Head, meet sand. I have a feeling you two are going to become good friends.

Yesterday, CNN.com put up an article about how the depiction of Nigerians in District 9 offends some Nigerians. For those who haven't seen the film, there is a sub-plot involving a Nigerian crimelord and his shaman, who have seized the opportunity to exploit the helpless Prawns as they're evicted from Johannesburg while also killing them and eating their hearts (and other body parts) because they believe that they'll be imbued with the aliens power upon doing so (i.e. become able to use their bio-engineered weaponry; the Prawns are also much physically stronger than humans).

Let's ignore for a moment the question of why CNN is just now running a story about controversy over a film that's been in international release for over a month. The bigger issue is that writer/director Neill Blomkamp didn't just pull this idea out of his ear. I don't know what the stats are for Nigeria in particular, but cannibalizing enemies, rivals, or physically unusual persons for the purpose of gaining special powers is a very, very old practice which remains an active problem in many parts of the African continent. The day The National Post ran a review of District 9, in which the reviewer criticized this aspect of the film as being offensive and culturally insensitive, the back page of that issue's 'A' section was devoted to an ongoing series of articles about how the abduction, dismemberment, and murder of albinos for the purpose of gaining supernatural power through cannibalization has reached a critical mass in Tanzania. If Blomkamp was stereotyping anyone with his depiction of this practice, it was crimelords and criminals, because the film very carefully establishes that the Nigerian villains are not Joe Average citizens.

Of course seeing this on film would be viscerally offensive to the tens of millions of Nigerians who aren't cannibals. It's a horrific, evil practice, and its depiction in District 9 should make anyone want to puke long before the hand-held camera action starts. But banning its portrayal on the grounds of cultural insensitivity or offense, or fear of stereotypes - as the Nigerian government is now doing due to increasing complaints from the citizenry - isn't going to do anyone much good. As a Christian, I have spent a lot of (stereotyped) time being reminded of the evils the institutional Church has perpetrated, both in my lifetime and long before. I have seen lots of Christians behaving very badly on film. I could consider it personally offensive to see something in a film such as a priest sexually abusing children, and (somewhat) rationally argue that this portrayal promotes a negative stereotype or condemnation of the Church as a whole. While successfully preventing that film from showing a priest abusing a child may make some people feel good or righteous about themselves in the short run, maintaining the illusion that nothing's amiss, it is a selfish, useless exercise that does no good. The wrongs must be faced, and set right; the house must be cleaned. When there are still an unbelievable amount of people ready to hold you personally responsible for all innocent blood spilled during King Richard's Crusades, you learn pretty quickly that ignoring or denying a shameful practice - especially one that's actually ongoing - doesn't make it go away.

It's a hard thing to face and own up to, being a part of a culture or body in whose name other parts are committing great evil. It's a source of great grief. But problems of this scale can't be fixed until they're recognized and condemned by enough people who are willing to fix them, and Neill Blomkamp has done nothing wrong by drawing attention to this particular problem in a very public way while being very careful not to indict the general populace in the process.