Racism is in the eye of the beholder. That's an excellent truism. I won't dispute that.
Do you mean that I can say to a black person that he's an idiot because he's black, and if everyone else in my town agrees with me in this assertion, then it's not racism? And if he gets upset because of what I said, it's entirely his problem, because he's not in tune with what is considered the truth in this day and age?
If you get the chance to see the documentary Griffith: The Father of Film, there is an interview with a black man who saw the movie at its original premier. Since racism is in the eye of the beholder, I think you would find it interesting to hear how this beholder saw the movie.
Birth of a Nation (1915): A New Perspective
I've found this thread fascinating. I have somehow managed to miss BOAN every time it's been aired, but I've read about it and seen production stills. And from what I've seen and read, it was, like a lot of Hollywood films, pretty racist. The main difference I see is that many Hollywood films played the racial stereotypes for laughs and this films depicts the threatening side of the stereotype.
I have two questions--
Gone with the Wind is also widely aknowledged as a masterpiece and a great film. I love this film, but I have to say that it is pretty darn racist and contains a "white woman in peril" scene just like BOAN. (Granted Scarlett is attacked by both a white guy and a black guy, but still). Klansmen are also depicted as heroes in this film, though they are never named as such. So why isn't there as much uproar about this movie? Is it sort of a sacred cow?
And secondly, does anyone know a good book about Reconstruction? All I really know about it is what little we learned in school--Carpetbaggers and etc. I got the impression that the South, black and white got pretty much screwed.
I have two questions--
Gone with the Wind is also widely aknowledged as a masterpiece and a great film. I love this film, but I have to say that it is pretty darn racist and contains a "white woman in peril" scene just like BOAN. (Granted Scarlett is attacked by both a white guy and a black guy, but still). Klansmen are also depicted as heroes in this film, though they are never named as such. So why isn't there as much uproar about this movie? Is it sort of a sacred cow?
And secondly, does anyone know a good book about Reconstruction? All I really know about it is what little we learned in school--Carpetbaggers and etc. I got the impression that the South, black and white got pretty much screwed.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
-
drednm
Just because a person thinks a film is racist or is offended by it doesn't make it so. And if you call a black man an idiot, the comment doesn't necessarily have anything to do with racism. He might after all BE an idiot. Once again, you apply our apologetic PC sensitivities to a 93-year-old film. It's apples and oranges. And once again, if Griffith didn't SET OUT TO MAKE A RACIST FILM, then it's the viewers take on it. It's not Griffith. Nothing else in the body of his work marks him a a racist. No member of his cast sat around in 1915 wondering why Griffith was making a racist film. The majority of people who called the film racist had never even SEEN IT.
There's a huge difference between what is racially offensive and what is racist.
There's a huge difference between what is racially offensive and what is racist.
Ha ha! Okay. That's fine. It's your opinion, but I disagree. I'm not going to harp on about what the definition of racism is though, since I've already talked about it a great deal on this thread, as have a number of other people.
For the record, what I said in my previous post was: "Do you mean that I can say to a black person that he's an idiot because he's black"
That was the point. Otherwise, of course there might not have been a racial connection.
Traceyk, I can't remember Klansmen turning up in the movie version of Gone With the Wind, although I kow they're present in the book. It's been a long time since I saw the movie last. Which scene do you refer to?
For the record, what I said in my previous post was: "Do you mean that I can say to a black person that he's an idiot because he's black"
That was the point. Otherwise, of course there might not have been a racial connection.
Traceyk, I can't remember Klansmen turning up in the movie version of Gone With the Wind, although I kow they're present in the book. It's been a long time since I saw the movie last. Which scene do you refer to?
Last edited by Synnove on May 31st, 2008, 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
drednm
Tracy... love that icon!!
The Melvyn Stokes book on BOAN is good and has a ton of fascinating historical information.... the Reconstruction period was a lot more vicious and shameful than our grammar school histories let on. Let's face it, the history we learned in school was incredibly white washed (no pun intended) and painted our historical figures as "great men," when in fact they were just men who had achieved distinction, but they were still human beings.
