MovieChat Forums > The Birth of a Nation (1915) Discussion > Is this movie as racist as people interp...

Is this movie as racist as people interpret it?

posted 9 years ago by RynoII
16 replies | jump to latest

Perhaps I need to watch this movie again, because the thing is, is that the blacks in this movie, are portrayed as the villains, but they do some pretty bad things, which does stir up a good portion of the trouble.

For example they actually try to stop white people from voting at the polls and manipulate votes to go their way. Also when Ben Cameron comes out of his front gate, onto the sidewalk, he is completely told off by the black man walking by, then followed by Lynch after. Just because a man accidentally walks in front of you when he is leaving his house, does not mean you have to nearly provoke a fight over it.

Also, the black people were attempting a coup, on the townspeople. Lynch said he wanted to build a black empire and take over the country.

Now if the movie showed the KKK killing innocent helpless blacks, then yeah. However in this movie, they only attack blacks, if the blacks attack first, and when the KKK shoots, it's to stop the blacks from attacking their loved ones.

However, I think perhaps American audiences might be being hypocritical here. Cause if a non-white race of people in the U.S. decided to attempt a violent coup, the whites would fight back, no matter what race, the terrorists were. The law doesn't care about race. If black people decided to rob a bank for example, and where caught, they are still going to prosecuted, even though they are black, cause they still technically committed a crime.

If there was a person like Lynch in real life, and actually got a bunch of black people to literally attempt a coup, and bomb buildings for example, or go around shooting people in the streets, the cops are still going to fight back, even if the terrorists are black. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America fought back, and they did not give them any special treatment, just because the attackers were of a different race or nationality.

The American people had no problem wanting to attack Afghanistan cause there were people there responsible for 9/11, even though they were of a different race, than most Americans.

There is the scene at the end where it shows the KKK worshipping Jesus after their victory, which may be offensive at first, but let's think about this for a second here. I have a friend who is a cop, who goes to church and is a Christian. He shot a Native American criminal in self defense, in a gunfight once, for example. But just because he shot someone of a different race, in self-defense, that did not make him feel like an evil racist. He still stuck to his christian views, and went to church.

So why is it that a lot of people consider this movie to be racist, when those same people would defend their homes, if they were broken into by people of another race? Don't you have the right to protect yourself from harm, no matter what the race of the assailant is?

Why do audiences think that a movie is racist, just because it features a group of terrorists wanting to take over, who just happen to be black? Movies feature terrorists groups of non-whites nowadays, and they do not get the same treatment. Just look at The Siege (1998), Traitor (2008), or True Lies (1994).

Why is this movie racist for having a black terrorist group, when other movies have non white terrorist groups attacking whites all the time? Another example is the movie Lakeview Terrace (2008).

In that movie, Samuel L. Jackson plays a black cop who is racist against white people, and goes so far to commit murder, out of his hate. Yet in that movie audiences were fine when the white cops blew him away, to try to stop him from shooting a white civilian. However, in Birth of a Nation, everyone seems to be against the white man stopping the black men, from attacking their helpless loved ones. Why?

In fact, in the movie, the KKK tried to scare the terrorists at first and give them warnings. It was not until the terrorists killed the girl (Cameron's sister), that they felt that they had to do something more drastic. They did what most people would do under terrorist attack really. I mean if your wife was being raped and called you to help, would you really say "I'm sorry honey, it would be politically incorrect for me to defend you against a black rapist, as oppose to my own race". No you wouldn't say that, you would jump in and defend her.

So I feel that audiences have perhaps labelled this movie as racist, when in fact, there is a huge social double standard at play here. Am I wrong?

[–] Cineanalyst 9 years ago

The black characters doing “pretty bad things” is the portrayal. This is what representation is. Representing a race as bad, inferior, etc. is racist.

“If the movie showed the KKK killing innocent helpless blacks” would be racist or anti-racist depending on whether this was portrayed as right or wrong.
Understanding representation is fundamental to art appreciation in general. It won’t be just this film that you’ll misinterpret.

Knowing the history of the film, its contexts and the intentions of the “author” (in this case, D.W. Griffith) also helps. A statement like yours quoted below is obviously ahistorical:

“Why do audiences think that a movie is racist, just because it features a group of terrorists wanting to take over, who just happen to be black?”

It doesn’t “just” feature groups. The villains don’t “just happen” to be black. These things were done intentionally by Griffith, etc.—as is the case with every film made by competent filmmakers.

