District 9 is racist [Alternate Perspective]

By Guest Contributor Nicole Stamp, originally published at [pageslap]

distric 9

Saw District 9 tonight, the alien movie by Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter Jackson. I thought it was appallingly racist; here’s why. (Spoilers ahead.)

Basically, 20 years ago, a million crustacean-like space aliens arrived in Johannesberg. They’re forced to live in a horrible slum called District 9, and now the human citizens want them gone, so they’re about to be evicted from their slum and relocated to a concentration camp outside the city.

If you look at the film as an apartheid allegory, it has problems right off the bat. The aliens are loathsome, trash-eating vermin who fight endlessly, destroy property for no reason, and piss on their own homes, which isn’t a truthful or flattering allegorical comparison for actual black South Africans under apartheid. Apartheid is terrible because humans were denied rights. The “apartheid” of these aliens isn’t that terrible – it’s kind of justifiable, because they’re actually dangerous, violent and destructive. I think it would be a better allegory, and a more sophisticated movie, if the aliens weren’t unpleasant. If they were peaceful and kind, but the humans still demonized them, the film would be much more chilling; the horror would be “man’s inhumanity to lobster-man”, not “eew gross they eat pig heads!”

But to my knowledge, District 9 does not explicitly present itself as an apartheid allegory, and changing the nature of the aliens basically makes it a different movie, so I’m gonna give it a pass in this post (although I’m very open to hearing other people’s thoughts about the allegorical angle). I think the choice to make the aliens disgusting was mostly artistic license, designed to make the film’s tone and visuals more gritty and scary, rather than any attempt to actually be representative of black people oppressed by apartheid. So that wasn’t my problem with this film.

The basic plot was fine: essentially, the human majority herds an alien race of minorities into a ghetto. Eventually the human protagonist gets to know one of the aliens, empathizes, and tries to help him. On some level, the hero comes to realize that the aliens are unlucky individuals who simply desire home and safety, same as everyone else.

The main human, Wikus van der Merwe (newcomer Sharlto Copley, who, incidentally, is great) is a complex character who does the wrong thing (illegally evicts the aliens), then does the right thing (tries to prevent his soldiers from killing aliens for no reason) then does the wrong thing (torches alien babies and gleefully compares their exploding bodies to popcorn), and then eventually does the right thing (risks his life to help alien Christopher Johnson get back to the mothership, albeit for self-serving reasons). That’s good drama; all of the behaviour is motivated; and the alien and his cute little kid even end up being pretty likeable. That’s all cool. I have no problems with the Wikus/Christopher Johnson storyline.

But on the sidelines of all this non-racist action, there’s a subplot storyline with a bunch of Nigerian “refugee gansters” who also live in District 9, and who traffic food and weapons with the aliens. And that’s where the racism is. The portrayal of the black mobsters is disgustingly racist.

The Nigerian gangsters are bloodthirsty, dishonest thugs, which is not a big deal- they’re gangsters, I get it. They see the aliens as mere cockroaches with money, so they don’t treat them well, and that makes perfect sense. They’re just cruel, self-interested mercenaries, and in this, they’re no worse than the film’s (mostly white) government officials, who cold-bloodedly torture and murder the aliens. So far no racism, just characters with motivations.

But!

The Nigerians have a wailing “witch doctor”. Who instructs them to eat the aliens. And they do it. Bloody, wriggling, and raw, of course.

We’re told that the black prostitutes “service” the aliens sexually. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME??!

And when Wikus’ arm grows a claw, the Nigerian gang boss starts licking his chops, eager to commit cannibalism.

Yup, that’s Hollywood’s Africa, isn’t it. Black Africans shown as degenerate savages who’ll have sex with non-humans and are pretty damn eager to eat people.

Disgusting.

The thing that really upsets me is that most people who see this movie won’t question, or even notice, this incredibly racist portrayal. It wasn’t even necessary for the plot, and in fact the racist elements actually created some plot holes.

The gang boss could have tried to take Wikus hostage, and use him and his scaly arm as a weapon, same as the white government tried to do. By trying to eat his arm “to gain his powers” the gang boss was risking everything. If eating the arm didn’t work, Gang-Guy would lose Wikus’ arm entirely, so his hunger for human flesh actually risked the only interface he had to enable the alien weapons. Drugging Wikus unconscious then just puppeteering his lobster hand onto the triggers of various alien flamethrowers would be a much cleverer- not to mention more palatable- plan. Not only does the intended cannibalism paint the black man as bloodthirsty and disgusting, but it’s also a needless risk that could sabotage the character’s goals. (Actually, logic suggests that both the gang boss and the government probably would have taken a few aliens hostage and forced them to shoot the guns long ago anyway, but that’s another story).

And the idea that the prostitutes had been servicing the aliens actually created a huge plot hole. All of South Africa knew that prostitutes had long been having sex with the aliens; so they would also know that Wikus couldn’t have begun an alien transformation from alien sexual contact, since the sexual transmission of alien DNA had already been in place for 20 years of interspecies prostitution. (I get it that the point was just to alarm the citizens so they would help the government in its hunt for Wikus, but still, things could at least make sense).

So why the racist parts? Why can’t the Nigerians just be people with logical motives like money and weapons? Why do they have to go out of their way to be ooga-booga savages? The film would still have held up without the narrative elements of cannibalism and interspecies sex. Why do the blacks have to be sexual degenerates who will eat filth and violate the oldest human taboo by committing cannibalism? The only reason I see is to shoehorn some cheap visceral thrills into the movie. It’s lazy, sensationalist writing, and it diminishes the potential for intelligent, nuanced allegory. And it doesn’t even make sense. Man, it pissed me off.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

District 9: What she said at Tobias Buckell Online on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:58 pm

[...] at Racialicious an alternate POV on District 9, which focuses on the big question I had about the [...]
Non-human Craze « UNI GIRL on 18 Aug 2009 at 4:38 pm

[...] of the movie in this post. For a great discussion please view the comments to these posts. My thoughts are for another day, perhaps after I see it again [...]
A little background about my D9 post « funny blog pageslap on 19 Aug 2009 at 3:56 am

[...] like when they offer up some of the justifications I’ve encountered in comments here, or on Racialicious, a great blog about the intersection of race & pop culture that ran this post yesterday. The [...]
Is District 9 Racist? - Motion Picture Nerd on 19 Aug 2009 at 9:16 am

[...] of the more interesting articles was on Racialicious. It claims a part of the films racism comes from the fact that the aliens were stand-ins for black [...]
D9 – Semi in depth thoughts « UNI GIRL on 19 Aug 2009 at 10:50 am

[...] machines they usually are (Alien, Predator). But this time (after reading Nicole Stamp’s impressions ) I had a different view on the movie. But, I still think it’s [...]
The Hundred Thousand Linkdoms « Torque Control on 22 Aug 2009 at 7:50 am

[...] 9: Good? (one, two) Bad? (one, two) Or one the fence? Alas, I don’t get to find out for another couple of [...]
Torrent Magazine on 26 Aug 2009 at 3:27 pm

District 9 Not Racist [Alternative Alternative Perspective]…

Either my racism radar is way off base, or this Racialicious article is way off base.
I actually skimmed this article before I had a chance to see the movie. Blame Facebook for that. Someone on my friends list linked it, and I couldn’t resist a q…
ULTRAKILLBOT » Exploring District 9’s Racial Context on 27 Aug 2009 at 1:40 am

[...] Racialicious, and ran smack dab into the guest post that came via pageslap, titled, aptly enough, District 9 is racist. Tough [...]
Allegorical Landmines: Aliens & Race in 'District 9' | The Defenders Online on 31 Aug 2009 at 5:11 pm

[...] a debate among some filmgoers about the depiction of District 9’s black characters is an example of how allegory can be rife with landmines. "District 9" from Sony [...]
District 9 (NZ/US/South Africa 2009) « The Case for Global Film on 06 Sep 2009 at 7:04 pm

[...] the depictions of the Nigerians. I’m not sure about this representation at all. Here’s a useful blog entry followed by a range of comments. I’m interested in the comment on the blog which mentions [...]
Butt-kicking Babes » District 9 (2009) on 22 Sep 2009 at 6:59 am

[...] gestellt werden, die District 9 über die sowieso vorhandene, sehr sichtbare (und möglicherweise eher problematische und in der Darstellung der nigerianischen Gangster und Prostitui…) Allegorie auf Apartheid und Rassentrennung [...]
District 9 – ficción y realidad « On Africa on 30 Sep 2009 at 11:54 am

[...] sexuales con alienigenas además de comérselos. Estos criticismos, presentes en distintos blogs además de Facebook, considera que la imagen dada de ellos en la película no hace sino accentuar [...]
torrent magazine on 06 Oct 2009 at 5:22 pm

A Retraction & Clarification on District 9 Review…

Sad Homesick Alien
I get more hate for the “District 9 Not Racist [Alternative Alternative Perspective]” article than any other article.
I’d like to address some of the comments we’ve received, and offer a more nuanced read of the movie t…

Comments

Steve wrote:

Since this topic is the same as yesterday’s I think I should reproduce my comments from that thread:

I am an African and I didn’t think it was racist at all.

I was mostly interested in seeing a Sci-Fi action movie set in South Africa (since I lived there for a few years) and I was very happy with the results.

I don’t the aliens are stand ins for black people or for apartheid it is more a question of “If aliens came to earth but did not have vast technology and resources how would we treat them?” Turns out we treat them pretty crappily.

As far as the issues with the aliens, it is posited that the aliens are some kind of “insect hive mind species” and that the queen alien is dead or something so most of the surviving ones lack much independent thought. Christopher obviously belongs to some more higher ranking group (perhaps a technician group) .

As for race, I thought it was pretty balanced, most of the biggest villains are white (Wikus’ father in law and the head mercenary) and Wikus himself is more clue less than heroic. It is clear that the Nigerian gangsters don’t represent all black people, since we see plenty of black people working at MNU and in the interviews and other footage.

In short I thought it was really good and you should see it if you have an interest in Sci-Fi and/or Africa.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 8:22 am ¶
Deets wrote:

Thank you! Finally a review that makes sense!

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 8:24 am ¶
pageslap wrote:

Hey all- I wrote this article, and had some really informative comments on my blog yesterday, which taught me some South African history and changed my view of the apartheid allegory. Besically, I’ve since learned that:

D9 was inspired by the real-life events in Cape Town’s District
Six in 1970s South Africa, where 60,000 mostly residents were evicted into slums so their former homes could be bulldozed by the
apartheid regime.

Knowing that, I think we have to look at the film as a direct apartheid allegory, and that makes the portrayal of the aliens more problematic than I’d originally thought.

The humans in the film mostly hate and fear the aliens, which is fine- that’s their subjective opinion, and it highlights the characters’ xenophobia. However, the unpleasantness of the aliens isn’t just the subjective, racist, and unfair opinion of the dominant class in the film. We, the audience, are also hit over the head with enough objectively disgusting alien images that we’re basically forced to agree that they seem to “deserve” to be caged in a slum; it does look like they’d be hard-pressed to contribute anything positive to a mixed society.

The lead alien, Christopher, as well as his son and his dead friend, are presented as good guys, but they’re the exception, not the rule. And Christopher’s also clearly the last survivor of a different, more intelligent “class” of aliens than the other “drone class” aliens anyway- so he’s kind of the Lone Noble Savage here. All the other aliens we encounter in that huge population seem stupid and destructive.

Looking at this as straight allegory, I’m really uncomfortable. Seeing the oppressed class as a horrible, inferior, undifferentiataed horde makes me cringe when that horde is so blithely compared to real humans who in no way “deserved” apartheid, and who did display individuality, organization, art, tenderness, and other admirable and human qualities, despite the conditions they had to endure.

The thing is, I doubt director Blomkamp s a conscious racist, deliberately setting out to equate blacks with mindless cockroaches. As I said, I think (hope!) that Blomkamp’s choice to make the aliens so disgusting was mostly artistic license, designed to enhance the film’s grittiness and add thrills, rather than any attempt to actually be representative of real black people oppressed by apartheid.

But this is muddy filmmaking, where choices are made just for their shock and gasp value, rather than as a carefully-thought-out allegorical model.

Aliens as undeserved oppressed class is a good allegory for apartheid. Aliens as filthy vermin who, let’s face it, kind of deserved quarantine? Not a fair comparison.

So the more people I hear saying “This film is a really smart allegory about apartheid”, the more nervous I get.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 8:27 am ¶
ms four wrote:

I haven’t seen it, but the metaphor is a bit confusing… since the aliens are the new arrivals, shouldn’t they be analogous to white South Africans? And are the humans in South Africa all white or does it reflect South Africa’s actual population?

