Enduring Birth of a Nation

By Harrison Lawrence

[1] I took a look at the sides that were taken regarding the racial morality of Griffith’s work. The articles included two anti-Birth of a Nation write-ups and one pro-Griffith reading. Rolfe Cobleigh’s “Why I Opposed Birth of a Nation” featured an interview Cobleigh hosted with Thomas Dixon. Cobleigh at the time of the interview had not seen the 3-hour epic but had read several reviews and articles that spoke heavily about the use of heavy racial prejudices and stereotypes throughout the film. When Cobleigh asked what the main purpose was in the play, Dixon responded, “to teach the people of the United States, especially the children, that the true history of the Reconstruction period was as it was represented in the Birth of a Nation.” This Dixon quote ties in very well with the discussion we had as a class just last week. The effect of film can have lasting, severe effects on our nation’s youth. Not to mention when someone is intentionally trying to “educate” America with his own brand of false advertising. Apparently, Dixon’s idea of educating our nation included eliciting prejudices amongst viewers. Dixon admittedly said that one purpose of his play was to “create a feeling of abhorrence in white people, especially white women against colored men,” in an attempt to prevent the mixing of white blood and “negro” blood. I can’t imagine that Cobleigh, after reading all these articles and experiencing this interview with Dixon first-hand, could have gone into this film completely impartial.

[2] One of the articles that Cobleigh read during his investigation of Birth of a Nation included a piece by Charles H. Parkhurst. Parkhurst takes a pro-Griffith stand and believes the film is nothing short of a masterpiece. Parkhurst agrees, like Dixon, that the film holds incredibly valuable academic worth and even goes as far to say, “A boy can learn more true history and get more of the atmosphere of the period by sitting down for three hours before the film which Mr. Griffith has produced with such artistic skill than by weeks and months of study in the classroom.” It’s true, a boy could learn a lot from this movie, but would the gathering of accurate, unbiased information take place? I don’t believe so. Parkhurst goes on to give his explanation of why the film, particularly the racial prejudices, have garnered so much criticism. Parkhurst claims that the representation of the negro was “not as it is now at all, but as he was in the days when he had just had the chains broken from him, and when he was rioting in the deliciousness of a liberty so new and untried that he had not yet learned to understand it and was as ignorant as a baby of the way to use it.” In an attempt to explain the crude use and portrayal of afro-Americans in D. W. Griffith’s film, Parkhurst has only managed to further drag the African American race down, bringing himself with them.

[3] Towards the end of his “Brotherly Love,” Francis Hackett uses a term that I love. Hackett calls Dixon a yellow journalist. The reason I love this name is because you hear it so rarely these days, it’s an old-school accusation that has turned into more of normality in today’s age of journalism. “He is not yellow because he reports crimes of violence. He is yellow because he distorts them.” I love how Hackett just goes off on Dixon, essentially calling him out on every front of his life, even in his business and religion. Hackett sums up his callout by coming to the defense of the defamed race by saying, “He is especially yellow, and quite disgustingly and contemptibly yellow, because his perversions are cunningly calculated to flatter the white man and provoke hatred and contempt for the Negro.” Hackett ends his article by claiming that this film “degrades the censors that passed it and the white race that endures.” I surely feel like I am enduring right now.