Feb. 15, 2023

For links to more articles, see the main index: On microaggressions, privilege, and systemic racism: A resource for white people

NOTE: With regard to tropes: I'm going to be blunt here. That means describing stereotypes that Black readers might wish they hadn't read. For that, I apologize in advance.

UPDATE: While responding to a comment below, I learned that “Birth of a Nation” is erroneously credited with being the first feature film ever made. It may have been the longest to date, but the honors for "first" go instead to The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906). For details, see notes below.

I was educated in the '60s. In those years, "Birth of a Nation" was still celebrated — if only by white America — as a landmark film and a cinematic spectacle. "Before D. W. Griffith’s time, motion pictures were short, uninspiring, and poorly produced, acted and edited." Part fiction, part history, the three-hour silent was "lauded for its technical virtuosity. It was the first non-serial American 12-reel film ever made."

If I remember right, one of my teachers showed "Birth of a Nation" to his classes, which means that somewhere in my distant past, I probably saw it myself — in a room full of equally clueless white kids, promoted by our teacher as a ground-breaking classic.

I don't recall any of my educators discussing the blatant racism that was the core of Griffith's message. I never heard that Woodrow Wilson loved it, showed it at the White House, and and endorsed it as "all so terribly true.”

But its original title, "The Clansman," is a more accurate hint at what viewers will see. ("Birth of a Nation" is, in fact, based on a Thomas Dixon novel of the same name.)

Griffith played on every trope. The image that stands out in my mind is Black men as "coons" who were elected to the South Carolina legislature, only to make a mockery of the proceedings. But equally vivid is the "innocent white girl" being menaced by Griffith's "brutes."

"It should be noted that the South Carolina legislature scene is one of the few scenes where African Americans are actually playing the characters on screen. Many of the African Americans in the film were portrayed by white actors in blackface. Griffith initially claimed this was deliberate, stating "on careful weighing of every detail concerned, the decision was to have no black blood among the principals; it was only in the legislative scene that Negroes were used, and then only as ‘extra people.'” There are a few other scenes where Black actors are filmed, particularly in the antebellum slave fields pictured early in the movie, but all leading Black characters are white people in blackface."

As the son of an ex-Confederate colonel Griffith didn't create these stereotypes. If anything, they were already part of his core beliefs, which in turn were engendered by his upbringing. When he created his masterpiece around them, he amplified and perpetuated them.

It was Griffith who introduced the Klan's white robes and burning crosses to white supremacists.

Moreover, he inspired the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan itself.

A Georgia preacher named William Joseph Simmons found inspiration in "Birth of a Nation’s" imagery — the KKK-inspired aprons, costumes and regalia — and in the film's nationwide success. He determined to make the most of the film’s popularity, using it to jump start interest in the Klan. Today, he's given dubious credit as the founder of the modern KKK.

"Simmons put a plan in motion once he learned the film would be released on December 6, 1915 in Atlanta. Just 10 days before the film premiered, Simmons gathered a group and climbed Stone Mountain, outside Atlanta, to burn a large cross. He reportedly said, 'There was good reason, as I have said, for making Thanksgiving Day (November 25, 1915) the occasion for burning the fiery cross. Something was going to happen in town (Atlanta) the next week (the [local] premiere of The Birth of a Nation) that would give the new order a tremendous popular boost.'

"As planned, word spread about the burning cross. Simmons also took out a newspaper ad about the KKK‘s revival that ran right alongside an announcement about The Birth of a Nation premiere."

"On opening night, Simmons and fellow Klansmen dressed in white sheets and Confederate uniforms paraded down Peachtree Street with hooded horses, firing rifle salutes in front of the theater. The effect was powerful and screenings in more cities echoed the display, including movie ushers donning white sheets. Klansmen also handed out KKK literature before and after screenings."

More than a century later, "Birth of a Nation" continues to impact us. We see it, every time the KKK dons those ridiculous robes and burns a cross. We see it in the news, every time the police brutalize another Black man. We see it in every story of a Black person, by passed for promotion, because their employers only see them only as intellectually inferior. We see it every time Black people are mocked for their facial features.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional information

• I'm going to start the following references with a serendipitous find: DJ Spooky’s Rebirth of a Nation at Millennium Park, is a unique, artistic performance of "Birth of a Nation." (Score by DJ Spooky, performed by Kronos Quartet. 91 minutes, uploaded Jun. 20, 2016, to the Chicago DCASE channel on YouTube.)

• “Birth of a Nation”: Writing History with Lightning, a page of the U.S. History Scene website.