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 9:54 am ¶
PhilMorBru wrote:

Thanks for the review. I definitely won’t be giving my money to this film. Shouldn’t be surprising coming from P. Jackson. He had the opportunity to remove racist imagery from LotR but chose not to – even when he departed from the books to give the few women more substantial roles.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 9:58 am ¶
mistersquid wrote:

Apartheid is terrible because humans were denied rights. The “apartheid” of these aliens isn’t that terrible – it’s kind of justifiable, because they’re actually dangerous, violent and destructive.

I agree District 9 deploys racist stereotypes even as it asks its audience to consider the ill effects of such. However, the statement quoted above does not consider that fact that humans who are forced to live in degraded conditions do, in fact, commit atrocities. Look in any major city, read any major newspaper, and the acts committed by the aliens in District 9 could be taken as exemplary behavior.

The use of stereotypes (e.g. blacks cannibalistic bokors) is not the only thing to consider when determining what District 9 is about.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 10:02 am ¶
cocolamala wrote:

cloaking minorities in animal characteristics or characterizing them as savage does happen in our society. when poc are viewed through the lens of this society, we are seen as the “Other” (or aliens).

black models in two recent magazine spreads were characterized as animalistic or associated with wild animals. One featuring snarling lips, being locked in cages — the other, a spread of Naomi Campbel in Africa shot with her playing with monkeys and running with cheetas

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 10:10 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

OK, first of all, I guess you HAVEN’T HEARD that many Albino Africans have been kidnapped and killed by African gangs, in order to cannibalize them because some people think that Albino human body parts have good health benefits???? Yeah, you read that right. I guess you don’t read the news, huh?

This was EVIDENT when some aliens (”prawns”) were killed and eaten by Nigerian gangs. When I watched that scene, it reminded me of those disturbing articles about Albino Africans who were killed in the name of some stupid supersitious bullshit.

As for everything else you pointed out, I agree. I loved the movie, but I was greatly bothered by how Blacks were portrayed.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 10:39 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

I’d just like to raise an alternate problem… would this movie would really have been improved if the aliens had been noble and pure?

I think we already have tons of stories in the popular media that are metaphors for oppression and persecution and racism and segregation and apartheid. A lot of these are loose fables in which animals or aliens or supernatural beings stand in for race. Think The Smurfs, E.T., Shrek, The Iron Giant. These stories carry a message that “people are people” and you need to look beyond physical appearance and not react with fear or hatred when you see someone different from you.

Those are great messages. But they’re so prevalent that they drown out other messages about how to treat difference. They’re so prevalent they can encourage negative tendencies like…

– the idea that noticing difference is bad. This can contribute to colorblind racism. “I don’t notice difference. You do… you’re the real racist.”

– the idea that groups who are oppressed, feared and hated unjustly are always more noble and pure. When the person who internalizes this messages encounters an oppressed group member who isn’t perfect, who makes any mistakes, then the right of the entire group to complain about their oppression is cast into serious doubt. Supporting a group of noble martyred victims is a lot easier than a supporting a group of real, complicated, flawed people.

I’m not saying that watching The Smurfs makes kids racist. But there are already soooo many allegories of racial oppression out there, and the vast majority of them agree with each other and are rather saccharine from the point of view of adults. So I think any story in which the “racial aliens” actually aren’t very nice and pure is a welcome contrast and adds some sophistication… whether District 9 pulls this off responsibly is another matter, but as a general point, I’m not dissuaded from seeing it solely based on the apartheid analogy argument.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 10:40 am ¶
Wix wrote:

Isn’t it impossible to make a good/meaningful movie about recent history in South Africa and NOT have at least part of the story deal with and address apartheid/legacy of apartheid. And also, since apartheid is part of recent history, does the movie address this historical echo at all? Apartheid…then alien ghetto? I mean you can’t just pretend that history never happened, even with artistic license (in my opinion).

I’m not trying to say that every story set in South Africa has to be about apartheid. I haven’t seen the movie so I really don’t know, but these would definitely be questions I would have.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
Eurasian Sensation wrote:

I haven’t seen it, but I kinda want to now – it sounds like you are over-interpreting things, but I’d like to judge it for myself.

Regarding the cannibalism you describe in the movie, that sort of stuff does go on in parts of Africa as part of black magic and traditional superstitions – is it racist to show it in a movie? For example: at least 1 albino is murdered per month in Tanzania for their body parts which some believe will grant certain powers; while small children raped in South Africa because sex with a virgin is believed to cure AIDS.
I’m certainly not implying that these are anything other than the practices of a minority, but it happens. Truth is often stranger than fiction. While what the Nigerian gangsters do in the movie may seem ridiculously far-fetched to you, in truth it’s quite believable in the context of the movie, and in the context of the horrors that unfortunately still exist in Africa.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 11:00 am ¶
Leila wrote:

What my partner and I were most shocked by was the audience reaction to the death of the Nigerian warlord in comparison to that of the evil white military leader. When the Nigerian warlord’s head is eviscerated by the hero the audience exploded in joy and applause. When the military leader was pulled apart by the aliens there was no reaction at all. We just looked at each other with our mouths agape.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 11:06 am ¶
Oyibo wrote:

To answer your question on why Nigerians were villeinized, I drew from personal experience and assumed that the film had been written by South Africans.

My husband is Nigerian and we lived in South Africa for a couple of years. I have to say that when we saw the Nigerian plot line, we thought that it screamed of some of the rampant prejudice against Nigerians and other African expatriates living in South Africa: it blames them for instigating and perpetuating violent crime; accusations of rampant “superstitious” behavior like mhuti – including eating or sacrificing human children; for sale of drugs (cat food), etc.

I think this is exacerbated by calling the leader Obasanjo (former Nigerian president and military dictator) – which we had first laughed at as a joke – and by not even attempting to hire Nigerian actors (which has one of the biggest film industries in Africa and regularly films movies in SA), but using South Africans speaking Xhosa.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 11:11 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

@Oyibo: A Nigerian-American pal saw this and came away with the same conclusion about South African prejudice playing into these portrayals. The author correctly notes that these are old racist themes: cannibalistic and hypersexualized “savages.” Yup, I’ll be saving my 15 bucks, thankyouverymuch.

@atlasien: Oh, no, not “The Smurfs” too! Damn you, racism! MUST you take my childhood, too?

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 12:34 pm ¶
Tom wrote:

This is almost exactly the same reaction my brother and I had.

[Incidentally, I thought that the reason the aliens were portrayed the way they were (by the documentary people at first) was because they had been abused and oppressed for 30 years, and the cameras only cared to record their squalid surroundings and seemingly "primitive" behavior. But then, the final scene just showed them ripping apart the villainous Special Forces guy in a "wild" fashion]

But right off the bat, it was apparent that the Nigerian gangsters were going to be a huge problem. It’s weird, because the director has said that the movie is not meant to speak not to apartheid so much as to post-apartheid SA and the people who prey on poor refugees in that country today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/movies/06district.html). If so, it still does several things wrong: it portrays refugees/aliens as vicious, mindless sub-humans who must be saved/identified with *despite* themselves, and it portrays Nigerian immigrants as predatory, primitive, and opportunistic. Of course, the white leaders of SA are shown to be evil people. I felt literally sick for two scenes in the movie – first when the father in law watches them torture Wikus, and then the two scenes where the Nigerians confront Wikus, and the scene when they drag him from the car. Those scenes were so intentionally directed from a racially hateful/distrustful stance, it was hard to watch.

Still, I agree with atlasien that it would be both foolish and instantly, noticeably corny and false to create aliens who were just really swell. I liked that the aliens and humans had trouble understanding each other, even after 30 years, I just didn’t like the fact that we never once got to see the inner struggles and pains suffered by aliens. It was all Wikus (even though he was awesomely played) on the human side, and Christopher Johnson wasn’t strongly written or characterized at all. It was disappointingly one-sided.

Oh, and sorry for the long comment.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 12:42 pm ¶
inkst wrote:

@pageslap, re: “We, the audience, are also hit over the head with enough objectively disgusting alien images that we’re basically forced to agree that they seem to “deserve” to be caged in a slum; it does look like they’d be hard-pressed to contribute anything positive to a mixed society.”

Interestingly enough, I came away with a different impression. Someone on the other D9 thread mentioned that these grotesque images are shown to us through the documentary lens, while we meet Christopher, his son and friend through a “regular” supposedly objective lens. In my viewing of the film, there were two viewings of the aliens: the one on the fictional news, and the one from Christopher’s perspective. We weren’t given enough information to know much about whether they could have contributed, and I think atlasien’s point about them needing to be imperfect and downright gross at first glance helps to complicate the story. In fact, I thought it was a testament to the animation that I did sympathize and even empathize with the aliens when they were being kicked, held at gun point, harassed, tricked, and executed. It was heartwrenching to me to see those images in spite of the inhuman appearance of the aliens. I also do not think that this was supposed to be a direct allegory, even if it is “based” on events from the real District 6.

I in no way want to dismiss anyone’s interpretation of the film. In fact, it is fascinating to me how wide the range of opinions is on this particular blog for this movie. I usually view big budget films in particular with a very critical race lens, but I find myself agreeing with Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist that in spite of some problems, I really liked the film on several levels.

Probably the fundamental problem with it is that it was made by white people. Works of art that address racial issues through a white lens are always going to be slightly off, but I still think it was an important film.

I also really appreciate this dialogue on both threads!

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
inkst wrote:

Also, in regards to the direct assertion of the title, I don’t necessarily disagree. District 9 certainly has racist elements, and people have made strong arguments for it being racist overall (in spite of the director’s intentions). I guess my question is: with something that is new like this (as opposed to getting a pass for the era it was made in), even if we feel that it’s racist, can we find redeeming value in it? Should we bother?

I tend to thing that we can and should salvage what we can. Our society is so steeped in racism that it’s almost impossible to have a piece of media (particularly pop culture media) that doesn’t reflect this climate in some way. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:13 pm ¶
Kathryn wrote:

@Leila

The same thing happened in my theater. People were much more excited, impressed and amused by the gang leaders death, despite the fact that the military leader had a larger role and was portrayed as more evil—the only reason he wanted to kill aliens was because he hated them. He had no underlying motivations like acquisition of power or superstitious belief, like the Nigerians. People laughed, cheered and went “Hell yeah!” when the gang leader died, and the military leader got some scattered “Whoas.”

All other things aside, I think those disparate audience reactions speak to how dehumanized the Nigerian characters were.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶
Urban Suburbinite wrote:

“The aliens are loathsome, trash-eating vermin who fight endlessly, destroy property for no reason, and piss on their own homes.”

Fight endlessly- Like the gang and drug related violence present in many inner cities?

Destroy property for no reason- Like the vandalism committed by many suburban teens for no reason?

Piss on their own homes- Ever walk around Philly or NYC? I have had the misfortune to walk past people pissing on Apt. buildings. Not homeless people, but residents too lazy to go back inside and up however many floors to use their bathroom.

The movie gave the aliens many negative characteristics that humans display daily.

Re: experiments performed on the aliens- Ever heard of the Tuskeegee Experiment? http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

“We, the audience, are also hit over the head with enough objectively disgusting alien images that we’re basically forced to agree that they seem to “deserve” to be caged in a slum”

Isn’t this what the news/media does to blacks/latinos in the ghettos of America? If I never knew a black person (or wasn’t one myself) and all I had to go on was what was shown on TV, I’d think we were drug dealing, gang-banging, uneducated welfare queens (Funny that- whenever they do a human interest piece on welfare there is alway a black woman, even though statistically more than 70% of welfare recipients are white.), who are only interested in bling and tricked out cars.

Re: “Prawn” behavior (as stated on the other thread, but applies here as well)

I picked up on the the whole hive heirarchy, and Christopher’s rank. However I thought that it was also a wink at media portrayals of minorities. The footage of the Prawns behaving badly was shot documentary style. When we meet Christopher it is regular film. It just reminded me of how many times the news shows the least educated, more prone to violence, criminalized type POC. When a non-POC meets an educated POC (sometimes) they react with the same surprise Wickus did when he discovered how intelligent Christopher was.

Also the thing that bothered me most about the Nigerian gangs, was that they were always referred to as “The Nigerians” or “The Nigerian Gangs”. It made it seem as though being Nigerian was more detrimental than the fact they were a gang. In the states most gangs have names Bloods, Crips, Los Solidos etc. I would think that the particular gang would have a name as well.

