 6 in humans even... I would like to see what they thought the margin of error was for a canine. /smirks

Ok, screw it, I am emersed in this, and I do not feel like going anyway...

I never once said anything about the difference of intelligence in comparison to the size of the brain first of all...

Secondly... neural measurement... fMRI, EEG, PET... you know, neural imaging with which you take measurements of neural activity...

So I am to take it that you are still lost in the cloud of behaviorism eh... ok. I will attack it from that approach then.

Children do not move beyond the concrete distinction of right and wrong until about the age 10 and can take until the age of 13.

Refer to the top of page 341:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JANokq-wOcsC&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336&dq=...

So yes, I am saying that even though a two year old knows it exists... it has no ability to discern the world for its self... nor do dogs, they learn from stimulus just as young children do, they do not make their own choices.

The only other animals that I am aware of that can make abstract societal decisions are apes, primates, dolphins, whales, and elephants...

well said

Hey Milchmann,

Main point:
As you can most probably tell by now, Animalia_Libero is an animal rights activist that is looking to "manufacture" a platform for the animal rights message on the stage of District 9. But, this movie does NOT address or cover animal rights, that is NOT the aim of this movie (if it was, the aliens would have been vegetarians . . . not carnivores). Animalia is trying to twist the social message of District 9 to fit his/her own . . . and to that, I say nay (it's just not here Animalia, and I don't think it's intellectually honest to artificially place it here).

I addressed the term "specieism" as Animalia addressed it in the same context as I've seen it addressed in the fringe animal rights circles . . . which Animalia seems to be a self appointed voice for here at Current (I've already have had many disagreements with him/her in other threads).

[As for the traditional meaning of specieism, I know little of it or Richard Ryder. I've only come across the term in the context of animal rights activists.]

In this context, "specieism" is used to mean the discrimination of other species. People among this fringe ideology (including Animalia by her comments from past threads) believe that there is no hierarchy among animals, that "all" animals have equal rights, and that no animal should be enslaved to humans (hence, the call for "animal liberation" by PETA and the ALF . . . and people like "Animalia_Libero").

Under this context (if actually applied as these fringe elements, including PETA, would want) we would have no zoos, no farm animals, no dogsleds, no horse drawn buggys . . . these fringe elements literally want equal rights for animals as we have as humans.

I've already spent well over 12 hours of what I would like to say was respectable conversation in fleshing out and debating these ideas in other threads (and I don't plan to spend another 12 more here. To quote Barney Frank, It would be like trying to argue with a dining room table). In the end, we do not see eye to eye . . . and I'm honestly disturbed to the degree that which he/she supports militantism for the cause of "animal liberation".

As for your point in regards to higher mammals, I do very much think it is possible that a few species may have reached cognitive abilities close to or similar to our own . . . and I have argued quite a bit, in other threads, that such higher mammals would be deserving of additional protections due to their status in the hierarchy of animals as being particularly developed cognitively. However to Animalia's, PETA's, and the ALF's dismay . . . I would not include the chicken into that category.

So, in regards to the point that you made by the end of your comment . . . I'm definitely already on page with that position and have already voiced that position on several threads here at Current.com in the past (as well as exploring a side project of trying to develop a method to objectively test for the relative magnitudes of cognition). . . . and it would be impossible to expect anyone to know any of that unless they happened by chance to have been active in those past discussions.

Feel free debating with Animalia, it IS an interesting debate (especially in regards to animal hierarchy) . . . but in the end, Animalia is not looking to listen more so than to propagate the "animal rights" message. So, I'll be opting out of this discussion for, lack of a better phrase, not wanting to beat a dead horse.

Ha... excellent lucidstone... I may be in toe with you soon.

I don't think you read my post.

I am going to lol on how immature your response is to AndreaKnoll.

How about you consider the info these people are trying to give you. Some people here are trying to teach you so you don't go around assuming directors are trying to attack a certain race. Instead of learning the message of treating people (and aliens) the way you want to be treated, you become butthurt.

How about we concentrate on learning from even fictional mistakes? I highly doubt the director is in his evil lair trying to think of ways to bring down people of color.

Plus, your comment was dismissing someone else's, thats what blew my top.

Once again read the post. You obviously haven't or you would see that I make similar arguments. This is a perfect example of how people end up in talking AT each other where race is concern. It's because you don't listen. And in this case, take the 2 min. necessary to READ what someone has actually said.

No, people have been reading. You have a problem with discussion.

If you've actually read what I said then we can have a real conversation. Since it is clear that you haven't and won't, well, nothing more I can do.

I am just shocked on how ignorant you are. I did read. You cannot just say "you didn't read" as if it were true. It is obvious that you are the one who is not actually reading and taking in what people say.

