Tarantino responds to criticisms against him regarding racism by stating, “As a writer, I demand the right to write any character in the world that I want to write. I demand the right to be them, I demand the right to think them and I demand the right to tell the truth as I see they are, all right? And to say that I can’t do that because I’m white, but the Hughes brothers can do that because they’re black, that is racist. That is the heart of racism, all right. And I do not accept that … That is how a segment of the black community that lives in Compton, lives in Inglewood, where Jackie Brown takes place, that lives in Carson, that is how they talk. I’m telling the truth. It would not be questioned if I was black, and I resent the question because I’m white. I have the right to tell the truth. I do not have the right to lie.” Tarantino did not write Django Unchained with historical accuracy in mind, for the record. Your argument leaves out certain, very important details about several scenes in the movie which you claim to be offensive and oppressive. The audience (not just the white people) laugh when Samuel L. Jackson asks Leonardo DiCaprio’s CHARACTER if he’s going to let “that nigger” sleep in the big house because of the sheer ridiculous of the absurdity of the situation, Samuel L. Jackson being a black man himself. As for your thoughts about Christoph Waltz’s character: “ But, he was still complicit in slavery, using the system to his advantage. At the beginning of the movie, Schultz tells Django he will only free him after they successfully capture the Brittles. Schultz finds slavery abhorrent unless it suits his purposes, which is, I imagine, the dilemma many white people faced during the slavery era. Schultz only owns Django during the first fifteen or so minutes of the movie, but what matters is that when he could have made the right choice, he didn’t.” You left out the part about him stating he “feels guilty” about having to use Django to his benefit, but his quid pro quo for finding Django in the first place is Django’s freedom. You also left out almost every single thing about his character’s nature, that he did acknowledge that Django was free after killing the Brittle Brothers. And Django did not exactly object on joining in on the bounty hunting business, as a free citizen. I understand why the movie is offensive times, but the N-word is used in context and not strewn about just for the hell of it, and Django is one badass hero AND main character who sticks it to the slavers in the end anyways. Can’t people just enjoy the movie instead of getting offended by every little thing? I am not pissed off about Tarantino making white people look stupid as hell in the scene about the bags on their heads, and then they all get shot/exploded anyways. The scene is just what it is…..funny and meant to be enjoyed. What did you expect from Tarantino? It’s his style and his manner to write and direct bloody, controversial flicks.