One last thing. I could see the apartheid overtones, but scenes at the beginning with the different people saying how the aliens didn’t belong here, reminded me of how some Americans speak about Mexican immigrants.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:52 pm ¶
SR wrote:

It is a shame that the writers and directors of this movie learned nothing from the anti-immigrant riots of last year and continue to demonize immigrants in the guise of developing sympathy for non-human aliens.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:54 pm ¶
Urban Suburbinite wrote:

Disregard that extra e in Tuskegee.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

I can’t wait to read this post after I watch the film. I admit that the trailer made me feel uncomfortable because it seemed to have an anti-immigrant vibe :/

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶
Frere Freire wrote:

Um…I may be a complete blockhead here, and I haven’t seen this remake (I did see Blomkamp’s short film _Alive in Joburg_, which District 9 is an extension of), but I think the point of the original short–and it would seem the full length feature–is that no sentient creature “deserves” oppression, no matter who they are or what they do. When you start to enter into the question of who does and doesn’t “deserve” oppression, you are automatically taking the position of the oppressor, who is the only one who has the power to make that choice. The oppressed never have that power themselves. The very logic the author uses in what would be a “correct” anti-apartheid film is the same logic used in Uncle Tom’s Cabin–that people who conform to the oppressor’s idea of “good” and “virtuous” deserve to be left alone–and those who don’t, well, deserve what they get. It’s nobody’s business how someone else behaves. If there *were* humans who were disorderly, violent, considered horrible to look at by other humans, and not very intelligent, would they deserve to be put into a ghetto? Would they deserve to be exterminated? I think you know what the answer to that question is. Maybe you should watch The Elephant Man and have another thought about this film.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 2:27 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

I am first generation Italian American. With this logic, The Sopranos, is racist.

I loved the movie, and I hate 99% of movies I have seen in the past 10 years. “Dark Knight” and “Star Trek” were unwatchable. Horrible. Without one shred of a message. “District 9″ rocked. The SA dude aqnd the “prawn” got together and succeeded.

I am praying for a sequel where Christopher comes back, restores the SA guy and then shows humanity what peace and justice are all about by NOT nuking MNU.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶
inkst wrote:

@SR – while I can see where some folks are coming from in saying that elements of this movie (or the whole thing) are racist, I do not understand how immigrants are demonized at all. Have you seen the film? Could you explain that please?

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 2:34 pm ¶
oddrid wrote:

@pageslap

However, the unpleasantness of the aliens isn’t just the subjective, racist, and unfair opinion of the dominant class in the film. We, the audience, are also hit over the head with enough objectively disgusting alien images that we’re basically forced to agree that they seem to “deserve” to be caged in a slum; it does look like they’d be hard-pressed to contribute anything positive to a mixed society.

I have to disagree. I think we’re supposed to view the “disgusting” qualities of the aliens as self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they are scavengers—we don’t provide them with enough resources. Of course they are violent—we are violent towards them, they have no reason to trust us. All of the unsavory qualities that the aliens display are really our fault.

I think the aliens might very well by peaceful and civilized, it’s just that the humans are completely opposed to seeing them in this way. We are able to communicate with them, but as shown in that awesome scene with Wikus when he talks baby-talk to Christopher, we are willfully ignorant of their true nature and instead impose our already held views on them.

And I for one am glad the aliens are physically repulsive. If they were more human, or cuter, we wouldn’t have any intellectual or emotional barrier to overcome when we sympathize with them. We are forced to recognize the human qualities in something non-human and physically repulsive to us. That is the main challenge given to the viewers of District 9.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 2:37 pm ¶
Jennifer P wrote:

@ inkst, response to: “I guess my question is: with something that is new like this (as opposed to getting a pass for the era it was made in), even if we feel that it’s racist, can we find redeeming value in it? Should we bother?”

I tend to agree with you that it’s hard to find anything in contemporary popular culture that’s not problematic (in terms of race, class, gender, nativism, etc.), and that it thus makes sense to “salvage what we can,” esp. from those texts that do seem to be making an effort to confront some injustices and biases (even if they simultaneously perpetuate others). But I think it has to be a judgment call on any particular text how the good and bad balance out. With D9, I tend to think that the overall point that no sentient beings deserve to be treated like that (with pretty heavy reminders that both recently in SA and currently in refugee and immigration situations around the world–not to mention the Holocaust, which is evoked by Wikus’s reference to the relocation centers as “concentration camps” as well as the medical experiments–people have been and still are treated that badly), as well as the other strengths of the film (originality, art design, acting, FX), on the whole make it worth “salvaging” despite the really offensive portrayal of the Nigerians. But I don’t think that means we can give it a free pass from the charge that a significant aspect of the film IS racist or assume that because some of the film is anti-racist, nothing in it can be racist.

Anti-racist arguments coexist with racist assumptions all the time, and I think it’s important to recognize both. Just because someone or some text sincerely opposes, say, apartheid or slavery or forced relocation of refugees or genocide doesn’t mean they can’t still harbor a lot of really problematic assumptions and stereotypes.

BTW, I think that is equally true of older texts as well. Just because you decide a text has redeeming qualities that make it worth preserving or enjoying or studying doesn’t mean you should just shrug off the racist parts as, “Oh well, that’s just how everybody thought back then.” Esp. in the 20th century, when there were active civil rights movements and anti-racist texts that the authors or producers COULD very well have learned from had they bothered.

BTW, the representation of Italian Americans on the Sopranos and Nigerians in D9 are not even remotely equivalent. The Sopranos represents its Italian Americans as complex characters who even if they do terrible things or indulge in some stereotypical behavior have a lot of redeeming and sympathetic human qualities. As do D9’s aliens. The D9 Nigerians are thoroughly dehumanized, cardboard-cutout villainous savages. The white villains are also cardboard cutouts, but rational human ones. I think these sorts of distinctions are crucial. All racism and stereotyping is not created equal, and does not have equally pernicious social consequences.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 3:48 pm ¶
diza wrote:

@Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist I do understand what you are saying about the Albinos, however, in American society there seems to be a trend for school shoot outs, pregnant women being murdered by the spouses and con artists portraying themselves as prophets and commiting terrible crimes under that guise

Doesn’t mean that in a film that features an all nigerian cast, the only americans featured would do those things, if you catch my drift.

Yes I chose a rather trivial and random topics but thats exactly my point. Some nigerian people murdering/eating albinos isn’t all and everything nigerians do and are about and I think its unfair for the film and infact nearly every hollywood film to portray it as such.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶
inkst wrote:

“Anti-racist arguments coexist with racist assumptions all the time, and I think it’s important to recognize both. Just because someone or some text sincerely opposes, say, apartheid or slavery or forced relocation of refugees or genocide doesn’t mean they can’t still harbor a lot of really problematic assumptions and stereotypes.”

Well said!!

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
Clare wrote:

Interesting conversation about a film that is based on a premise that we generally assume is total fiction: aliens from another planet living among us. Focusing on human racism in the film is good though, since it sounds like another Hollywood zillion dollar thing that needs to make a lot of money to recoup expense: lots of people will have to see it. I’m sure Jackson knew that the racial angle was controversial. Could he be that stupid?

No one talked about the aliens, obviously because they are not the REAL part of the film. The bigger message to me personally is that HUMANS are inherently racist and that even in the face of an “alien” presence, we are ignorant and self-serving. I’ll start there with the big broad stroke that we seem to take for granted. We are fed descriptions of ourselves and we keep eating them up…(sorry, no pun intended). In our films, aliens are either super good or super bad, and we’re always having to learn something from them since we’re always super stupid.

Too many filmmakers create in broad strokes because they get their reward in the broad stokes. Most blockbuster films create propaganda that we absorb without knowing it because you don’t get big distribution for a film unless you play the game (and none of us are sure what that is, which gives us the disadvantage). I always think we are encouraged to look in one place, so that we don’t see what’s really going on in another place. In the case of this film, I’m not sure what we “should” think except that, as a species, we are dumb, violent and racist. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that media controls the way we see ourselves…or that media controls anything, right?

And finally, on the general subject of racism, in every race around the globe, women are still seen as the inferior gender. That may not always have been the case through history, but it certainly is now. No race has done a good job of really equalizing this, but then, it’s the broader stroke that always wins our attention. Says something about out attention.

This is a great blog and I really appreciate the intelligence behind the thoughts. The review was great. Thanks.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 4:37 pm ¶
Ramon wrote:

Don’t mean to self-promote, but we just ran a review with similarly scathing points after we couldn’t find a voice calling out the blatant racism of D9:

http://athousandgrams.com/features/

We’re a hip-hop blog and my co-editor, Reggie Ugwu, is Nigerian and walked out of the film in disgust over the weekend.

Great review.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 5:30 pm ¶
Conner wrote:

I think the problem with the portrayal of the Nigerian gang was how they kept going out of their way to note their nationality! People keep commenting “African gangs” killing albinos and shit but “African gangs” doesn’t equal Nigerian! That’s like a single shaman in Mexico leading to the portrayal of all Canadians as shamans. Just because you can reduce them both to American or in the case of the movie African, doesn’t mean that you get off the hook when you portray them in a stereotypical light. I enjoyed the movie though there were a couple of moments that irked me. At the beginning the main guy refers to a black man as “boy” and never calls someone that again. He also goes out of his way to extend a handshake with one of the black officers. When they were reporting on the violence with the aliens, they played hip hop music. I was like, “Oh fuck this shit.” I seriously almost left after those things happened right after each other but I stayed. There was also the way that they kept referring to the Nigerian gang as “The Nigerians” which caught me off guard as I was thinking if this is a particular gang why doesn’t it have a name separate from its nationality? They had no qualifiers when they were talking about the Nigerian gang, they just kept saying, “The Nigerians.” All in all, I think that trying to set a socially conscience sci fi film in a place with such contentious race relations as South Africa from 1990-now might have been too big a feat for the film makers though it wasn’t a terrible mistake.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 6:43 pm ¶
cvalda wrote:

I have to disagree. I think we’re supposed to view the “disgusting” qualities of the aliens as self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they are scavengers—we don’t provide them with enough resources. Of course they are violent—we are violent towards them, they have no reason to trust us. All of the unsavory qualities that the aliens display are really our fault.

Agreed, I thought the alien plotline was pretty sophisticated. While the mockumentary section of the film casts them as mindlessly violent, the straight narrative section shows them to be sophisticated but horribly oppressed. The tone is set early on when a talking-head says they’re workers and therefore probably mindless drones, then soon after we see them plotting a technologically advanced rebellion.

Also didn’t think it was a direct allegory for apartheid so much as a wider commentary on oppression. In some ways the camps were more comparable to Palestine, in that the aliens were left jobless and basically treated as training ground for the military-industrial complex. The commentary on immigration rights is also increasingly relevant.

Problem is, and this is an old one with SFF: if you humanise the aliens, that doesn’t somehow balance out your dodgy portrayals of POC. The Nigerian gangsters definitely marred the film, and in fact follow a similar pattern to Jackson’s King Kong.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 6:58 pm ¶
khinky wrote:

The xenophobia in this film is astounding. I’ve grown up in SA and by the time I was in high school it was “common knowledge” that Nigerians were ugly smelly morally bankrupt people who came to the country explicitly to spread crack & prostitution. We have a huge xenophobia problem and I’m sorry but it seems to me like this film goes out of its way to perpetuate it.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶
EH wrote:

I saw the movie yesterday and honestly thought it was pretty god. But yea while I was watching the movies I did find the portrayals of the Nigerians in the movie pretty racist while I was watching it. My girlfriend (who is Nigerian) I doubt enjoyed the movie as much as I did and I couldn’t blame her.

I really did think the whole witch doctor cannibalism thing was taking it a bit far. It also felt like their nationality was a bit over emphasized in the movie. I understood they were Nigerians from the start but it was almost like the movie was trying to hammer it into your head.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶
Kirb wrote:

http://www.viewnaija.com/site/video/2697/Riots-in-South-Africa–Immigrants-Killed-by-Angry-South-Africans

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 9:15 pm ¶
seppo wrote:

re: the portrayal of the aliens – I thought, as a few have said, that the point of showing the aliens as basically reprehensible savages was to represent not what they actually were, but what they were *perceived as* by the humans.

It was meant to frame the humans’ perception of the aliens in this context. If they’d showed the aliens off the bat as “noble savages” then the humans’ utterly disgusting behavior would be utterly disgusting from the start. By couching the aliens as disgusting, subhuman creatures, it makes the viewer approach the prawns from the same perspective as the humans *in the movie*, not as objective observers.

Posted 18 Aug 2009 at 11:13 pm ¶
Lauren wrote:

You say the Prawns are presented as savage and disgusting. True but what I got from the movie was that ill treatment of humans and aliens alike will create a violent affect. Compare Wikus in act 1 to the Wikus in act 3. The dude is practically foaming at the mouth, screaming at the top of his lungs and killing humans left, right and center by the end of the movie. You put anyone in a slum, strip them of all rights and systematically marginalize, threaten and degrade them and you’re going to breed anger, resentment, violence and desperation. There were many scenes in the film that showed aliens as cooperative, intelligent and peaceful. If you understand the environment of D9 and imagine what life is like for the Prawn refugees, you can begin to understand why violence might break out.

