MovieChat Forums > The Birth of a Nation (1915) Discussion > The extreme historical inaccuracy kills ...

The extreme historical inaccuracy kills me


Okay. I suppose everyone knows this movie is historically inaccurate (the well-educated, I presume), but let me still say: WOW, WOW....WOW!

It seems that no one on this board has gone into some detail as to why this is historically inaccurate, so I shall take it upon myself to slightly do this.

- First off! Thank god, the whites were violent towards the blacks after the civil war because if not, the 14th amendment would not have gained the needed support it did. This gratitude is especially attributed to the Memphis race riots where 46 blacks were killed, 5 black women raped, 100 robbed, 91 homes, 4 churches and 8 schools burned in the black community. It sounds awfully similar to what happens in the Birth of a Nation, but racially reversed, doesn't it? We can also give our thanks to the New Orleans Riots too.

- The movie's constant deception of blacks obsession with miscegenation is frankly strange and inaccurate. Would they be surprised to know that the biggest defender of miscegenation at the time was actually a white women? Her name was Lydia Maria Child. She was a fairly famous abolitionist. She even wrote a whole novel about how all Americans of various races will one day come together and mix romantically (like the melting-pot theory). No kidding.

There is more to be said about this:

1.The period after the civil war, intermarriages were the lowest they had ever been even though miscegenation laws were repealed during reconstruction. Intermarriages were much higher during slavery rather than during reconstruction (Yes, even with anti-miscegenation laws in place)! I guess they should have set their great fears of miscegenation during the period of slavery, not after it. Am I right??? There's was so much mixing (a lot of it forced..) during slavery, they would have had a heart attack. Those 560,000 or so mixed blacks (mulatto) recorded in 1860 census certainly spoke for itself.
2. Black and a white couples could always move to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or New York to get married if they were really in love and very dedicated to each other, so it was barely a problem (if you don't count the strong disapproval that is). Of course, they would need to afford it, but it was still not a problem. It was definitely not a problem which newly freed slaves would care for: poverty, violence, and extreme racism was the forefront of their thoughts.
3. Most blacks after the war were concerned with getting their own marriages recognized (slave marriages weren't recognized by law) and from the slave narratives I've read, it was one of the biggest annoyance and grievance for them. There was a very large waves of happy slaves getting married after the civil war.
4.Blacks were mainly concerned with fighting one thing during reconstruction: segregation. This is strangely not addressed in the film. It seems to be replaced with miscegenation.
5.Even during the civil rights movement, anti-miscegenation law were never a concern among blacks. Segregation and the right to vote were the primary discussions in the civil rights movement. Just like blacks during reconstruction before them.
Anti-miscegenation laws in the south were ironically struck off in 1967 by a southern White man and a Mixed black women. Not black men/white women like they always feared.

- The misleading Portrayal of Thaddeus Stevens and his Mulatto mistress. Thaddeus Stevens housekeeper is portrayed as some type of a bitch/whore. Although from what I've read, she was anything but that. "After the Battle of Gettysburg in July, Lydia Smith acted upon her compassion for the tens of thousands of wounded soldiers. Driving a borrowed horse and wagon through Adams County to a field hospital, she collected donations of food and clothing and distributed them among the wounded men, Union and CONFEDERATE alike."
Of course, this certainly shows her evil whorish mulatto character.

-White women being raped by black men? Well, heaps of accounts say a completely different story: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai/enslavement/text6/masterslavesexualabuse.pdf
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ep8FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=House+Select+Committee+on+the+Memphis+Riots.+1866.+%27%27Memphis+riots+and+massacres.%27%27&source=bl&ots=YZbOjFg57D&sig=2Yx7fVkpyD3igH7nREB1voxqr4U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wPnrUrDoH7LlyAGw7oC4Dw&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=rape&f=false
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/28

One of the strange things I've realized is that the men who went off to fight in the confederacy displayed no fear with leaving their wives and daughters among black male slaves. A lot of white females were left alone to control the plantation or farm and there seems to be no historical records which show any fears or concerns that the slaves would rape them during the complete absence of a male authority for a long time.

There's so many inaccuracies that it would take me forever to list. You can just ask me. I've read a lot about 19th century America. I'm not bothered to list all the sources since I have to search for them again. But if you want proof for one of my statements, I'll be happy to find the specific credible source once again for you.

reply

Spectacular Statements..... Thank You!!!

reply