Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Year Of The Month

The Birth Of A Nation

Yeah, look, it's racist.

Boy, people sure weren’t kidding about how racist this movie is, huh? Every moment of horror I had at the dehumanization of black people was beaten out by something else the movie indulged in; at first, the black faces we see are actual African-American actors, only for white people in blackface to start popping up. What’s particularly disturbing is how racism is baked into the very dramatic structure of the film – which is, itself, actually quite elegantly constructed.

The film begins with its white heroes in a comfortable, normal state of being surrounded by people they love. They’re attacked, horrifically, by the Northern aggressors, losing loved ones who heroically sacrifice themselves to keep the hordes at bay. Lincoln ends the aggression with the South humiliated, but willing to make peace, only for the hordes to take advantage of the confused peace and seize power, violently humiliating the white locals further, until a noble force rises up against them.

Like, I hated typing that out, even under the metaphorical heavy quotation marks, but it’s a compelling narrative. If there’s any value to watching The Birth Of A Nation, it’s a reminder that this is what bigots actually believe. The nice thing about straightforward dramatic structure is that it reflects somebody’s reality perfectly. Racists genuinely think of themselves as defending a beautiful way of life that their heroic forefathers nobly sacrificed themselves for against a degenerate horde.

And it kind of goes the other way. I was shocked at how this movie feels like it dehumanizes the white people, which is largely me projecting my disgust onto them; images of hundreds of white, smiling faces were repulsive to me, given the context that they had their freedom and pleasure on the backs of black slaves we saw not ten minutes ago. The violence dealt to them felt like a just result for, you know, using people as cattle.

Conversely, there’s a scene in the middle when the black abolitionists have risen to the government, and they lounge about with their bare feet up on the desks making jokes, and I automatically read them as the coolest people in the movie (it helps considerably that these were the few actors not hamming it up in the style of performance popular at the time).

I think this speaks to how this kind of narrative is very attractive. One of the ironic things about the Right’s obsession with calling the Left ‘professional victims’ is how much of its more extreme ideology is based around the injured pride we see in this film, where the Confederates are rising up against unjust and evil oppression and are just trying to preserve their way of life, right down to climactic imagery of someone clutching their crying preteen daughter as black Union officers beat down their door.

What’s fascinating is how particularly American this film’s take on these ideas is. One interpretation of America is that it’s racist, hyperindividualistic, and capitalist, and the film textually deals with the first two and subtextually deals with the second. The villains aren’t just villains; they’re an example of government overreach, forcing destructive rules on the little guy just trying to get by. Government law is presented as an absolute evil here, even when done by innocent, naive Abraham Lincoln who is hectored into the law.

Director DW Griffith also relies heavily on citing historical precedent; I suppose one advantage of silent film is that it gives opportunity to have footnotes, and he cites many sources for his clearly revisionist take on America’s Civil War. The obvious manipulation here compels me as a storyteller; I almost admire the way he makes his villains grotesque caricatures for his audience to be disgusted by; this is a product invented by a capitalist to make money, and nobody is more willing to give up their money for a comforting illusion than an American white supremacist.