On the question of the portrayal of the Nigerians — there are gang lords that in real life exploit the slums and their residents. That was realistic. Regarding the cannibalizing of alien body parts — why would you think it would be more efficient to simply keep Wikus as a hostage to operate the weaponry? That’s clumsy in comparison to the autonomy of being able to operate the weapons yourself, without having to drag a battery pack the size of a man along. This opinion was clearly shared by MNU — thus why they were prepared to dissect Wikus instead of keeping him alive. (And why is the plan to dissect him until there’s nothing left less disgusting to you than the gang boss eating his arm?)

When it comes to the inter-species mating, I felt the implication was that while female humans had long been servicing male aliens, male humans had stayed away from that.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 3:09 am ¶
Mike wrote:

Nigerian voodoo:

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2582.0.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/oddities/150938/nigerian_gangs_use_voodoo_in_sex_trade/

http://www.google.com/search?q=nigerian+voodoo&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS247US247

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 8:59 am ¶
sarah wrote:

“In some ways the camps were more comparable to Palestine.” That is so funny that you say that, I too felt at times that the film seemed to have stronger parallels to Israel-Palestine.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

Ok, so I saw the movie last night and I agree with everything Nicole wrote here.

I am just appalled at many of the responses here. I can’t believe people are actually trying to defend and justify the horrible depictions of Nigerians.

@ Leila # 12 – Co-sign! There were a group of teenagers sitting behind me and they would laugh every time the Nigerian characters came on screen (especially at certain parts like the witch doctor or whenever the man in the wheelchair said something).

Even if they weren’t sitting behind me, the demonization of Nigerians was enough to make me feel uncomfortable. I totally agree that they were NOT necessary. The movie started out with MNU oppressing aliens, and then all of sudden, we see this stereotypical Nigerian gang. Then, towards the end of the film, we see mostly White soldiers shooting up Nigerians. That came out of nowhere!

The Black prostitutes that “service” the aliens was extremely offensive. I don’t understand how that is necessary at all!

@ Lauren – You seem like you’re trying to dodge the racial issues here. You said, “I felt the implication was that while female humans had long been servicing male aliens, male humans had stayed away from that.”

Um, the mentioned prostitute characters are not just female humans, they are BLACK female humans. Your privilege is showing when you say the Nigerian gang was “realistic.” I feel like you’ve totally missed the points that Nicole is addressing here.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶
eustatic wrote:

First, this is not a Hollywood movie but a south african movie with special effects from New Zealand. the fact that it has made so much money in the U.S. is a bit damaging to Hollywood’s position as the movie-making Leviathan. Maybe by “Hollywood” you meant that this movie is not very deep, and it isn’t. it’s clever, but not very deep. Ultimately, if this movie is about anything, it’s also about how cool it is to blow things up, and how cool aliens and spaceships are.

But I thought the point the movie was making about white supremacy was that the caricature of humans as viewed through the eyes of white supremacy–immigrant worker humans / people of color are lazy, ugly, dirty, smelly, violent, unimaginative, ever-whoring, always ginned up on cat food, raping “our” women, leaderless, etc, etc, –the racist and classist caricature, like the kind whites held for district 6 under apartheid, could only be true if ghetto people were actually a completely different species, with a different biological nature.

Presenting ideas about “ghetto people/ immigrants” in the form of a completely different species highlights the absurdity of these different stereotypes whites and nativists have towards actual ghetto people and immigrants. To actually find a people like that, they must be aliens!

the aliens represent not black south africans under apartheid, but the racist ideas that whites had about black south africans under apartheid–or, ideas present-day south africans have about immigrants (of color).

They represent the idea that people in ghettos or under apartheid are there because of some kind of insurmountable biological destiny. This is the first part of the movie, with the man-on-the-street-interviews, etc–that presents the idea of a social ideology of “human supremacy.”

The idea that biology is destiny is then subverted by the main action of the plot, in which we discover more reasons for the aliens’ condition and struggle. Of course, these conditions and stuggle have little to do with the apartheid struggle –these are aliens with spaceships, a caste socio-biology akin to some insects, and strange biotechnology.

So, even if a “ghetto” social condition has some biological reason (an “if” which we have to make up fictional aliens in order to satisfy), we are shown both aliens and humans subverting or changing their own biologies in the struggle against the circumstances and political forces that have created the conditions. The technician alien is getting smarter, repairing the alien technology in the hope of reconstituting his caste society, and his son is smarter still; the white, human son of privilege can learn something about what it is to be an alien in the eyes of the human supremacists. Thus, your biology is not your destiny.

As a biologist i appreciate this point being made, because of the way that things like DNA and biology are presented in mainstream american (i’m in the U.S.) culture, as somehow determining every behavior, denying agency to human beings. This is neither good biology nor good politics.

anyway, this is what i think the author intended. The Nigerian gangsters did appear unnecessarily distasteful, but i don’t know enough about it to comment. The author is a white south african, and thus maybe like Wikus, struggling, but selfishly rather than heroically.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

@ eustatic

I respect your opinion, but how do you expect most viewers to interpret the film the way you see it? (especially the young viewers behind me who were laughing at the “superstitious” Nigerian characters)

It’s easier to view the Nigerian characters in an extremely backward and negative light.

And I honestly did not like the protagonist. I felt no sympathy for him. He was selfish throughout most of the film and relentlessly used slurs and insults against the aliens. Only at the end, does he make a sacrifice, but it wasn’t enough to change my opinion about his character.

@ Matt – What’s the point in sharing those links? Are you trying to justify a racist depiction of a certain group of people? If a film has Arab and/or Muslim terrorists, and someone like me speaks out against how Islamophobic it is, should people just pull up links of suicide bombers to justify the film’s representation of Muslims?

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:

@ diza

You are completely right.

I think it’s pretty well-established in the thread that there is such a thing as voodoo and there are people who practice it, and some of those people are Nigerian. And of the people who are Nigerian who also happen to practice voodoo, a small infinitesimal minority also happen to be bat shit crazy. Doesn’t mean ALL the Nigerians in the movie should be represented this way.

I love the movie, so I keep trying to find an interpretation that justifies the depiction, but in the end, I think it’s just another case of Completely Unnecessary Racism.

I also second (or third) the counter idea that’s been tossed around a little bit – that the depiction of the aliens as subhuman violent scavengers is an intentional critique of media representations of POC. How many times did a newscaster repeat the term Prawn, announce that it’s derogatory, that it refers to “bottom feeders”, and then not present any alternative terms? How many times did a newsreel intentional capture Prawns Acting Crazy? When the audience finally gets to see district 9 for themselves, we’re rolling in with two mercenary groups, an armored convoy, bullet proof vests, and air support. AIR SUPPORT. How are we supposed to not infer that whatever we need AIR SUPPORT AND TANKS to pacify is incredibly dangerous and violent? The Prawns are never given a chance to speak for themselves while not under gunpoint and threat of force because that’s often the only interaction hegemony allows.

The Prawns have bio-fueled super weapons that turn people to jelly and power suits that can easily eradicate an entire troop of soldiers, they’re also super strong and bullet resistant, the fact that they haven’t. tried. to. escape is a testament to their nobility. This fact though, is intentional obfuscated by the movie, which is pointedly told from the perspective of the human oppressors.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 4:41 pm ¶
Orchid wrote:

I am Ghanaian, but I find the way the Nigerians are represented really repulsive and really disheartening. I understand that there were trying to show how cruel humans can be towards those they deem as the “other”, but it seem really lazy, imagination wise, for them to revert tot he voodoo practicing, cannibalistic, savage African stereotype. It did not seem necessary, and it still baffles me why they chose to make them that way. A friend of mine jumped on it when I announced how disappointed I was with the movie for the way the Nigerians were portrayed. When i stated my case, he told me that even if they had cast the white people as the cannibals and the Nigerians as the ruthless soldiers, i would still have something to complain about and that i just need to realize “it’s just a movie”. I’m tired of hearing that. obviously people do not think they are just movie because these stereotypes have appeared in movies over and over, and that is all Americans I know seem to know about the continent. That movie, is messing with our right as Africans to create our own individual identities. It is misinforming people and people are in term forcing those stereotypes onto us. I am tired of movies like that, it needs to stop. I’m very disappointed in this movie.
You know, I think people are getting very defensive when this aspect of the movie is analyzed because they think they are implicated in it because they like the movie. people need to step back. What if people you knew were portrayed like that?
Thank you for writing this. The comments, as always, are such a pleasure to read.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶
grateful listener wrote:

I was actually quite annoyed by the depiction of the Nigerian gangs, because it was out of place and unnecessary the point of the story. My half black American and half Nigerian boyfriend pointed to me that people involved with the film had some major beef with Nigerians (btw, his family in Nigeria are some hard core Jehovah’s Witnesses). And while I’m sure there are voodoo practicing Nigerians, I’m also pretty sure their numbers are dwarfed by Muslims. It’s just silly, and insulting to attempt to defend this depiction of Nigerians without acknowledging how the number of people who practice voodoo pale in comparison to the number of Nigerian Christians and Muslims, and of course other ethnic groups who practice voodoo outside of Nigeria. My boyfriend also thought that the gang crime depicted in the film would be beneath most Nigerians and that they would rather scheme you out of money.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 8:33 pm ¶
Erika wrote:

@Leila
The audience I was a part of had the same reaction as well. It was weird, and I was wondering if it was based on race the whole ride home…
Personally I thought the warlord and the military leader were both really evil, and was glad to see both of them die

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 8:41 pm ¶
Urban Suburbinite wrote:

@Anonymous

Word! -To everything you said.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:

@ Mike,
You have to remember something about “The Sopranos,” though: while I am aware that many Italians did not like the portrayal of the life of mafiosi being applied to all Italians, the general treatment of Tony Soprano and his family by the screenwriting is that they are flawed but STILL a “family.”
You have to understand that when a movie like “Hoodlum” or “American Gangster” come out, it is very rare occurrence, but as vicious as any movie that portrays La Cosa Nostra, the reason folks flock to theatres or to see those movies or tune in HBO or buy the DVDs of “The Sopranos” is that the Italian version of crime is, somehow, stylized and glorified. It’s even portrayed on-screen as BETTER than the black version of crime.
Need I remind you of almost every crime saga, there’s a shitty remark about either leaving drug-dealing to the black people so they could destroy themselves (”The Godfather”) or how the protection of white or Italian female sexuality from the menace of black virility is stated in graphic detail (”Goodfellas”)?
Even when a movie like “American Gangster” or “Hoodlum” comes out, folks that aren’t in the know act all surprised when they see the ingenuity in how Ellsworth Johnson or Frank Lucas conducted their illicit businesses. I guess it’s “easier” for some to like John Gotti or Alphonse Capone, even, than a Bumpy Johnson or a Frank Lucas, even though they are all cut from the same cloth.
I recommend you read a book called “The Outfit” by Gus Russo. Trust me: it’s an eye-opener. One of my friends wrote her thesis in college on the origins of the mafia, and she researched a lot of what was in that book.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 9:10 pm ¶
Julia Su. wrote:

I think these points are well taken.

However, the press kit for the movie presents it as an explicit allegory of apartheid, and the director and star (both of whom are white South African men) have said that in every interview, so I think it’s safe to say that it is intended as an explicit allegory of apartheid.

And, yeah, “Hollywood” is a pretty irrelevant term for a movie filmed in South Africa by a South African director and post-produced in New Zealand. The only US connection here is the US distribution.

Posted 19 Aug 2009 at 10:46 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Is anyone else seeing a broken/disabled image above the jump? It says ‘Bandwidth Exceeded.’

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 12:04 am ¶
Moitonpicture enrd wrote:

Hi
I wrote post on motion picture nerd. I found your article interesting and had some quick reactions to it and wrote them up. I wasn’t trying to argue against what you guys thought (if someone is offended by something then it isn’t something that can be argued). I just enjoy open discussion when it comes to films. As for bringing up the situation in Africa with Albino’s, I was just trying to show that some of the elements people had problems with in the film had real world basis. I know that something happening in a part of Africa does not mean it represents every African nor do I think that “African gang’ = Nigerian. I also think that the 20 or so Nigerian gangsters in the film are not supposed to represent every Nigerian. By this sort of thinking should we not have villains in film who are gay because that means that it’s demonizing homosexuals and that this villain represents every homosexual?
Anyway nice to see so much civil discussion going on about the film, personally I loved the film.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 2:25 am ¶
John wrote:

Great article. It’s good to know my wife and I weren’t the only ones taken aback by the Nigerian cannibalism and imagery in an otherwise good film.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 10:49 am ¶
Neville A. Ross wrote:

As a POC from Canada, I will be giving my money to this picture, and I’m not offended by the portrayals of any of the POC’s in this movie. Gangsters do exist, they do commit nasty shit most of the time, and showing it is no shame, although I’ll admit they didn’t have to make the connection to the gangsters being Nigerian so obvious.