• Culture Re-View: 'Birth of a Nation' one of the most controversial films ever is released, by Jonny Walfisz, Euronews, Aug. 2, 2023. ("[W]th its role in reigniting a white supremacist hate group and inciting racial violence across the 20th century in the US, few films have as much blood on their hands.")

• Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films, by Donald Bogle, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2001. (I highly recommend this book; it will heighten your ability to recognize racist stereotypes in American film. TIP: Hold out for the 5th edition, published in 2016.)

• Stereotypes and Characterization in "Birth of a Nation" and "Within Our Gates", by MC, History of Blacks in American Film, May 22, 2010. (In this blog, the author presents a comparison of two contemporary films that centered on Black Americans. "Within Our Gates," {1920, directed by Oscar Micheaux} “is the oldest known surviving film by an African-American director and has been named as one of the greatest films of all time by a Black director.”)

• The Birth of a Nation: The most racist movie ever made?, by Tom Brook, BBC, Feb. 6, 2015. (“‘The film is one of the most racist films ever made….’” says Ellen Scott, author of … Cinema Civil Rights. ‘This film actually depicts lynching as a positive thing…. The politics of the film was essentially to say certain black people are worthy of being lynched. In that sense it’s extremely racist.’“)

• Why Does the Ku Klux Klan Burn Crosses?, by Brendan Koerner, Slate, Dec. 17, 2002. (“Exhilarated by Griffith’s sympathetic portrayal, Klansmen started burning crosses soon after to intimidate minorities, Catholics, and anyone else suspected of betraying the order’s ideals. The first reported burning took place in Georgia on Thanksgiving Eve, 1915. They have been associated with racist violence ever since.”)

• Griffith also created the KKK's white robes: One character "is frustrated that Black people are no longer acting subservient to whites. He gets inspired when he sees two white children pretending to be ghosts in order to scare some black children and he dreams up the Ku Klux Klan." The Birth of a Nation: Everyday Racism in Early 20th century America, by Elizabeth Garner Masarik, Dig: A History Podcast, Aug. 8, 2021.

• 100 Years Later, What's The Legacy Of 'Birth Of A Nation'?, by NPR Staff, NPR’s Code Switch, Feb. 8, 2015. ("It is at the foundation of what would become Hollywood. So if this is at the root, then it shouldn't be a surprise when in the last few weeks, there have been discussions about the lack of people of color being nominated for the Oscars. In my mind, this is very much a branch that grew out of the tree that was Birth of a Nation.")

Notes from a discussion under the first posting

• 1) In answer to a comparison with “Gone With the Wind”: I honestly can't remember whether I saw [“Birth of a Nation”] in school, or if I heard that one of the English teachers was showing it to his classes. But the teacher in question was also the school drama coach. He loved everything about acting and movies, and he wouldn't have thought twice about justifying a viewing, based on the movie's technical merits.
  
  After I found DJ Spooky's artistic presentation (linked above), I found that it’s every bit as horrific as it's reputed to be.
  
  And likewise, “Gone With the Wind”.... I was introduced to it on the big screen. my high school sponsored it as a history field trip for freshmen and juniors. For years after, I watched it every time it showed on TV, bought a VHS copy and later the DVD....
  
  Over time, my understanding of it evolved. At first, I was caught up in all that Southern charm and the glory of the Lost Cause. But after a while, that voice in my head started yelling "Hey, wait a minute!" as I began to recognize it for what it was.
  
  The last time I saw GWtW, about 10 years ago, I was so repulsed that I wound up writing an essay called "When at last the luster fades." For security reasons, I wound up deleting it, but I'm seriously thinking about posting it again.
  
  For me, the racism in “Birth of a Nation” was made even worse (if that's possible) by Griffith's use of blackface on the main characters. That's something that began in theaters and would continue in movies for decades to come. In movies, white movie makers resorted to blackface in part because they didn't give Black actors credit for being able to act, and in part because it was also believed that white audiences (on which white filmmakers depended) would not accept Black actors on leading roles.
  
  The first Black man to be introduced on film was "Uncle Tom," in a 12-minute "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (1903). He was played by an unknown white man in blackface.
  
  Never mind the fact that, in those early years, Black film makers were succeeding across the country, producing movies starring Black actors, written by Black authors, and eagerly attended by Black audiences.
  
  Black actors who did win parts in other white-produced-and-directed movies were inevitably squeezed into the stereotyped boxes described by Donald Bogle in Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films.
  
