birthofanation

08 February 1915 – Birth Of A Nation

A century ago today, the most racist movie ever made is shown to the public for the very first time at Clune’s Auditorium in Los Angeles. Based on, and originally named for, Thomas Dixon’s novel and play The Clansman, it is simultaneously one of the most visually-influential and important films ever made — as well as one of the most profitable. Becoming the first film ever screened at the White House, Birth will only deepen President Woodrow Wilson‘s racism. It will also spark a renewal of the Ku Klux Klan at Stone Mountain, Georgia, and a disturbing rise in lynchings across America.

Directed by D. W. Griffith, a confederate veteran’s son, The Birth of a Nation features cinematic innovations that have become so routine in our visual culture that we barely notice them today: Griffith inter-cut scenes to create action sequences, used night-shots, alternated between wide ‘establishing’ shots and closer shots to create vast narratives, and challenged audiences with the world’s very first ‘feature length’ production — three hours — at a time when most films were less than twenty minutes long.

Whereas Birth’s warped, racist revision of American history was almost unnoticeable to many whites in the United States of 1915, it is necessarily the first topic of any contemporary introduction. For despite Griffith’s advanced visualization techniques, some elements of the film are otherwise incomprehensible to a modern audience: Griffith has white actors performing the scripted roles in blackface, often with actual Negroes serving as extras in the background. During the final act, white Union soldiers defending the purity of white women from a ravenous mob of sex-crazed black men raise their rifle butts in the air to dash their charges’ brains out and ‘save’ them from being raped — at which point, the Ku Klux Klan heroically rides to their rescue.

Griffith's portrayal of post-Civil War Reconstruction greatly influenced public perceptions of the period

Griffith’s film advanced a revisionist history of the Civil War and Reconstruction that remains potent with southern apologists

When he was sworn in as Vice President of the new Confederate States of America, Alexander Stephens acknowledged the central cause of the war was a southern defense of their ‘peculiar institution’:

With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so.

But after losing the Civil War through predictable material and manpower shortages, southerners invented a myth of the ‘lost cause’ which excused their aggressive war of oligarchy as a defense of Christian civilization and conveniently elided any mention of slavery as their cause. With the collapse of postwar Reconstruction, the original Klan systematically murdered and oppressed anyone or anything, black or white, which might contradict this mass delusion. United Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization born in 1894 and dedicated to propagating the ‘lost cause’ myth, raised funds to put a statue of a confederate soldier outside every county courthouse in the South; meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of white and black southerners who turned against the confederacy and fought for the union were purposefully forgotten…when they weren’t condemned as traitors.

“My object is to teach the north, the young north, what it has never known — the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period,” Thomas Dixon once said during an intermission of his play. “I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the south by their suffering during that time…to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

The first third of Griffith’s film presents that false, yet still-widespread view of the Civil War as the result of northern aggression rather than the product of an expansionist, repressive South. Portraying the war itself, the second third of the film is actually the most brilliant in technical and storytelling terms; practically every large battle scene filmed since 1915 contains some inspiration from Griffith’s work. Only in the last four reels, which portray the postwar Reconstruction period as a sinister conspiracy of northern carpetbaggers to destroy the south by encouraging black men to rape and forcibly marry white women, does The Birth of a Nation graduate from mere historical revisionism to disgusting racial slander and sickening, violent white supremacy.

The NAACP protesting Griffith's movie in New York

The NAACP protesting Griffith’s movie in New York in 1947. Birth was immediately controversial and banned in some cities

We sometimes forget that free speech was hardly as absolute in America a century ago as it is today; books, magazines, and other media were routinely censored by the US Postal Service under the Comstock Laws. Not until 1933, when the United States Supreme Court upheld freedom of expression in the case of James Joyce’s novel Ulysses, did creators enjoy any presumption of artistic freedom. Indeed, Griffith chose to use white actors wearing obvious blackface partly in order to avoid censorship, for his white audiences would have been horrified to see actual Negro men ravishing white women on the screen. So we should not be surprised that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People campaigned to have the film banned, even succeeding in a few locations.

Yet the overall effect of Griffith’s film is to worsen American race relations, especially when white northern audiences uncritically accept its warped narratives. In the words of Professor Thomas Cripps, Birth “is at once a major stride for cinema and a sacrifice of black humanity to the cause of racism.” Writing a definitive review in 2003, legendary film critic Roger Ebert says:

As slavery is the great sin of America, so “The Birth of a Nation” is Griffith’s sin, for which he tried to atone all the rest of his life. So instinctive were the prejudices he was raised with as a 19th century Southerner that the offenses in his film actually had to be explained to him. To his credit, his next film, “Intolerance,” was an attempt at apology. He also once edited a version of the film that cut out all of the Klan material, but that is not the answer. If we are to see this film, we must see it all, and deal with it all.

When African American men respond to their country’s call for troops in 1917, Griffith’s themes of racial tension, white supremacy, and sexual paranoia will be reprised in riots, lynchings, and controversy. Many postwar monuments will offer separate listings of white and colored dead. America was already a very racist country in 1915, but thanks to Dixon and Griffith, matters will now become even worse.

  • dbtheonly

    Matt,

    I’m confused as to your point here.

    Bending history for movie story is something our own time is not unguilty of. (*cough*cough* Selma *cough*cough*)

    The US Army was segregated from, say, 1860, when Colored Troops were first raised, through, 1948. All honor to the guys who served in the USCT during the Civil War & the 24th & 25th Infantry & 9th & 10th Cavalry after. Honor to the white guys, who put themselves in lethal jeapordy for leading black soldiers. Confederates announcing that they would not prosoners of white Officers of Colored Troops.

    Are you complaining of the treatment of the 92nd Division (& 93rd ? check number) in both the First & Second World Wars? No argument there. If we were doing WWII, youd have a field day with quotes from George Patton.

    Are you decrying that memorials of the time seperated whites & coloreds? It suprises me only to the extent that the Colored Guys got a memorail at all.

    Times were different 100 years ago.

    • http://www.osborneink.com/ OsborneInk

      On the one hand, The Birth of a Nation is a key moment in the development of our modern visual media. On the other hand, the film is a landmark of the deepening racism in American society a century ago. Both points are important for understanding our own time, but the second point becomes important later when America puts black men in uniform.

  • Gregory Robert Zieren

    As Jennifer Keene has pointed out in her study Doughboys the cost of racism in the WW1 era was borne not only by its African-American victims and the limitations placed on their ability to make progress as citizens, it was also borne by the American military and the nation as a whole when racism limited the contribution African-American soldiers could make toward victory. Limited largely to support roles and deemed poor soldiers by their officers, they performed in admirable, soldierly fashion when employed by the French. Were white American officers seeing simply what they expected to see? Or were the French more objective in their judgment? I’m inclined toward the latter view.

  • CriticalDragon1177

    It is so shameful that we once lived in a nation where people would not only enjoy a film as disgusting as “The Birth Of A Nation,” but that some many people once believed its disgusting racist narrative.

  • Pingback: 28 July 1915 – Banana Republic | The Great War Blog()

  • Pingback: 25 August 1915 – Boll Weevil | The Great War Blog()

  • Pingback: 14 October 1915 – Be Prepared | The Great War Blog()

  • Pingback: 19 October 1915 – True West | The Great War Blog()

  • Pingback: 27 February 1916 – Oral Historian | The Great War Blog()