District 9 is a picture using SF&F to make a point, and in that grand tradition, it achieves greatness. That it’s a South African movie with New Zealand help being distributed by Columbia Pictures sweetens the deal even more. Everybody has been complaining that SF&F movies released in the summer are brainless, and here’s this movie proving that not all of them are.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 11:01 am ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

@ Neville,

So if gangsters exist, does that mean it’s ok to portray an entire group of people as gangsters in a film? It *was* made obvious that the gangsters were Nigerian. They explicitly said, “The Nigerian gang” many times.

It’s not just about gangsters. What about the black prostitutes that service the aliens? What about the witch doctor? What about the shootout at the end of the film between White soldiers and Nigerians?

If you’re going to defend the portrayal of these Nigerian gangsters (which, again, audiences laughed at), then are you also going to defend how Muslims and Arabs are portrayed as “terrorists?” After all, can’t someone argue, “Hey, Arab and Muslim terrorists exist?”

It’s really upsetting to see so many people defending this movie. It made me really uncomfortable in the theater.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:

Many people have argued that it is fine to show Nigerians in manner the film has because “African gangs” exist (as if Nigeria = Africa), or that cannibalism exists, or that this form of violence exists in Nigeria etc., etc.

Fine. Fair enough. However, in today’s racist age, when such depictions are not just portraying reality but also creating certain realities within this racist backdrop, these depictions no longer become benign. They take on very powerful roles and feed into very powerful discourses.

If these films portrayed white gangs committing such crimes, it would not be damaging. In a racist world we *know* not all white people are violent or gangsters. However, we do *not* know that not all black and brown people are not violent. The tendency in a racist world is to view people of colour as barbaric, violent, and uncivilised. And I’m sorry but this is a universal phenomenon. Even many people of colour have internalised it.

Therefore, when we depict people of colour in media we *have* to keep these dynamics in mind. It is never just as simple as just “showing reality.” If filmmakers can’t be socially conscious filmmakers then we can at least be socially conscious viewers.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 1:35 pm ¶
Via wrote:

Why are the Nigerians the only group trading with the aliens? Wouldn’t gangs from other backgrounds also trade with them? Nigerians are presented as the only social group willing to interact with the aliens. They’re even willing to have sex with them.

They oppress them as wickedly as the non-Nigerians, but their oppression is made even more horrendous by adding elements of “savagery” such as the magic ritual and the cannibalism. As such, they are presented as being even worse than the white oppressors. After all, the scientists testing the weapons are driven by logic, but the Nigerians are driven by superstition and magic.

This made me terribly uncomfortable.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶
Lady Di wrote:

I am completely not surprised by the not-so-subtle racism in this movie and expect nothing less from Peter Jackson who, in my opinion, should have been put on blast a long time ago for his disgusting depiction of the “natives” in that god AWFUL King Kong movie! I could go on and on about that movie! I vowed never to support any of his films since then but unfortunately my little cousin is dragging me to see District 9. Based on this review I am extremely reluctant to see it!

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 9:04 pm ¶
Neville A. Ross wrote:

@Jehanzeb:

Rather than waste time trying to rebut your point, I will simply quote someone else’s instead:

I know that something happening in a part of Africa does not mean it represents every African nor do I think that “African gang’ = Nigerian. I also think that the 20 or so Nigerian gangsters in the film are not supposed to represent every Nigerian. By this sort of thinking should we not have villains in film who are gay because that means that it’s demonizing homosexuals and that this villain represents every homosexual?

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

@ Neville,

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Were there any other Nigerians in the movie who weren’t gangsters? Do you think everyone in the world knows a Nigerian personally?

And why would you want to make a homosexual a villain anyway? Of course it would be horrible to have a homosexual villain — it obviously incites antagonism against them.

You have to think outside the box. Nigerians and, since you brought them up, homosexuals are so under-represented in the media (compared to heterosexual White males), so I really don’t understand you’re banking off the idea that not everyone is going assume Nigerians are gangsters.

It’s a simple exercise (something we learn in elementary school), but just imagine you are Nigerian and then watch the movie. Then tell me how you feel.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 11:30 pm ¶
Jehanzeb wrote:

@ Sobia

Co-sign!

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 11:32 pm ¶
fish wrote:

@ Neville

Well, you can have villains be Nigerian, you can also have villains who are gay. Just don’t have villains who overtly perpetuate a negative stereotype without any type of further explanation or multidimensional identity.

If you take racial or sexual identity, and use them as a plot device, then for good or bad the audience will reference those film images to existing stereotypes. It’s the responsibility of the filmmaker to handle those stereotypes in a way that doesn’t demean or further marginalize.

Just ask “why?” Why was character A of race X. Why is it relevant that if Will Smith is black in the movie Hitch, then his romantic counterpart has to non-white? Why is it relevant that Tom Cruise’s character in The Last Samurai is white? How does their racial background effect the plot of the movie? And at the meta-level, how does the racial choices of the filmmakers effect expected box office, marketing, and how is this influenced by the availability and expectations of actors and actresses?

In District 9, I keep coming to the conclusion that, plot-wise, the filmmakers were establishing a direct relationship between being Nigerian and being of a bloodthirsty voodoo cannibalistic disposition. The Nigerian gang is the only group specifically and repeatedly identified based on their race. Refer to “the white guy” in District 9 and you can be talking about half a dozen characters. Refer to “the Nigerians” in District 9, and you can only be talking about the gang.

Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 11:59 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

PLEASE NOTE:

If this is your first time commenting on this site, you need to read the comments moderation policy.

This website is called RACIALICIOUS.

We are here to talk about race.

We are not here to rehash the same arguments over and over about the nature of stereotyping in film. If you have not read our past conversations on stereotypes in movies, I would suggest you run a search for “movies” and read a few entries before commenting.

Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 8:28 am ¶
Sean Jin wrote:

While I agree that the portrayal of “Nigerian Gangsters” is hugely problematic, I do want to point out that I don’t think the cannibalistic alien-eating gang leader + witch doctor is there just for kicks.

I would argue that the literal alien-eating by the Nigerian gang leader is meant to parallel the symbolic alien eating of the medical experiments at MNU. Both activities have the goal of acquiring the alien’s power to use their guns.

This definitely does not excuse the representation of Nigerians in the movie, but I do think it’s important to note that the witch doctor isn’t thrown in ONLY for sensationalist reasons.

The whole thing could’ve been avoided, I think, if he’d just given the gang a name, instead of specifically making them out to be Nigerians. The fact that he didn’t definitely reflects on his South African biases against Nigerians.

I also think it’s important to argue that while this film deals with race, it’s also firmly rooted in science-fiction, and many of the tropes are a deconstruction of standard sci-fi.

PageSlap says that she thinks the depiction of the aliens as being violent, dumb, etc is a direct allegory to apartheid. On the other hand, I would argue that this is actually a deconstruction of the assumption that all aliens, anywhere, are smarter, more advanced, etc than us humans.

Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶
DinNYC wrote:

Sean, you are right in saying that the director meant for the Nigerians’ eating of aliens to parallel the medical experiments. He confirms it here:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/08/03/director_niell_blomkamp_give_us_insight_
However, I was troubled by the fact that he referred to specific (isolated) practices taking place in East African countries, and used that as a justification for his use of it here, with Nigerians, a people from the other side of the continent. That’s irresponsible. Furthermore, Nigerians are extremely diverse ethnically, linguistically, and where religion is concerned. I wonder if the screenwriter has any real knowledge of Nigerian culture specifically, or even the belief systems of people in these criminal groups, or if it was just laziness…this resorting to a broad stereotype of savage, superstitious African “witchdoctors.”

Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶
Kari wrote:

To echo the experience of some earlier commentators: the audience at the theater where I saw the movie (in Minneapolis, MN) was a bit too exuberant about the death of “The Nigerians” in the movie. I am guessing this was common.

I was happy to find this review. After I saw the movie, I went looking for a critical review of how this film, while attempting to convey an anti-racist social message, contained such an irresponsible racist subtext.

Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 6:06 pm ¶
Gill Phillips wrote:

I haven’t made it through the comments yet, but I want to thank you for the analysis and honesty of your post.

I found this blog entry through Google. I was so disturbed that this movie is so well received despite the plot holes and total disconnect from reality, the offense and revisionist history and the disgusting portrayal of people of color (and also the Prawns who represent people of color), which is somehow justified by some profound underlying message and social commentary.

Many audiences are being hoodwinked. Others do not share the same racial analysis others, and sadly, some viewers are sub-conscious racists who find absolutely nothing wrong with this film.

Posted 21 Aug 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

Oh God!!!!!!!!!!!!! As a resident NIGERIAN-AMERICAN on this blog:

I have to RAIL at the abolute crap in some in these comments (including by some generally enlightened commenters).

Disclaimer: I have not seen this movie – don’t plan to. I concede that launching projectiles at movie screens is not good form.

@ Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist (as so belligerently voiced) – “OK, first of all, I guess you HAVEN’T HEARD that many Albino Africans have been kidnapped and killed by African gangs, in order to cannibalize them because some people think that Albino human body parts have good health benefits????”

General rule of thumb – if a report on Africa is not sourced by an African writer/PoC (PoCs are more likely to examine their immediate conclusions), view it with a fair dose of cynicsm. For anyone familiar with the particular contempt reserved for black folks in America, welcome to the motherfucking motherlode! Unfortunately, blogs and advocacy orgs that are a check against racism run amok aren’t as prevalent as with Africa as with other PoCs. Or are just ignored. Also, a lot of natural allies generally aren’t familiar enough with Africa to speak authoritatively on issues.

As concerns the albino incidents, it is a racist to pair the crimes with the “Africanness” of the criminals. The implication to me is that uniquely African behaviors lead to these people committing such crimes. In reality, the relative few who engage in such killings likely include body part mercenaries (you may recall a recent incident involving prominent politicians of the same ilk – except in NJ) and lack of education, a usual suspect. In the COUNTRY where this is said to be happening, it is noteworthy that authorities are taking proactive steps to halt what is considered brutal criminal activity and educate people accordingly. In short, the people who kill albinos happen to be Tanzanian…that does not necessarily make it a “Tanzanian thing” and it certainly does not make it an “African thing”.

Someone also offered the following (more helpful, I guess) comment:

“Some nigerian people murdering/eating albinos isn’t all and everything nigerians do and are about and I think its unfair for the film and infact nearly every hollywood film to portray it as such”

For the record, “murdering/eating albinos” is NOTHING that Nigerians do (as if this need be said.)

Last, someone already hit on the gross FAIL that is extending a phenomenon occurring in ONE part (likely a small rural area) of ONE country in Sub-Saharan Africa to all other places in SSA.

Posted 22 Aug 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶
mhnicholson wrote:

The only evidence in the movie we have that humans were providing sexual services to the aliens are the government propaganda clips that say so. Given that the government propaganda is used primarily as a device to let us first see the government lies and later see the reality behind it, taking that as true is like believing the news story at face value that the main character is highly infectious with a disease he caught after an extended period copulating with aliens.

Posted 22 Aug 2009 at 5:21 pm ¶
9jah wrote:

On Nigeria and “VOODOO” –

First of all, no one in Nigeria is familiar with “Voodoo.” A Nigerian may talk about Juju. The ubiquitous use of the term Voodoo is consistent with a prevalent one size fits all view of Africa. I also balk at using the term because of the cartoonish dimensions it has attained thanks to a racist media – the unwillingness to explore and treat indigenous African religions as serious and complex faiths in media is itself racist but that’s another matter.

The fact is Nigeria (at approx 150 million ppl one of worlds most populous) is fairly evenly split between a christian south and a muslim north with a small minority being strict adherents of indigenous religions (but it’s also not odd to see a Hare Krishna monk, Baha’i or members of other world religions, local or foreign). That said indigenous religions and practices do occupy a distinct space in Nigerian folklore. Juju is probably best described as the element of (some) indigenous religions that claims the supernatural ability of a priest to affect outcomes in the natural world. While there are a few hardcore believers, it is mostly something of an “alien/UFO” phenomenon. In other words, not something serious people talk about. In Nigeria, it is simply part of the fantasy narratives that humans engage in universally; ergo, exposition in jokes, legend, film and music (Fela, for instance). To be clear, representing every African in a movie as a juju (or voodoo) practitioner is as absurd as representing every white person as a UFO enthusiast.

The ritualistic aspects of indigenous religions/juju (skulls, sacrifice etc) portrayed in film are largely a fallacious western invention. Standard shrine staples are things like masks, carvings and other cultural artifacts. Priests will often be herbalists (a term I prefer to the unsettling, “witchdoctor”), environmentalists and completely versed in the traditions, religious and secular, of their communities. There is a heavy emphasis on achieving transcendental states, invocation of predecessors for spiritual guidance, and – from my observation – plenty of alcohol!

The interesting thing is while most believe juju is practiced, no one actually knows a practioner as it is heavily taboo. So juju talk is pretty much powered, conveniently, by people who claim themselves a target (with an axe to grind, what use is coincidence?). Christians and muslims tend to have the same approach they would here – a sense that there is some validity to the spiritual and supernatural aspects of Juju practice. Predictably, there is no shortage of religious leaders who play this up to fill seats.

