The Black Brute and his White Counterpart
By Charlotte Malmborg, with comments by Erin Thorn and Lynn Farley
[1] Throughout D.W. Griffith’s controversial film The Birth of a Nation, the racial tension present in 1915 became an integral part of the portrayal of black characters in the film. Griffith’s personal beliefs become known as the film progresses through the story of the Civil War into the Reconstruction Era in America. While whites are always represented as the civilized sector of society, the blacks play the uncouth and rowdy characters that only cause trouble.
[2] The differences between the whites and blacks are most evident in the scene in which the South Carolina legislature is composed almost entirely of black legislators. The blacks act like animals. They have no shoes on, they are munching on chicken legs, and they are drinking liquor as they attempt to govern the South under the Reconstruction. Brian Gallagher writes that Griffith shows his audience that the black congressmen are obviously “unfit for any sort of power and self-determination†in comparison to the white representatives who are organized and polite. Griffith uses this image of what Gallagher calls the “chicken-eating, liquor-swilling black legislators†to present his point that blacks are inferior to their white counterparts. While the whites in the frame are stoic, quiet, and refined, the black legislators are portrayed as loud, obnoxious, and dirty. This contrast reflects a strong belief in Griffith’s time period of the early 1900’s.
[3] Another example of black inferiority is the first legislative action taken by the black government, a rule requiring all members to wear shoes because of the incredible stench caused by propping their bare feet on their desks. The frivolity of this ruling is another piece of propaganda Griffith uses to dramatize his case against the blacks. The audience laughs but feels the gravity of the situation, too. Griffith insinuates that the black legislators are incapable of taking their new positions of responsibility seriously. It also proves that the blacks dominate the legislature, making the white vote inconsequential and thus their input on any law unnecessary. The black rule is targeted as unproductive and essentially inferior to the rule of the white legislature that dominated before the war.
[4] The costume design is also a key part of the white/black contrast in this scene. While the white legislators wear clean and matching suits to the proceedings, the black legislators wear ill-fitting, loudly patterned jackets that make them look tacky rather than composed. (see comment by Lynn Farley) It is visually clear that the blacks are not meant for their position in government. They are as unfit to rule as their suits are unfit to be worn, and their informal dress undercuts the formal legislative proceedings that are supposed to be taking place.
[5] Griffith necessarily presents his case against the blacks without the use of dialogue. Silent film was the only medium of film during Griffith’s time, and he uses the title screens to his advantage during this scene. The scene is titled “Historic incidents from the first legislative session under Reconstruction.†This makes the audience believe that this is how all black legislators behaved and, indeed, that the blacks constituted such a large majority. The small number of white senators in the legislative body are all grouped together sitting still and quietly while there is a whirlwind of activity around them. Their stoic position is a direct contrast to the black majority in the legislature, whose excessive tendencies allow the audience to imagine a loud and rambunctious crowd rather than an educated and orderly government. Another title reads: “The honorable member Ulster,†whereupon the dishonorable member takes a swig of liquor instead of paying attention to the proceedings. This continues Griffith’s argument that the blacks were incapable of being part of the governing body of the South.
[6] The point that blacks should not serve in government had historical value in 1915 when the film first came out. The racial climate in Griffith’s time was very controversial, as it was in the time period the film portrays. The sensitivity on the race issue made the film immensely popular with many viewers and zealously despised by others. With its racist message that blacks were the root of evil in society and that white supremacy ensured a safe and orderly society, Griffith’s view reflected the views of many Americans. The film especially catered to audiences of white Protestant Christian viewers who believed in the romantic view of the Southern plantation. Although Griffith argued for many years that he was not a racist and that the events that took place in The Birth of a Nation were factual, his portrayal of black characters as opposed to white characters makes a point that racist ideology was rampant in the time the film was produced.
[7] This racist message, for instance, was preached by an intellectual of the time, Charles Carroll, in his The Negro a Beast (1900). Carroll wrote that blacks “never heard tell of such a thing as self-control,†insinuating that their nature was to be excessive and beastly, exactly as Griffith portrayed the black legislators in his film. Carroll’s reasoning for his arguments mainly come from the Bible and the stories of creation and Ham, for “the Negro is the son of Ham, and his inferiority to his white brother is the result of a curse which Noah put upon Ham for his disrespectful conduct toward him.†Carroll’s biblical approach fit in with the white Protestant beliefs and therefore fit in with the belief of many whites in the United States at that time. The film’s Protestant propaganda and references also fit into the biblical argument against the black man.