This will be my last post because you are a lost cause.

I can tell you didn't read the post because if you did you would know that I was DEFENDING the film.

You're totally right about District 9's allegorical nature. I was in Soweto last year studying South Africa before and after Apartheid, and part of the reason Apartheid worked is because people could so easily "other" their neighbors by thinking of them as not human, or less than human, like a insect (or hey! an alien!).

You can also look at the history of Sophiatown in Johannesburg for similarities to the film's plot. In 1950, the National Party government passed the Group Areas Act, which specified separate residence areas for each racial group in the country. Because Sophiatown was home to a diverse population, people were scheduled for “removal” in 1953. In February 1955, heavily armed police entered Sophiatown to force residents out of their homes and load their belongings onto government trucks. The residents were taken to a large tract of land, thirteen miles from the city centre, to the aptly-named empty fields of Meadowlands (now part of Soweto). The government bulldozed Sophiatown in 1963.

Although the author of this post may have intended to get at this, by implying that District 9 is racist when it takes place in Johannesburg and clearly resembles apartheid (the man character is even an Afrikaner!) it looks like the author didn't really think much about the post.

I also thought the film told a cautionary story about migration and literal aliens in our countries. Many immigrants live as second class citizens and suffer from racism everyday. The movie is also making a statement about using legal bodies and legal systems to make racism seem ok - like when people are asked to sign their eviction notices.

I think that people read the headline and stopped there and made up the rest based on their own assumptions. I LIKED the film. I even SAID so. There are a few people who don't seem to get that. The purpose of the post to highlight there are several people who are seeing the film in a different way.

I think it just comes down to people missing the subtext and not being able to place it in a historical context.

In order to truly understand the movie you need to at least have a basic understanding of the history of the region, while also being able to see the subtext here.

D9 is the exact opposite of racist. This is a beautiful film which explores how we treat those who are different from us.

Yeah, I am aware... that is unfortunate, I do not think the example of their higher functioning brains should go to waist though, especially since this one is blatantly obvious to the average person... elephants brains are not geared towards creativity as much as they are toward other higher functions that humans are completely lacking... yet they are still quite adequate at it... that is amazing.

that's a good point. but I do think it's probably true on both levels, to some extent

nevertheless, it's fantasy anyway, so why argue about if it's an "accurate portrayal" of African society? a 90minute fantasy or sci fi film is no place to try to provide a 100% accurate portrayal of society (as if that were possible in a 3 hour film!)

well, with all due respect, there is a lot of voodoo and santeria and other bizarre practices in Africa, haiti, Cuba etc. and it's not racist to portray it. it's just a fact.

now, if they tried to portray ALL blacks such as American blacks as a bunch of voodoo practicing 'savages', that would clearly be racist.

but that wasn't what they did so no issue

NAMBLA advocates for man/boy love. They are organized and operating right here in the good 'ol USA. What they do is despicable and sick. Would it be proper for me to say, "well. that's North America for you?" Of course not. A whole continent can not be painted by the sick actions of a few as you have just done to Africa.

You have lost it lady... It is absolutely appropriate to bring that up, and if you feel like depicting, it is appropriate to do that as well. This is how you bring awareness to something. You example, and this is an absolutely beautifully apt example for this... the KKK represents a very small portion of our society... why do we paint the picture that the south is racist because of them?... why do we not just let them do their thing and not talk about them, or show them as monsters in movies?... I am pretty sure that is going to invoke some pretty harsh emotions from you... the truth hurts, all races in all locations of the globe do hateful things, it does not represent them all, but ignoring the problem does nothing...

/ignorance... the spawning pit of 99% of the worlds problems...

/ignorant

I actually don't think the whole South is racist. In a lot of ways they handle race better than the North. It's plain not right to say judge a whole people by the acts of a few. It's fair to say that there are problems and point them out. The issues with the albinos is familiar to me and it's good that you brought attention to it. But it's by far not a continent wide problem that everyone in Africa advocates for it and participates in. Just like not all white people of the South are racist and members of the KKK. It's just not fair to assume that.

Glad that you are finally coming around... neither the video I posted nor District 9 said nor suggested that even close to a majority of people were participants, they only show/portrayed it to happen.

Has the light bulb gone off yet?

Just what are you talking about? You really didn't read my post at all did you. I think you read the headline and stopped there.

milch tries to come off as enlightened even as he promotes stereotypes. it's all rather comical, in a dark way.

yes and no.

no because there was no resolution and it left me wondering what happened and hoping there will be a sequel

yes because its the perfect setup to an even more kick ass sequel.