Django Unchained

Last week I saw the movie "Django Unchained", directed by Quentin Tarantino.  This was an inspiring movie and had the moral of anti-slavery.  For those of you that haven't seen "Django Unchained", here is the trailer and a brief synopsis.

One thing I found interesting about the movie is that it focused solely on Django, played by Jamie Foxx, a freed slave.  Obviously a movie with his name in it would focus on him, but it did not once mention President Lincoln, who was president at the time.  This is curious because Lincoln is credited with creating the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves.  However, Tarantino decided to focus on how Django freed himself and was resonsible for his own destiny.  This contrasts the film "Lincoln", a movie documenting Lincoln's greatness,  and how many people view history.

Tarantino focused on the lesser known story: an inspiring story that no one credits.  At the time of the 13th amendment, the amendment that freed the slaves, there was still the thought of white supremacy.  This lead to the hypothesis that Abraham Lincoln was 100% responsible for stopping slavery; however, would slavery stop if the slaves didn't mind it?  It wouldn't!  The slaves rebelled as much as they could and tried with a concerted effort to escape and run away.

In an age that claims to be anti-racism, why are there still movies, like "Lincoln", where there is hardly ever a mention of slave revolts to free themselves.  Not even one minute devoted to how the African-Americans may have lead themselves to freedom.  I believe Tarantino decided not to mention President Lincoln at all because he wanted to show how powerful and influential some slaves were.  He may have done this in response to "Lincoln", but also to take attention away from the "good white guy".

Why do you think the public consensus gives President Lincoln all the credit for freeing the slaves?  And do you think there is a bigger issue surrounding racism? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.