Django Unchained: 7 Historical Inaccuracies
Audiences learned during the course of Inglourious Basterds that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t much adhere to real-world history, what with an ending that would...
Audiences learned during the course of Inglourious Basterds that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t much adhere to real-world history, what with an ending that would make for one hell of a Wikipedia article should it have actually happened. But given that Tarantino unchained Django in his latest spaghetti western homage to get a slavery dialogue going in the first place, we’d probably be right to assume that he considers some aspects of his latest flick to be genuinely sincere.
The slavery aspects, at least, have been highlighted with a raw dedication to issues Tarantino firmly believes have been “white washed” by the majority of Americans. And given that it takes place 2 years before the Civil War, we’ve even got a time-frame. A time-frame for what, you’re wondering? Well, the astute amongst you might’ve noticed that – given the year this thing is set in – some of the historical elements don’t exactly fit.
Join us, then, as we take a look at 7 historical inaccuracies that we’ve noticed throughout Django Unchained. It’s important to remember that spaghetti westerns were iconically anachronistic, so there’s no doubt that many of these inclusions are either purposeful or purposely ignorant of history. We delve in for the sake of pure, adulterated fun, then – because what’s more entertaining than condensed history in list format? On second thought, don’t answer that.