So, yes, you’re completely wrong. So much so that if your post weren’t as well written as it is, I would've assumed you were trolling. But, if not, I hope this reply leads you in the right direction.

[–] CJBx7 9 years ago

The movie is a blatant misrepresentation of history, designed in order to commemorate the acts of a terrorist organization (the KKK) as heroic and justified. In order to assess this film correctly, one would need to be aware of the true history of what took place during the time period represented. There are no historical records of blacks attempting to suppress the white vote or disenfranchise whites in any other way.

It also serves to negate the notion of races being equal, and depicts slavery as a threat to unity among whites rather than a monstrous, oppressive institution that denied millions of people the fundamental rights of humanity and subjected them to all sorts of abuses. The audience is asked to react with shock to the idea of intermarriage between blacks and whites, so much so that "marriage" is equivalent to a euphemism for rape. The scene where Gus pursues Flora Cameron and she jumps off a cliff into "the opal gates of death" makes this clear. ("The opal gates of death" is also an embarrassing bit of purple prose.)

So, to answer your question "Is this movie as racist as people interpret it?" Well, yes it is, and then some. A particularly troubling thing about this film is that Griffith probably wouldn't have produced something this vile on his own, but that he fell under the influence of the ideas of Thomas Dixon and Woodrow Wilson with their white supremacist ideology. He was so enthralled by the drama of the story that he failed to adequately reflect on its implications.

"Bangers and mash. Bubbles and squeak. Smoked eel pie! HAGGIS!!"

[–] tbm-5 9 years ago

The movie is a blatant misrepresentation of history

This is irrelevant for two reasons. One it is a movie not a documentary. Two no tax dollars were involved in making it.

t also serves to negate the notion of races being equal

This depends on the context. Are you arguing physical or legal equality?
There is no denying that on average White people are taller than Asian people, that Asian people are more intelligent than Black people, or that Black people are faster runners than White people.

The audience is asked to react with shock to the idea of intermarriage between blacks and whites

That is true. But it seems to me to be within Griffiths right to free speech. Unless you can point to a specific incidence of Griffith forcing people to see his movie, he was within his rights.
Remember that Griffith was a producer of movies funded by private money. He had no obligation whatsoever to tell any truth other than his own. Just as no one had any obligation whatsoever to buy tickets to see his movies.

"Is this movie as racist as people interpret it?" Well, yes it is,

True, but why exactly should he be required not to make a racist movie?

but that he fell under the influence of the ideas of Thomas Dixon and Woodrow Wilson

This one requires proof. That he was under the influence of Dixon is obvious, but you will need to show that there was ever any connection between Griffith and Wilson before the movie was made.

[–] CJBx7 9 years ago

Here's one piece of proof:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilson-quote-in-birth-of-a-nati on.jpg

It is a quote from Wilson's A History of the American People.

I'm not questioning Griffith's right or freedom to make this movie. Obviously no one was forced to watch it. I am only addressing the ideology behind the film. "Racial equality" refers to impartial, unbiased treatment of others regardless of their race. Of course different races have different physical characteristics, as you mentioned. However, the movie promotes the idea of blacks being by and large inferior to whites and therefore not worthy of the same rights. Again, obviously no one was forced to watch BOAN at gunpoint. The issue here is what the film portrays.

"Bangers and mash. Bubbles and squeak. Smoked eel pie! HAGGIS!!"

[–] Beau_Buffet 9 years ago

There is no denying that on average [...] Asian people are more intelligent than Black people.

You are either :

A) Kidding

B) Racist

C) Ignorant to what intelligence really is.

[–] IndianaMcClane 9 years ago

Yes IMO, but that does not make it a bad movie.

[–] CJBx7 9 years ago

I think that Roger Ebert summed it up best when he said ""The Birth of a Nation" is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl’s “The Triumph of the Will,” it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."

Here's a link to his full review: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-birth-of-a-nation-19 15

"Bangers and mash. Bubbles and squeak. Smoked eel pie! HAGGIS!!"

[–] RynoII 9 years ago

I was actually watching Patriot Games (1992), and find that movie is similar in a sense. In that movie, the IRA is portrayed as the bad guys, and the monarchy, is portrayed as the helpless victims who are trying to escape being kidnapped or harmed by them. However, it was the British that invaded and colonized Northern Island in the first place, so the Irish are under British takeover, yet the IRA are the villains in the movie.

