In 1915, the film The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith was released. The plot of the film basically showed that Ku Klux Klansmen were the saviors to the nation and that they would help to bring back a stable government.
Well, after the fall the South in the Civil War, former black slaves often gathered as bandit groups that killed and raped. And there were a lot of them. No matter the ideology, the historical
fact is that the KKK actually did brought stability.
People confuse moral judgement and consequences, they use to think that any ideology they dislike should have necessarily negative consequences. But that's a fallacy. Facts and moral are two different elements.
The movie also included the use of actors in blackface. Over time, racism became embedded into the film of Hollywood. In 1927, the film The Jazz Singer was released. One of the central themes was the use of blackface by character Jack Robins
So what?
It's true that character was played by a white actor with a blackface, so what? Back then movie industry was a much more local industry. Cinema was based in theater, and the tradition was (and is) that actors would represent characters from other races too. And that was the common use in the western world, in Japan, in China, in Africa, and
everywhere.
And the character's race wasn't swapped. Would have been it swapped, the actor wouldn't have used a blackface, would he?
It's logical that early movies imported the way things were done in theater. Now... you wanna state that beyond the common use in theater there was some additional political motive? That's up to you to prove, but you need to provide a solid argument, you just can't make up some imaginary political motives based in something that has some simple and logical explanation.
reply
share