Posted 22 Aug 2009 at 7:32 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

FWIW, with regards to the portrayal of the aliens, I actually found it very interesting. It is implied that the aliens themselves might be from a lower-class or even lesser species. Beyond that, though, considering the circumstances the aliens were forced into, I actually thought their portrayal was very deep. The movie didn’t explicitly say it, so it was likely lost on most people, but what would you expect of ANY group that was forced to live in slums, without education, proper health care, and basic social services? Wouldn’t we expect their behavior to devolve into something that would be considered unhuman? It wasn’t clear if the aliens’ actions were their nature, or simply the result of years of oppression. Given what we see in many places in the world, when people are put in desperate, extreme situations, we often see otherwise-socially-unacceptable behavior.

If the movie dived deeper into this, making it clear that much of the aliens’ situation/condition/lifestyle is actually the direct result of human actions, it would have been a much stronger point.

Thoughts?

Posted 22 Aug 2009 at 10:17 pm ¶
Jake wrote:

It is sad in this day and time. That people in this world, do not know how to be culturally polite. This is sad that anyone can create a movie and disrespect a group of people. I think it is time for Africans to stand for this filth and being on the defensive. They need offensive movies and exposing how African really and should feel about those people who came fors other western countries and raped and pillaged our land. There needs to be more of those movies.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 1:09 am ¶
engineblock wrote:

I agree with this review, though I would like to note a couple of things regarding filming.

1. the aliens were modeled after the drones in the video game series Halo, of which P. Jackson is a huge fan.

2. The conditions in which the aliens lived were the actual living conditions in which people had recently been evicted.

3. The professors and academics speaking at the beginning of the film are ad-libbing: they were actually asked what they thought of nigerians living in S. Africa.

While I certainly agree that the portrayal of the nigerians was racist, I will admit that as a representation of District 6 and as an allegory of apartheid, I thought it was successful.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 1:33 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:

To everyone commenting on Peter Jackson:

The only ties Peter Jackson had to this movie was basically funding it. Apparently, Neill Blomkamp was slated to do the Halo movie, and when that fell through, Jackson offered Blomkamp $30 million to make whatever he wanted, and this film was the result. Jackson did not write this movie, he didn’t direct it, all he did was fund it. I doubt he had any creative input either, as this is Neill Blomkamp’s movie.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:

@9jah

Why am I having trouble reconciling these two stances?

“I also balk at using the term because of the cartoonish dimensions it has attained thanks to a racist media – the unwillingness to explore and treat indigenous African religions as serious and complex faiths in media is itself racist but that’s another matter.”

“Juju is probably best described as the element of (some) indigenous religions that claims the supernatural ability of a priest to affect outcomes in the natural world. While there are a few hardcore believers, it is mostly something of an “alien/UFO” phenomenon. In other words, not something serious people talk about.”

I think it is because you are against a stance your language later supports.

Either it is wrong to treat indigenous religions as unworthy of serious discussion, or it is understandable. It cannot be both.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶
cvalda wrote:

The only ties Peter Jackson had to this movie was basically funding it.

He was the producer, producers have varying degrees of creative input. From interviews, he kinda saw himself as schooling Blomkamp. So it wasn’t just funding.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 9:12 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

I saw this movie over the weekend. I really liked the central allegory of the refugee alien race. I think the movie made it pretty clear, at least to me, that their unpleasant-seeming inhumanity was a direct result of being dehumanized. I think it reflected a lot of the ways in which refugees are dehumanized… the idea that they “take and take” but are “ungrateful” and that they’re a “burden to the nation” and “don’t assimilate” and so on.

I’m also glad I read the commentary here because I was also challenged to think about the portrayal of the Nigerians, which was done very badly.

I don’t think it stands out as particularly racist to the average reviewer, because a) there are so many other neutral black characters and b) the white people in the movie are also quite nasty. There aren’t really any good guys in the movie, so one particular group of villains doesn’t stand out as much.

I think the filmmaker wanted to portray how all sectors of society were turned against the aliens. This would be very realistic and powerful, because in a lot of real cases of refugee demonization, the class in power sets up conflict between refugees and the native working class and/or racialized minorities in order to keep groups at the bottom from uniting to resist. But Blomkamp chickened out from using black ethnic South Africans as the second villain group. I believe it could have been done in a responsible way, using “talking head” shots for balance to talk about this dynamic of conflict… but the director took the lazy way out (perhas to get the action rolling faster) and shoved the second-villain-group role onto an ill-defined “Nigerian” group.

I’m not sure if that makes the movie racist within a South African context (I don’t know enough about that context to judge), but it absolutely makes it ethnically bigoted, and no doubt very harmful for Nigerians. Especially given the fact that there was zero attempt made to portray Nigerians authentically, or even have them speaking a Nigerian language. That’s so insulting. It’s depressing that the movie sabotages its own statement on refugees and demonized minorities by replicating stereotypes against another group.

I can’t help but think the movie would have been better, cleaner and more powerful if both the (anti)hero and at least one of the villain groups had been black native South Africans. Plus, it seems kind of odd that they’re something like 80% of the country but were barely represented in the movie.

Posted 23 Aug 2009 at 9:49 pm ¶
dejamorgana wrote:

I finally saw the movie. And yes, I agree that the Nigerian gang is portrayed in a bizarrely racist manner and detracts somewhat from the general anti-racist theme of the movie. It’s too bad, because I really doubt that the director/writer meant for it to come out that way. The rest of the movie handles racial issues very intelligently and honestly, and I do think that this was overall a really good movie (although I totally agree with whoever it was that said the writers of Alien Nation should have been given a credit in D9).

I do think it’s dangerous to assume that the Prawns were meant to be an exact analogue for any human group. They’re an alien species in a work of science fiction, and science fiction is not the same as allegory. Some people seem to be getting offended because the aliens are shown as animalistic and brutal. This is only worth being offended about if you believe that the aliens are a one-to-one representation of a certain racial group. They aren’t. For one thing, District 9 is in Johannesburg and was filmed in Soweto, which is a black township, while the real District Six was in Cape Town and was a “Cape Coloured” area. (Apologies to those who know this already, but for those who don’t know, in South Africa “Coloured” is not another term for black people, but a completely separate racial category invented by the apartheid system as a label for people of Khoikhoi, Cape Malay and mixed descent). So right off the bat the movie is telling you that the Prawns are not meant to be stand-ins for any specific group of people, but a hypothetical “other race” of refugees.

In that light, I think it’s very cool that the aliens are not shown as nice, polite, wonderful people. They really shouldn’t have to be for us to give them the same basic “human rights” as any other race. To show us a group of noble, civilized aliens being discriminated against would be playing into the concept of the Model Minority, which justifies racism against all the minorities that aren’t as “nice”. I really think this was an intentional point of the movie.

There’s a parallel to this in the character of Wikus himself. He’s our POV character and supposedly our hero, but the dude is a spineless corporate lickspittle who married the boss’s daughter and reveals not-so-well-hidden racism at several points in the movie (calling one black subordinate “boy”, condescendingly identifying the “secret shake” of another, and showing a complete lack of concern when his black “friend” and close coworker is the only person in the eviction operation without a bulletproof vest). But we come to sympathize with him despite him being a less than stellar representative of the human race, not only because he grows as a person but because he’s going through torments that no one should have to endure. It’s hard to believe that this parallel was completely accidental.

Posted 24 Aug 2009 at 1:01 am ¶
Whitney wrote:

@cvalda #76. Sometimes, but not necessarily. Some producers just sit back and watch the show, others have more input. Jackson and Blomkamp are friends, and Jackson is sort of a mentor to Blomkamp, but to sit there and say that you don’t expect anything less from Jackson considering LOTR in terms of racism, is just incorrect (not you, others).

No one knows the amount of input Jackson had, if any. I just thought I’d clarify that Jackson simply gave Blomkamp $30 mill to make his own movie, and that’s as much input we know he gave.

Posted 24 Aug 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
Moitonpicture nerd wrote:

@dejamorgana 78 – I think you’ve explained the movie perfectly. It did a lot of things well in a very subtle manner (I agree the portrayel of the Nigirans could be problematic for some) and I think a lot of people are getting confused as to what the Aliens represented.

As for Jackson, he had a big part in the film, he is Blomkamp’s mentor and also had input into the story. Jackson has been quoted as saying that the first draft of District had a lot more zenaphobia than the final product.

Posted 24 Aug 2009 at 7:42 pm ¶
Moitonpicture nerd wrote:

I meant to say it dealt alot more with Zenaphobia.

Posted 24 Aug 2009 at 7:46 pm ¶
Kelvin wrote:

I did see the movie and I have to say that I was not surprised by the portray of Nigerians in the movie. Over the years, I’ve stayed up to date with South African media portrayal of Nigerians. Generally, South Africans HATE Nigerians and project a lot of their own crime and unemployment issues on Nigerians. To say that certain segments of South Africa are xenophobic towards other Africans especially Nigerians is fair. Looking at the portrayal of Nigerians in District 9 within the context of general South African views of Nigerians, you’ll understand why it’s no surprise.

Posted 24 Aug 2009 at 10:33 pm ¶
Shiyuan wrote:

What’s up, Racialicious? District 9 doesn’t look racist to me.

“District 9 Not Racist” [Alternative Alternative Perspective”
http://bit.ly/AYcNB

Posted 26 Aug 2009 at 3:32 pm ¶
Morpheus wrote:

Great review. It was a shame that an otherwise decent sci-fi allegory about race, poverty, xenophobia and exploitation (the methodical treatment of which is still not beyond the realm of constructive criticism) had to fall back on “Darkest Africa” themes with regards to the “Nigerian gangsters.” The filmmaker claims he developed the notion of “witchdoctors” and semi-cannibalistic gangs from reports about disappearing albinos–stories themselves which are not often well sourced but sensationalized for dramatic effect. As another post pointed out, many of these disappearances may be related to everything from body part harvesting (a global phenom) to certain supernatural beliefs that are more common in Tanzania than Nigeria. Still, these incidents have about as much to do with indigienous belief systems (Vodun, etc.) as exorcism, Pentacostal snake-biting cults and Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians have to do with common Christian ideology–though all of the afore-mentioned espouse Christian beliefs. Scan newspapers in varied countries and one could find equally bizarre and fringe happenings regarding Christian adherents–from churches who believe they can “beat the homosexuality” out of someone, to practices of sanctioned incest, pedorasty, blood-letting, etc. But we all know that’s the fringe of Christianity–and it would be silly to portray all Christians, or even *most* Christians, in this light. When dealing with African indigenous culture however, fringe takes center stage. So while a writer/director may not think to use apocalyptic cults or snake handlers as stand-ins for the Christian faith, when it comes to African indigenous practices– bring on the cannibals and dark “witchdoctor” imagery. The reality of course is that Vodun in West Africa overall is much more benign and doesn’t involve such acts as any part of the common practice. Adherents of Vodun don’t show up every year in the thousands from around the world to Benin in order to engage in cannibalism. But if you’re expecting Western filmmakers (and by Western I mean those who might be of European descent but based in Africa, Asia or elsewhere) to ever acknowledge that, don’t hold your breath…it just doesn’t sell as well.

Posted 27 Aug 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶
Keliegh O'Ryan wrote:

I was absolutely disgusted with this film. As I sat there with my friends I kept thinking is it just me or is this film completely racist? And the answer is YES!! blatant racism throughout the entire film. That is why i’m suprised people actually gave it decent ratings. If you look closely you’ll see alien dog fighting, and district 9 resembles in my opinion section 8- and other stereotypes ( i.e, mother alien figure leaving her alien kid to go outside to play and one of the humans makes a comment regarding how “they” don’t watch there kids and “they” are messy and a bunch of trouble makers. And I agree that Peter Jackson makes the aliens out to be almost human but not quite- bc of the way they look, talk. and the fact that they’re cannibals. ouch. What an embarrassment for Peter Jackson. We left that crappy racist film and saw Inglorious Bastards, which I highly recommend.

Posted 28 Aug 2009 at 12:14 am ¶
Krystoff wrote:

Thank god somebody noticed this other than me. Does this prove that America is racist, or just stupid?

Posted 28 Aug 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶
Peter wrote:

You could also pretty easily call the movie racist for the portrayal of white people in the movie. Humans in general are not portrayed well. As for the comparisons of aliens to the Zimbabwe refugees(which was the intent in part) much of this is how South Africans view them, not as they actually are.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the film is the shanty towns are not Hollywood sets. Most scenes are filmed on location in the slums of Jo-burg. The aliens pee outdoors not because they are primative, but because there is no plubling or toilets in the slums.

