I have to side with Mr. Gregory on this. I think the film on a whole is a net positive. If you can get a theater full of white, middle class young people to root and cheer when a recently freed slave gets his revenge and freedom, I think you've done good. The vitriol and brutality of slavery is laid bare for the audience and the reaction becomes manifest in Django himself. Without showing slavery as it really was, I doubt the film would have people cheering and ready to practically jump out of their seats. It was something I have never experienced before and something I think only film, even film as propaganda, can do. As Mr. Gregory says, you can read stories about how deep the chains sunk into the ankles of slaves but to see it on screen is something else. Now compare Django to the sham that is "Lincoln" and its brilliance is even more apparent. Two films dealing with slavery, one which is supposedly "historical" and entirely whitewashed (literally), and another which is supposedly fiction yet somehow closer to the truth. That shows you very clearly the state of historical and political consciousness in this country and the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Django I think shows that there is a wider appreciation for honest, concrete accounts of history than what is trotted out as "history" in classrooms and History Channel documentaries.