The Stokes book has a great section concerning the American psyche in 1915 and what whites of the day perceived as dangers to their "way of life." I suppose this marks them all as racists judging by thoughts expressed here. But they were alarmed by the "yellow peril," increased immigration from southern Europe (yikes the Italians are coming!), and Blacks. BOAN resonated with contemporary audiences in part because of its depiction of Whites (the Little Colonel, the blacksmith, Lincoln) as heroes in the face of threats (Reconstruction) to their way of life.
The historical context of BOAN's story is incredibly complex. And that historical context has nothing to do with the film.
The Melvyn Stokes book on BOAN is good and has a ton of fascinating historical information.... the Reconstruction period was a lot more vicious and shameful than our grammar school histories let on. Let's face it, the history we learned in school was incredibly white washed (no pun intended) and painted our historical figures as "great men," when in fact they were just men who had achieved distinction, but they were still human beings.
The Stokes book has a great section concerning the American psyche in 1915 and what whites of the day perceived as dangers to their "way of life." I suppose this marks them all as racists judging by thoughts expressed here. But they were alarmed by the "yellow peril," increased immigration from southern Europe (yikes the Italians are coming!), and Blacks. BOAN resonated with contemporary audiences in part because of its depiction of Whites (the Little Colonel, the blacksmith, Lincoln) as heroes in the face of threats (Reconstruction) to their way of life.
The historical context of BOAN's story is incredibly complex. And that historical context has nothing to do with the film.
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
You're right about that.traceyk wrote:And secondly, does anyone know a good book about Reconstruction? All I really know about it is what little we learned in school--Carpetbaggers and etc. I got the impression that the South, black and white got pretty much screwed.
As for a good book, I've read several over the years, but don't recall them at the moment. I would suggest that you make a trip to your local library and check out several from differing years (I will look around on my next trip and see if I can find the titles and authors of what I've enjoyed). As history is written, it is often rewritten--sometimes not in the best interests. Different years can give you an idea of how people viewed the events over the passage of time.
-
drednm
As I mentioned before, there was, after the war, a myth that grew up about the South and the war as the great "lost cause." The myth portrayed the South as a gentle, bucolic eden of gentlemen planters and happy slaves. The North was portrayed as industrial and crude. Of course there are elements of truth here but the generalization is ludicrous. DWG may have been raised in this mythical way of thinking. I suppose it was natural for the South to see itself as the victim of crass northern industrialism and to long for the festooned days of singing slaves and mint julips. The truth about the slave culture is of course quite the opposite.
You can see this myth as portrayed by Hollywood all thru its Golden Age. GONE WITH THE WIND is certainly a great example with Hattie McDaniel as the perfect Mammy and the happy slave. McDaniel was a great actress and often cut through the stereotypes of the day to bring great zest to her maid characters (ALICE ADAMS and THE GREAT LIE come to mind). Yet in GWTW she is the perfect model of the Southern Mammy.
Yet as mentioned, GWTW is not seen as a racist film, nor is JEZEBEL with its singing slaves in the gloaming.
You can see this myth as portrayed by Hollywood all thru its Golden Age. GONE WITH THE WIND is certainly a great example with Hattie McDaniel as the perfect Mammy and the happy slave. McDaniel was a great actress and often cut through the stereotypes of the day to bring great zest to her maid characters (ALICE ADAMS and THE GREAT LIE come to mind). Yet in GWTW she is the perfect model of the Southern Mammy.
Yet as mentioned, GWTW is not seen as a racist film, nor is JEZEBEL with its singing slaves in the gloaming.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
The scene Traceyk is referring to is when Scarlett drives through the Shanty Town and is attacked by a black and a poor white. She then visits Melanies that night and the men go out. They go out to right the wrong that was done to Scarlett. That was the KKK. I acknowledge that it is seen in a very righteous light in GWTW as is Ashley who is a very honourable man. The KKK are never mentioned in the film, I think they are in the book. I've not seen BOAN so I don't feel like I can wade into the debate.