[8] Griffith uses the stereotyped black legislator described by critic Donald Bogle as “lustful, arrogant, and idiotic†throughout this scene. Title cards in the film state that “lawlessness runs riots,†the white South is crushed beneath the heel of the black South. The “black brute†stereotype that Bogle finds in other films made in the same time period is reflected in the uncontrollable and riotous blacks that infiltrate the congressional hearings in The Birth of a Nation. Bogle’s comment is that Griffith makes the blacks appear feral and subhuman as “the nameless characters setting out on a rampage full of black rage.†The blacks with their excessive and wild behavior are always contrasted with whites whose behavior is righteous. The comparison between the two types of behavior promotes the belief that the conduct of whites is socially acceptable, unlike the rowdy actions of the blacks. This repeated stereotype shows that films of the time often displayed a racist message.
[9] The idea that the blacks are a problem that can be fixed by restoring white power is a vital part of Griffith’s ideology in the film. Even though this particular scene is short, it powerfully shows the chaos that ensues in a world outside of white rule. That chaos creates the need for the Ku Klux Klan, the saviors in the climax of the film who rescue the honest and helpless white women from their dastardly black villains. The Klan eventually restores the balance of this frenzied world created by the black legislature, putting the whites back at the summit of society, relegating the black characters to the dregs left behind. The audience feels no sympathy towards the blacks because of such previous behavior displayed in this scene, behavior far from the norms of society. Griffith allows the audience to disdain the black perpetrators who should have never held power in the first place by contrasting them with respectful and well-behaved whites.
[10] Griffith uses several techniques to prove to his audience that blacks were meant to be kept under white rule. The racist ideology in the film not only reflects Griffith’s personal beliefs but the beliefs of many people in the early 1900’s as well. This film was immensely controversial and remains today an iconic landmark film about the Civil War and Reconstruction in the American South. Griffith uses familiar stereotypes that incite his vastly white audience. These stereotypes were common during the early 1900’s and continued to be used in films throughout the 1900’s. Bogle points out that “during the 1920’s, audiences saw their toms and coons dressed in the guise of plantation jesters,†and that the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s all saw reinventions of the main black stereotypes. Because “the guises were always changing, audiences were sometimes tricked into believing the depictions of the American Negro were altered, too,†even though below these changing images, the stereotypes remained the same. This enforces the idea that racial conflict was reflected in films, as blacks are represented in a negative way that is expected by the white audience. Griffith’s film is no exception. (see comment by Erin Thorn) The Birth of a Nation presents its stereotyped black characters in contrast with its pure white characters to create a controversially racist film.
Comment
In the hierarchy of these examples, Griffith's film does represent an exception but not in that its depictions are excusable. No racist/sexist/homophobic/biased depiction is ever constructive, and therefore should be severely limited -- but Griffith's portrayal of African-Americans is among the most deplorable. Period minstrel shows showing "smiling Negros" without a care in the world are incredibly offensive, but they in themselves don't represent a call for action against African-American people the way that Griffith's film does. Birth should stand out because of the extreme nature of its portrayals of African-American people as innately dangerous and hateful of Whites, and in dire need of being put in their place. Birth seems to have surpassed the expectations of white audiences with its audacious portrayals of "terrible Negros," and this certainly helped the reputation it still has today. By furthering the negative stereotyping, this film stoked the undercurrent of American racism in a way that the overly explicit "coon" portrayals never could.
The costume design pointed out here is important, but Griffith was reinforcing his stereotypes with more than just clothes in this scene. In addition to the black legislators being dressed as clowns, Griffith's placement of them in the frame is important to notice as well. In this particular scene, where people are positioned is making a comment about social order just as important as what the actors are conveying in their dress and motions. The juxtaposition of the nicely dressed genteel Southern gentlemen, cradling their frightened women and children, as they watch the badly dressed, drunk black legislators misbehave below them on floor is reminiscent of a Shakespearean theatre. Griffith was fond of referring to his dramatic predecessor. The first slide of the film hints toward artistic comparison to "illuminate the bright side of virtue--the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word--that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare." In Shakespeare's time, members of high-society were not in the front row of the theatre. They, like Griffith's aristocratic white Southerners, were watching the stage from above in balconies. The people on the floor were groundlings--commoners who were known to misbehave and throw food and not pay attention to the play. Griffith re-construction of a play within a movie was an allegorical nod to one of his heros and built an additional layer of expression into his work of art.