  I can only imagine what it was like for the Black actors who were given minor roles in “Birth of a Nation.” It must have been a very demeaning experience — while at the same time, it would have seemed like their shot at better gigs in the future.

• 2) While looking for more information on blackface, I stumbled across a surprising contradiction to a Birth of a Nation "fact" that I've read about in — literally — every other source (until now).
  
  It seems Birth of a Nation doesn't qualify as the first feature film.
  
  "[T]his persistent and easily disprovable myth has gained new life since this year marks the 100th anniversary of the D.W. Griffith KKK epic, " wrote Scott Beggs in 2015. "The superlative showed up in a Haaretz article recently, and now Vulture has a piece entitled ‘Why No One is Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Feature Film’ whose thesis is that we’re too ashamed of Birth of a Nation to praise it. The correct answer, of course, is that no one is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the feature film because it isn’t the 100th anniversary of the feature film.
  
  "By the best current accounts, the honor goes to 1906’s The Story of the Kelly Gang, at least in terms of length and dramatization. Of course, events like boxing matches were being documented on film (at feature length) and shown to paying customers about a decade prior, and narrative, edited features emerged alongside Kelly Gang in several different countries.
  
  "If we’re only looking at the US, Cleopatra was a six-reeler made in 1912 (3 full years before Birth of a Nation’s release for those keeping score), but the truth is that we can’t know for sure what the first American feature film was because of how many silent films we’ve lost. However, even with that uncertainty, we can still be certain that Birth of a Nation wasn’t the first." [emphasis mine]
  

• 3) In answer to the question, “was the film a ‘blockbuster’ due to its content?” I responded:
  
  Based on what I've read, the biggest draw was the introduction of so many new filming techniques, as well as the action scenes. Both were significant advances in movie making.
  
  Bogle writes: "In almost every way, 'The Birth of a Nation' was a stupendous undertaking, unlike any film that had preceded it. Up to then, American movies had been two-or three-reel affairs, shorts running no longer than ten or fifteen minutes, crudely and casually filmed. But 'The Birth of a Nation' was rehearsed for six weeks, filmed in nine, later edited in three months, and finally released as a record-breaking hundred-thousand-dollar spectacle ... over three hours in running time. It altered the entire course and concept of American moviemaking, developing the close-up, cross-cutting, rapid-fire editing, the iris, the split-screen shot, and realistic and impressionistic lighting. Creating sequences and images yet to be surpassed, the film's magnitude and epic grandeur swept audiences off their feet."
  
  Other sources disagree with Bogle with regard to length and the number of reels. (See above.) But as a general statement, his description of previous movies applies. In comparison, "Birth of a Nation" must have been a stunning innovation for its time.
  
  Audience excitement would have been driven by the usual hype surrounding a release of this magnitude. But there was also the racist spectacle innovated by William Joseph Simmons — not just for the Atlanta premiere, but subsequently in city after city.
  
  With that so much enticement hitting the news, I doubt many could resist the urge to go and see the movie for themselves.
  
  Whether or not the movie's racism was an attraction probably depended on the inclinations of individual audience members. In my reading, I haven't seen any indications (apart from Simmons' demonstrations) that theater goers knew in advance what they were in for, and I'm unwilling to guess at the specifics of how Griffith promoted it. But after the initial premiere, it's a given that reviews would have at least touched on the racist themes.
  
  It's not hard to speculate that the movie did promote and increase racism in America. Overwhelmed by that much spectacle — and given the human inclination to believe whatever they're shown, without question — I'm sure that many exited the theater enthusiastically agreeing with Wilson, that it's "all so terribly true.”
  
  How many of them felt that way going in? I can't begin to guess.
  
  Personally, I think it's a tragedy that such a monumental accomplishment should be so completely overshadowed by its racist stereotypes and themes. But even more tragic is the lasting harm.

• 4) I should add that Black Americans did not take this lying down. When “Birth of a Nation” was released, they organized protests across the country, denouncing the movie.
  
  "[W]hite film audiences made it a box office hit, but in each city it traveled to it was also met with protests by African Americans, including by the newly formed NAACP which attempted to ban the film." (Source) An Independent Lens documentary tells the story of how "black newspaper editor William Trotter helped launch protest in 1915 to ban D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation." The documentary is available for sale or rent on YouTube. Unfortunately, that's the only link I could find.
  
  However, in the time since I wrote this post, a Jan. 24, 2024, podcast, William Monroe Trotter Battles "Birth of a Nation", has been uploaded to the Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello channel on YouTube.

  
  See also William Monroe Trotter Challenges President Wilson, a page of The White House Historical Association website.