Posted 29 Aug 2009 at 10:30 am ¶
natalie wrote:

I am a South African & I have just watched District 9. This is a film that I need to sit with for a bit in order to make a rational decision as to whether it was a decent film or downright appalling. However I will not change my mind on the depiction of the “Nigerian” gangsters. I see no need to have labeled the villains so specifically, they could have simple had a “gang” name, rather than to further perpetuate the global tunnel vision in which the world views Nigerians. I feel sad for any Nigerian teenager who watches this film, not only are they already expected to become drug lords, they are now seen as cannibals, how does one grow up with any kind of self respect. As I said, I do not believe the story would have been weakened if the gangsters had a fictitious name.
I would love to be able to say that we are all being over sensitive, but please show me the Hollywood blockbuster films that label & depict villains as citizens of the United States or Britain. I have no doubt that if the gangsters had been, say white Jewish men & women, the world would have reacted somewhat differently. Yes, sure there are still freak cases of cannibalism in the world today, but of the 148 million Nigerians do we honestly think the majority vaguely supports this??? And come on, the world already hears “Nigeria” and automatically thinks “drugs” (cat food), when we know that it is an absolute minority who feed this myth, so why would the writers choose to perpetuate this untruth & represent a entire Nation when the group of characters in question maybe totaled 50?? I feel this was irresponsible, tacky &, yes, lazy writing.

By the way, I know victims of the 2008 Xenophobic attacks and this type of stereotyping is exactly what lead to the atrocities that were carried out across our land last year.

Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:

@Krystoff:

Does this prove that America is racist, or just stupid?

Yes!

Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶
Supo orimogunje wrote:

Whatever any film maker may portray, the most important thing really is that Africans need to start telling their own stories more than they have done so far. Africans need to make their own compelling films – both fiction and non-fiction. As an an African proverb says “Until lions are able to tell their own stories, the story of the hunt will always glorify the hunter”

Posted 04 Sep 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
Beautiful woman wrote:

Many people have brought up the point that ,” oh some Africans are cannibalistic, selling albino parts”
Which is annoying in itself. But what is really sad is the lack of knowledge about African people in general. First of all, in all the major cultures in NIgeria not one agrees with cannibalism. Ever. So get thefacts straight. Second, witch doctors don’t go to South Africa- ever. They usually stay in Nigeria because their proffession is dying out. NO one believes their crip anymore. So this film is like 40 years back. How stupid. Finally, the cannibalism/kidnappping people that is only be a small group of people. Does seriously want to say that most of the people on the CONTINENT of Africa believe in that stuff? No way. Kudos to the reviewer- I would let anyone in my family watch that movie.

Posted 05 Sep 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶
Jade wrote:

I appreciate your discomfort, but discomfort can be a good thing. You claim that the film-makers were trying to gross out the audience just for the gross-out effect, but as one who once lived in South Africa, I think you missed an important point here, just as you did with the District 6 parallel.

Whenever one race oppresses another, they create animalistic stereotypes to justify their oppression. They call the Other disgusting, stupid, sexually perverse, dirty. And for a person coming from the culture of Us, the culture of the Other at first seems that way, because he’s been primed to believe it.

Watch the film again. This time, pay attention to the camera work. In the scenes where the aliens are portrayed as what you call “disgusting” (as a biologist I actually wasn’t bothered), you will notice the mockumentary effect is in play. That is, the cameras are always between you and the story in these moments. You’re watching a newscast.

This is true for the first ~45 min and the last ~15. But for everything in between, where you are learning to empathize with the “Other,” traditional cinematic camera work is used. Now there is no one narrating for you–now you are living the experience yourself, and realizing that your stereotype of “disgusting” was shallow and wrong.

It was really quite a brilliant twist, intended to take an audience from fearful to sympathetic. If the aliens were just fluffy little cuddlies all along, it would have been a facile movie.

Posted 06 Sep 2009 at 6:35 pm ¶
nuella wrote:

my question is : WHY NIGERIANS???? after all d hula about immigrants, y go 4 cheap sensationalism and portray NIGERIANS in such a disgusting light? its no so racist as xenophobic. and b4 sum of u jump on my case, dnt talk 2 me about albinos. if dis movie was about eating albinos and how it is wrong, i’d be behind it a hundred percent. this is about bloody ALIENS!!! allegory or not.
there is no moral 2 dis story, and i ask again: why couldnt d gangasters/prostitutes/etc be nameless i.e. just be african. why NIGERIAN?

Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 1:23 am ¶
nuella wrote:

and to beautifulwoman:
how ignorant u sound. witch doctors atay in NIGERIA??? are u 4 real?? and Sangomas are what??? ignorance is not bliss. get ur facts right

Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 1:25 am ¶
nuella wrote:

“khinky wrote:

The xenophobia in this film is astounding. I’ve grown up in SA and by the time I was in high school it was “common knowledge” that Nigerians were ugly smelly morally bankrupt people who came to the country explicitly to spread crack & prostitution. We have a huge xenophobia problem and I’m sorry but it seems to me like this film goes out of its way to perpetuate it.”

thx 4 speaking the truth. the truth shall set us free

Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 1:27 am ¶
victoria moralez wrote:

OK so there I was. Ready to be blown away. Having heard the whispers
from everywhere; “The Movie of the year”. I had already started to
wonder why there weren’t really any black people in the trailer, except
for one or two strolling around in the background.

Now after having watched District 9 I am mostly upset and wondering if
maybe I am from another planet too, or maybe I saw another movie than
the rest of the critics did?

So this is what I have been told now:

Nigerians are scum. They can’t speak English in an understandable
way!?! Their English conversations were subtitled in the US. They roll
their eyes frequently and they are all bandits with no real emotions.
Also it seems like they speak a few languages that are perhaps not too
common amongst Nigerians!!!! (Swahili?) The whites are people who
are performing cruel and hateful deeds but they are, never the less,
just so much more developed and intelligent than any black person can
ever hope to be. Only white people are cast for the high rank roles, oh
yes except for the guy who is Wikus Van De Merwe’s 2nd in command, but
not even he hardly gets to talk at all. He is though, the only guy
who’s not getting a bulletproof vest in the helicopter and he just
happens to be black. Well this might just be a sad coincidence but
since the movie has been marketed as an anti xenophobic movie it just
doesn’t feel right.

The “Prawns”, whom are supposed to be a metaphor for some of the black
people (who are now still living in places like Soweto where this movie
was filmed) during the apartheid, are described as workers, not very
intelligent creatures, who have lost their leader and thus their
direction in life. Oh my!!!

Also there are two women! That’s it. Two women who have about four
lines each throughout the whole movie. There is Wikus Van De Merwe’s
wife, this bleak personality described as an angle is white of course
and then the witch doctor, this caricature like character who is of
course black. The other women existing in the movie are either running
by the camera in the turmoil of MNU lab explosions or screaming in the
background because they are being raped. By whom? Can you guess? Yes of
course, by the Nigerians with their rolling eyes! Oh yes forgive me I
forgot, there is one woman shown as a prostitute for a split second
too. 112 min and that’s it? What has happened to all the women in South
Africa? The Marabou Stork must be burned out by now.

While watching I was trying to defend the movie with that it was not
long ago since the apartheid system thankfully ceased to exist.
Thinking maybe they really can’t see how discriminating they still are.
But what really bugs me is the rest of the worlds reactions. How come
the critics seem so completely unaware of the obvious problems with the
movie?

Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 6:58 am ¶
EA wrote:

South Africans seem to forget that Nigeria played a HUGE part in bringing apartheid to an end for them!!!

Posted 08 Sep 2009 at 9:38 pm ¶
atelierboz wrote:

notice that all the main characters were white, and most of the characters in position of power were white.

Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 1:36 am ¶
Ikechukwu Iloabachie wrote:

I haven’t seen this movie but from all I’ve read I am pretty upset by the references to Nigerians. But what galls me the most is the fact that I’ve heard this movie discussed on BBC, in their African section and not once was there concern over this portrayal of Nigerians. Infact they sounded excited that a Hollywood blockbuster came from Africa. It is a shame really that we can sacrifice the dignity of fellow Africans to get recognition from the world.
Secondly I am Nigerian and I am damn proud to be one. It is true that we have a lot of issues especially with poor government and corruption. But that does not stop us from trying hard everyday to make a better life for ourselves. We refuse to just lay down our weapons and die. It is that struggle against the odds that pushes some into fraud and scam emails that we have also become known for. There are very few places in Africa, I daresay the world that a Nigerian cannot thrive and make his/her presence felt. That is why at a time, with all the hardship, we were considered the happiest people on earth. So despite what you may get from the media when you hear Nigeria or see a Nigerian dont think corrupt cannibalistic savage fraudster, also consider that you have met a survivor.

Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 8:57 pm ¶
toethumbs wrote:

Thank you for such a well-written post. I enjoyed reading it and I respect the validity of your viewpoint. However, I think we have to remember that because this movie takes us to another world, the structure isn’t white vs black but human vs non-human. Therefore, for the movie, the gang leader and prostitutes did not represent Nigerians or Africans– they represented a gang leader and some prostitutes. Otherwise, what were they doing in District 9?

Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 1:29 am ¶
shionuk wrote:

I saw this film with my friend today and I have to say we both came away feeling that although it was a good film overall it was pretty racist both to black people and directly at Nigerians. All the points you make in this article are spot on and many white people will not agree with your point, either through denial or conveniance. This film paints black people out to be animals and the whites to be the ruling classes. It will come as no surprise to me if the writer is a white south African and I am very surprised that Peter Jackson did not shape this film a little better.

Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 7:42 pm ¶
shionuk wrote:

One last thing:

This writer has without knowing it acheived two things he has made people of colour look like animals and white people in SA look like racist pigs.

He had a moral obligation esp to white SA in his country to show the rest of the world that they have come a long way since the days of apartheid and can treat matters like this delicately and in a politically correct manner. This is a global film that has will depict ethnic group including white SA in a certain way.

Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 7:52 pm ¶
Philip D. wrote:

I realize that several large cities in Africa have Nigerian crime syndicates, I’ve lived in a few African cities with such issues. That being said, I thought the depiction of the Nigerian gangsters was incredibly racist and over the top. I laughed it off during the film, but afterward I started to think, why couldn’t the gangsters be South African? Why were they Nigerian? Hollywood re-writes a lot of narratives. For instance, Americans see depictions of Arab ‘terrorists’ and come to think of all ‘terrorists’ as being Middle Eastern. Yet, don’t forget that many large acts of violence on American soil were perpetuated by Americans. School shootings, the Oklahoma city bombing, and the uni-bomber come to mind.

Anyway, I will not see the impending sequel (what bollocks that this film didn’t wrap up loose ends… I felt cheated out of my $11.25!) and I will tell friends to avoid this film. This over the top depiction of Nigerians was just too much for me, and should have been edited out of the film. I cannot believe a major production company would release such a terrible thing.

Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶
JoBlo wrote:

I whole heartedly agree with your summation of the film. Racist. Moreover, SAD.

Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 2:03 am ¶
Mike wrote:

I AGREE WITH RACIALICIOUS’ EXCELLENT POSTCOLONIAL READING OF THE FILM!

Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 5:48 pm ¶
walkerp wrote:

“So why the racist parts? Why can’t the Nigerians just be people with logical motives like money and weapons? Why do they have to go out of their way to be ooga-booga savages?”

Because the Nigerian gangsters were way cooler and freakier this way, that’s way. They were awesome crazy badasses who didn’t give a shit about anyone else and ended up being the chaos factor that allowed the aliens to escape from the authorities.

I think it’s fair to say the portrayal was reductivist and possibly racist, but that shouldn’t blind you to enjoying the fun role they played in the movie.

Looking at District 9 as a whole, I left the audience feeling motivated to be more sensitive to other cultures’ and peoples’ perspecitves as well as having enjoyed a great science fiction story.

Posted 16 Sep 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
AndyPandy wrote:

I am a Nigerian and felt quite dissapointed at the insensitive potrayal of Nigeria. Otherwise, the movie was good, and I’m a fan of Peter Jackson. It was more appaling as I felt the use of, and appellation of Nigeria was unnecessary for the plot to unfold. This leads me to agree with those who feel it had racial and xenophobic undertones.

I suspect that the directors harbour such ill conception of blacks and were apprehensive of labelling them as black south Africans as this might easily arouse suspicion and oposition. They thus found it convinient to scapegoat helpless Nigerians in SA.

For the information of anybody who cares to know, Nigerian society is as balanced as any other society. The real savage and ignoramus is the one who wallows in ignorance about other people and their culture yet carries on as if they know.

Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 10:45 am ¶
jayjay wrote:

first, sorry for my english.
i am a french black man, and i have seen the movie this afternoon. I felt upset with this.
the representation of black people, african people hurt me. it was raciste.
what disturb me is to see white people feel it like a normal thing.
the director is soutn african but you can see what white south african think about black people. i am so decieve by all this cause i like sf and peter jackson. but it’s so trash i can not like this film has i would want.

Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 2:40 pm ¶
Graham wrote:

If I was a Nigerian I would be more concerned about the images coming from the Nigerian film industry. They show a people obsessed with money and willing to do anything to get it. A people who cannot stick with one partner. A Nigeria stuck in the Dark Ages with its belief in superstition and witchcraft. A people entrapped by a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity and dishonest religious leaders. A people who distrust others and scream and cry at the slightest provocation. This is the impression I get of Nigeria from their own film industry.

Posted 19 Sep 2009 at 6:40 am ¶
teminator wrote:

I think District 9 plays with a number of ideas and concepts. It’s very clear that apartheid is one of them but what Nigerians are disappointed with is the fact that South African xenophobia has been transported to the big screen in such an ugly and transparent way. Perhaps now South Africa can have an honest discussion about its xenophobia towards immigrants generally and Nigerians in particular.

As a Nigerian who has visited South Africa and currently lives in the West, I have been on the receiving end of some very prejudicial comments and indeed official policy from South Africans towards Nigeria; What this movie reflects are the feelings of most of South Africa towards Nigerians, so much so that they are willing to vilify an entire country with a ridiculous and reductive portrayal.

The issue is not whether Nigerians use juju, carry out crimes etc. The issue is also not whether they do these things in indigenous Nigerian movies (I’m seeing some people bring this up.) In Nigerian movies, there is context, sure there are bad protagonists who use juju or are criminals, but hello people, the heros are also Nigerian, those movies are more balanced than what happened here.

I am appalled that no one who read the script or saw the movie picked up on the problematic portrayal of Nigerians. If you watched District 9 and didn’t see anything wrong with the portrayal of Nigeria switch Nigeria out for the country/ethnic group you’re from. Try Israel/Jews/Roma/Russians and see if it still sounds fine and innocuous. It’s okay to have enjoyed the movie and not noticed it. But when someone tells you about how uncomfortable it is or the prejudice it shows against Nigerians specifically, it makes more sense to consider their viewpoint instead of arguing silly points based on semantics. Especially in light of the way South Africa has treated Nigeria and Nigerians in the past, it comes across as darker and more hurtful than an honest mistake and a mere plot point.

Posted 19 Sep 2009 at 6:04 pm ¶
another sara wrote:

this blog is interesting and insightful and i happened upon it looking for ‘why nigerians’ and why so loudly, because it stirred me. but ive done some thinking (and reading and this is what ive got)

1. i read a lot of the posts, but i havent read all of them so sorry if im redundant

2. nigerian isnt a race. it is a nationality, so how is this racist? the nigerian thing IS overdone, but look at other movies and you see evil, sneaky russian spies (james bond, air force 1) or middle-eastern terrorists (rules of engagement, back to the future), and plenty of evil white people (amistad, shindlers list) and hey, theres lots of recent global attention of nigerian scammers, gangs, violence and the hunted african albinos, so thats what happens. gets put in a movie. not every nigerian is like that. not every russian who was alive for the cold war is a spy, not every middle-easterner is a terrorist and not every white person is a racist bigot, mkay

2. (as others have said) this view that the aliens were shown as ‘disgusting’ was only through the documentary-style parts and whatever disgusting behavior they had was due to their penury. the pastiche of biased and non-biased shots was to assure that you understood that. so……

3. …perhaps this ‘disgusting’ portrayal is so effective that it goes as deep as the prostitution/sex with aliens. i’m not hot for those aliens, but hey, you can still find people in the US for sure who are disgusted by interracial couples. and if we’re gonna go down that allegorical road, might as well take it all the way.

5. nobody was a saint in this movie. thats what made it sooo good. it was human and raw. Wikus did stupid and selfish things, but you see that he was inherently good by the end. also, both blacks AND whites were exploiting the aliens. and i think if anything, the whites were worse.

thats the 2cents of it. sorry again if i repeated what someone else has already pointed out.

Posted 21 Sep 2009 at 2:24 am ¶
Jim Hollands wrote:

It made for difficult watching; I haven’t seen a film that’s forced me to view it from such multiple points of (the oppressor/ the father’s) gaze for a while.

I thought the depiction of the Nigerians was deliberately contentious – and hammered home a personal idea of racism to its South African audience – bearing in mind the trouble last year, where there was serious talk of expelling all Nigerians from the country, and 50 people died in race riots.

By portraying Nigerians as a stereotypical gang – and gangs in South Africa are called The Americans, by nationalities – it forced its (South African) viewers to really question what was happening now in their country. I kind of admired the fact he took all that money and then made a huge film – and knowing that probably most people in South Africa will watch it, it being the biggest film to have come out of there – to take that money and make a film with a deliberately parochial message I thought was brilliant. I definitely, definitely think he was questioning ideas of race by using racist stereotypes. It’s a hard line to walk, because obviously people will misinterpret – and Nigeria’s just banned the film – but in a film that’s so obviously a racial allegory, do you honestly think they’d be that ignorant to what they were depicting?

Posted 21 Sep 2009 at 8:00 pm ¶
bea wrote:

I am black and Kenyan and when i watched this movie, i thought…that nigerian thing was weired.I know it isn’t true and any stupid person who believes Nigerians eat people needs help….why do we always have to make race an issue in everything?

Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶
T Nails wrote:

re: 112

The serious talk of expulsion in SA was towards Zimabweans not Nigerians.

Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶
Ishtar wrote:

I’m a coloured South African and I watched District 9 two days.

I loved this film. I thought it was excellent. But not perfect by any means.

Re: The Nigerians

Referring to the Nigerian gangs simply as “the Nigerians” is accurate. That is how South Africans speak. In fact, this applies to any other non-South African gang – South Africans will refer to “the Russians”, “the Algerians”, etc. The only gangs I’ve ever heard referred to by their actual gang names are South African gangs.

Having said that, I was very uncomfortable with the portrayal of Nigerians in this film. It was one aspect of the film where the makers fell down badly. From Nigerians referring to witchcraft as “muti” (which is a South African word), to uniformly portraying them as savages. Sadly, that is a somewhat accurate reflection of how many South Africans view Nigerians but that doesn’t make it right. In fact, I think the filmakers missed a golden opportunity to show the flipside of Nigerians resident in South Africa – the hard-working, law-abiding people who are just like anyone else.

I am in agreement with everyone who was angered and upset by the depiction of Nigerians in District 9.

Re: Wikus

I saw nothing unusual about a white man playing the lead in this context. The civil service (and in the context of the film, MNU is a quasi-governmental institution) was dominated for many years by Afrikaaners and they still play a significant role.

I think it’s important to note that, as a group, Afrikaaners are very different to english-speaking white South Africans. Afrikaaners see themselves as African. They have contempt for english white South Africans who they perceive have “one foot in England and one foot in SA”. Afrikaaners are at heart, a very practical people. These are people who were the architects of Apartheid but who have adapted better to a democratic SA than many english whites. In fact, I’ve often heard POC (whether black or coloured) make comments like, “I’ll trust an Afrikaaner over an Englishman any day. You always know where you stand with the Afrikaaners. The English smile at you and then stab you in the back.”

I tell you this in the hope that it explains how Wikus can be as casually racist as he is in the beginning, and then seemingly rapidly develops an ability to see the aliens as beings worthy of respect and consideration. This is how Afrikaaners are.

Re: the preponderence of white characters

Again, in the context of the film this wasn’t far off the mark. The character of “Kobus’ for example – any South African is very familiar with that white ex-military type.

Remember, South African society is still highly segregated. You could make a different film set in the same country and be hard-pressed to find a white face. Or an Indian face. Or a coloured face. It’s just how things are.

In conclusion, I value the views and opinions expressed in this forum because I was given a different insight into the film as a result of what I read here before I watched it. I hope that one of the positive outcomes of the film’s success is that more people are motivated to learn more about our country and its diverse and fascinating people.

Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 11:30 am ¶
ronke wrote:

frankly… i think

1. the gangster angle was not necessary to the plot of the story

2. the allegorical portrayal of apatheid was way off and wrong! – the aliens were portrayed as vermin who needed quarantine… are the blacks in south africa that repulsive? is the allegory supposed to show how repulsive the white southafricans found the blacks? cos i’m not sure why the aliens couldnt have human form at the least!

3. the hero – danced back and forth between good and evil…. why did he torch the eggs so gleefully and then in the next breath refuse to kill the aliens? doesnt make sense

4. they portray nigerian prostitutes as already having sex with this aliens without any transformational repercussions so why are they claiming a transformation due to a sexual alliance and no body is questioning that even in the movie?

5. if they had to have gangsters… cannibals and prostitutes – did they have to be nigerians? are nigerians the only other nationality in south africa? cos they are they only nationality mentioned in the movie apart from southafrica

6. district 9 just disgusts me! period!

Posted 03 Oct 2009 at 6:24 am ¶
Ishtar wrote:

@ 112 – Jim Hollands

Only one gang (based in the western Cape) is called The Americans – their full name being The Ugly Americans. This gang, along with the Hard Livings are the two biggest, most powerful gangs in the Cape.

In fact these two, along with several others, started a coalition a few years ago called The Firm. Ostensibly, The Firm was their attempt at going straight and rehabilitating themselves in the eye of the public. I doubt anyone was taken in by the ploy and I haven’t heard of The Firm in ages.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 3:26 am ¶
TheVoiceOfReason wrote:

“The Nigerians have a wailing “witch doctor”. Who instructs them to eat the aliens. And they do it. Bloody, wriggling, and raw, of course.

We’re told that the black prostitutes “service” the aliens sexually. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME??!

And when Wikus’ arm grows a claw, the Nigerian gang boss starts licking his chops, eager to commit cannibalism.

Yup, that’s Hollywood’s Africa, isn’t it. Black Africans shown as degenerate savages who’ll have sex with non-humans and are pretty damn eager to eat people.

Disgusting.”

Thank you I was asking myself the same questions after I saw the movie. The cannibalism did not make any sense at all.

Posted 05 Oct 2009 at 11:52 pm ¶
anu wrote:

i’m a young nigerian female and i love my country.

i read the blog and most of the comments; very interesting.

i happened upon this blog cos i did a google search for district 9 after i saw it was up for a hollywood movie award on yahoo. ( and of course i knew about my governmenst ban on the movie and the events that led up to it)

i never watched (and doubt ever will) watch the movie cos i hate xenophobic stuff. just watching slavery based movies, or those that depict happenings from the holocaust makes my blood boil, literally. so i couldn’t risk something that may affect me so directly.

i appreciate the balanced view given by nicole camp (thank you), as well as several of the bloggers. i also find the widely varied view points entirely enlightening.

all human beinggs are equal. race, gender, nationality. this is something we should all strive to remember and imbibe at all times.

Africans have been an oppressed people for a very long time, but the saddest part is that it now seems we treat each other worse than how we were once treated.

though SA (south africa) is so far away, i grew up in a time where every musician in my country was singing for the release of nelson mandela and black SA from the grip of apartheid; in addition to other political and diplomatic goings-on, we greatly assisted in making this dream a reality.

i saw SA as our brother.

and this is the thanks we get.

sad!

the only reason i’m commenting is because in the on-going Big Brother Africa, one of my fellow nigerians is on eviction this week. i was, and still am amazed at how comments (especially from south africans) suddenly turned racist and almost border on hateful.

sad!

and to add insult to injury, the gang leader was called Obasanjo, which happens to be the name of our immediate past president.

how would SA like for a gang lord in a movie to be named Mbeki, or (God forbid) Mandela?

doesn’t sound nice eh?

we nigerians are quite industrious, hardworking and people-loving. and we thrive in our chosen profession. check out our great achievers like Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe, Dora Akinyuli, Chimamanda Adichie, John Fashanu, Oluchi Onyeagba, Chinwetel Ejiofor and others whose fields vary from fashion to sports to literature.

one out of every 4 black people is nigerian; and we also make up 3 out of every 5 africans. i think this is partly what makes it so bad because a slur on nigerians is actually on most africans and black people as a whole.

when it comes to media, movie making or not, kindly avoid the race thing.

that’s all i think i can say as i respectfully avoid repeating other peoples comments

Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 6:03 pm ¶
Ishtar wrote:

@ anu

I so agree with you that the way other Africans are treated in South Africa is shameful. When we were in need other countries helped us, sheltered our people and did whatever they could.

I am ashamed of my fellow South Africans who treat their African brothers and sisters so badly.

What is so disappointing is that white immigrants are not treated badly. No one protests about white immigrants “taking our jobs”, only black people are singled out for hate and distrust.

Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 3:55 am ¶
Ishtar wrote:

@ anu

“What is so disappointing is that white immigrants are not treated badly”

Oops! Sorry, I edited that sentence and then didn’t check it before hitting submit.

What I meant was that it is disappointing that only black immigrants are targeted – white immigrants are simply accepted.

Posted 19 Oct 2009 at 3:57 am ¶