So I kind of wonder if people are being double standard-ish, saying that movie gets a pass, when it may have similar ideologies to The Birth of a Nation.

A lot of people have also said that this movie is racist because it was used as a KKK recruitment film after it was released. But I think that's a poor argument. Just because a movie was used for bad intentions after it came out, does not mean you should blame the movie.

I mean when The Warriors (1979) came out, the movie lead to three murders after, but does that mean the filmmakers were pro-murder, and wanted it to happen of course.

[–] tbm-5 9 years ago

Terrorists or organizations who use terrorism as a means to an end tend to degenerate ideologically over time. Thereby loosing the support of the people and becoming indiscernible from common criminals.

ETA may have had noble motives at one point but the still ended up bombing the Hipercor shopping center in Barcelona and killing 21 people for no apparent reason.

Likewise the IRA murdered Jean McConville (a mother of 7).

[–] RynoII 9 years ago

But that's my point though. The blacks in the movie form a terrorism group, and go around reaking havoc. And it's the colonizers to the rescue to stop them. So it seems it's similar to Patriot Games, colonizers are the good guys, terrorists are the bad guys. Both movies are presented in very black and white views (no pun intended), yet Birth of a Nation gets more flak, unless I am wrong?

[–] tbm-5 9 years ago

My guess is that the reason TBoaN gets more flak, is because it's easy, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Whereas criticizing a movie like Patriot Games requires you to have actual knowledge about the conflict. The latter requires work, the former just requires having the 'right' opinions.

[–] Slogutis 9 years ago

Imagine if Isis made a movie where they showed all French people as bumbling idiots who had zero sense and wanted to rape their Muslim women and steal their resources. Then Isis shows themselves in the movie as the saviors by defending their women and fighting the horrible Frenchmen.

In reality we know Isis are the terrorists so we would say that film is full of bigotry and propaganda.

[–] joekiddlouischama 9 years ago

However, it was the British that invaded and colonized Northern Island in the first place, so the Irish are under British takeover, yet the IRA are the villains in the movie.

The IRA constituted an actual terrorist organization with a long and well-documented historical profile. Conversely, there is no real historical basis for the black portrayals presented in The Birth of a Nation. Rather, they are simply based upon racist phobias and mythologies about history, hence the film's racism.

Something such as Patriot Games may be presenting a point of view that lacks historical context and balance, but there is still a major difference from The Birth of a Nation.

A lot of people have also said that this movie is racist because it was used as a KKK recruitment film after it was released. But I think that's a poor argument. Just because a movie was used for bad intentions after it came out, does not mean you should blame the movie.

The portrayal of the KKK is hardly innocuous here. The Birth of a Nation is a brilliant film from a cinematic perspective, but it is an exploitative melodrama along extremely bigoted racial lines. When you fallaciously present an organization of racist terrorists such as the Ku Klux Klan in a glorious and heroic light, you cannot be surprised when people in a racially segregated and fearful country (America during the World War I era and the 1920s) fall for your vision. Griffith constituted both a masterful filmmaker and a major manipulator, showing like no one else before him how the two qualities could dovetail.

[–] Jeorj Euler 8 years ago

I was actually watching Patriot Games (1992), and find that movie is similar in a sense.

It may be that war movies get a pass, whereas domestic conflict drama movies cannot (especially when set in a democratic nation, as in commonwealth or republic).

[–] joekiddlouischama 9 years ago

So I feel that audiences have perhaps labelled this movie as racist, when in fact, there is a huge social double standard at play here. Am I wrong?

Yes, because the black characters and behaviors are based entirely on vicious stereotypes and phobias, which is virtually the definition of racism. The film is canny enough to suggest that there were some good black people and that the bad ones deserved what was coming to them and had been led astray by the carpetbaggers, scalawags, and "mulattoes." Thus it creates a very thin—and implausible to most modern viewers—sense of "plausible deniability." Indeed, The Birth of Nation is highly manipulative in that manner.

[–] dalldorfw 8 years ago

"Now if the movie showed the KKK killing innocent helpless blacks, then yeah. However in this movie, they only attack blacks, if the blacks attack first, and when the KKK shoots, it's to stop the blacks from attacking their loved ones."

Um, quite the opposite actually. If this portrayed them more accurately, this movie would be racist, just informative. It's the noble, heroic portrayal of the KKK and the fact that black people are pictured as an inherently violent and corrupt race that makes this movie racist.