My understanding of the Klan is that it perhaps did have honourable beginnings but evolved into the KKK that we know today.
I've seen posters from the 1920's advertising BOAN featuring a picture of a clansman. It could have been advertised in a number of ways but that is the image that was chosen. No wonder it has remained a controversial film.
My understanding of the Klan is that it perhaps did have honourable beginnings but evolved into the KKK that we know today.
I've seen posters from the 1920's advertising BOAN featuring a picture of a clansman. It could have been advertised in a number of ways but that is the image that was chosen. No wonder it has remained a controversial film.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
drednm
CCF... that is an excellent point. Most posters and ads featured the KKK. I assume this was an "advertising point" and probably had little to do with DWG. Although the original Dixon play was called "The Clansman," it seems that this great and famous film could have been advertised differently.
Of course the ride of the KKK in BOAN is a thrilling and beautifully done scene and got cheers and standing ovations in 1915 because the KKK had a different context in 1915.
Of course the ride of the KKK in BOAN is a thrilling and beautifully done scene and got cheers and standing ovations in 1915 because the KKK had a different context in 1915.
Many people DO feel that Gone With the Wind is a racist film. However it makes a better case for the 'necessity' so to speak of the Klan (even if it doesn't name them) than BoaN does - in GWtW we're shown open lawlessness, a (serially) direct threat to life and limb in this shanty town, while in BoaN all the uproar seems to be about a black man having proposed to a white woman who then got hysterical and threw herself off a cliff.
'I don't wonder that people have called Griffith a racist.' - Blanche Sweet, Kevin Brownlow's 'Hollywood.'
And I do believe the film, on its own, IS racist. 'Aryan birthright' just as an example. Those two words express a very definite idea.
'I don't wonder that people have called Griffith a racist.' - Blanche Sweet, Kevin Brownlow's 'Hollywood.'
And I do believe the film, on its own, IS racist. 'Aryan birthright' just as an example. Those two words express a very definite idea.
-
drednm
-
drednm
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
'Aryan birthright' they are two very chilling words. If you did substitute Anglo Saxon birthright, what does that signify exactly? I haven't seen BOAN but what birthright of the Anglo Saxons/Ayrans is Griffith exploring?
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
drednm
-
myrnaloyisdope
- Posts: 349
- Joined: May 15th, 2008, 3:53 am
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
I'm at the point where I am not sure what's even being argued anymore.
The KKK of the 10's and 20's presented itself as a populist group and was extremely popular, particularly in the midwestern US. Nonetheless they were still a racist and a terrorist organization. They were more palatable back then, but that doesn't diminish the horrors of their actions.
Griffith is a fantastic filmmaker, but nonetheless he created an epic with a questionable ideology. Even if many of the people who opposed the film hadn't seen it, I don't see how it matters, nothing about the film would really change your mind. The film clearly has a racist agenda, and the fact that the white majority in 1915 didn't realize it, doesn't change the ugliness of it.
It's a fantastically made, compelling film, but it was racist in 1915, and it's racist now.
But everyone should see it nonetheless.
The KKK of the 10's and 20's presented itself as a populist group and was extremely popular, particularly in the midwestern US. Nonetheless they were still a racist and a terrorist organization. They were more palatable back then, but that doesn't diminish the horrors of their actions.
Griffith is a fantastic filmmaker, but nonetheless he created an epic with a questionable ideology. Even if many of the people who opposed the film hadn't seen it, I don't see how it matters, nothing about the film would really change your mind. The film clearly has a racist agenda, and the fact that the white majority in 1915 didn't realize it, doesn't change the ugliness of it.
It's a fantastically made, compelling film, but it was racist in 1915, and it's racist now.
But everyone should see it nonetheless.