Talk:The Birth of a Nation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Examples?

Could someone write a section giving examples of how this movie was innovative? I've never seen it and would be interested in reading specifics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.190.24 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sympathetic?

From what I have heard this film isn't sympathetic towards the Klan it portrays them as heroes. Which is a bit more than being sympathetic.

I've seen the film, and liked it. But it is clearly, and obviously, racist (though maybe in a, so to say, milder sense): no doubt about that! 62.98.3.211 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An isolationist film?

I may be wrong, but–this is a 1915 film; so, might all that insistence about war being an evil and peace a good (which is quite true, of course!) be also a way to say that the U. S. shouldn't intervene in the war?

Older comments

Question for all film buffs. Since when is he referred to as David Griffith? I have always seen him as D. W. Griffith. In any event, the article about him was also redirected to David Griffith from D. W. Why? Danny

Producer

When we studied this film in school, it was brought up that DW Griffith not only directed it, he also produced it with his own money. This was considered important because it meant that he put up his money to produce his own point of view and then get others to pay him to see it. It goes against the idea that only a government can produce propaganda. In this case, a single man produced it. Should that be part of the article? Kainaw 15:56, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also perhaps more of a discussion of the affect it had on the racial dialogue in the country. Woodrow Wilson (then president) reportedly said (after viewing the movie); "I have seen it, it is amazing, like writing history with lightning. The only sad thing is that it is all so terribly true!" That kind of remark is an important milestone in American Civil Liberties, showing exactly how little things changed.

Enough of the Liberal Circlejerk

Why not quit talking about how to scrutinize this movie and portray it as racist and simply recognize it for what it was? It's culturally significant in the same way "The Triumph of the Will" was or "Battleship Potemkin" was. Both were horribly atrocious pieces of propaganda glorifying two equally wrong ideaologies but we recognize that they both contributed to the rise of modern cinema. Potemkin practically invented the Montage. - Kade 02:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--- How can you possibly compare "the battleship potemkin" to "triumph of the will"?

No one committed violent acts because of Battleship Potemkin, or even Triumph of the Will, as far as I know. That's a major difference. If some aliens got hold of Triumph of the Will and knew nothing else about these people, they might suppose that they were just happy harmless sporting types with a fondness for stylish ceremony. Birth Of A Nation would show something much more worrying.

It's also moot if the USA would have ever moved away from the 'Birth Of A Nation' viewpoint if they hadn't ended up fighting World War Two as an enemy of Nazi Germany and an ally of Soviet Russia. And then needing non-white support and especially African support in the Cold War.

--GwydionM 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

you don't have to do anything to "portray" this movie as racist... it is racist, and we are recognizing it for what it was.

Seeing as "Triumph of the Will" was very successful propaganda for the Nazi party, it probably caused far more deaths than "Birth of a Nation." 76.68.75.114 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong facts

I have not seen this movie, but know for a fact that some (most?) of the black characters were acted by blacks and another percentage were white people in blackface. The article states that all black characters were played by whites, which is wrong. I'd update the article but I don't know whether to say "some" or "most".

The article may state that in the trivia section, but almost every single line in the trivia section is taken word for word from the IMDb page on the film. Is this acceptable 'fair use'? I am somewhat doubtful. Telsa 21:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Further to that, on advice from #wikipedia, I have removed the entire section of trivia which was clearly from the IMDb page. --Telsa 22:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I *have* seen this movie and I can say that I did not see a single black character being portrayed by a white person in blackface. However, the mulattos (which the movie clearly states are not blacks) are played by whites wearing dark makeup and they have a lot of black around their eyes to make them look evil. What I got from the film (which is NOT my personal opinion on the subject) is that the blacks were not bad. They were uneducated and ill-mannered. Mulattos on the other hand were evil because they had mixed black and white blood. So, they ran round stealing all your stuff and raping all your women. Therefore the KKK was directed by God to kill the mulattos and keep a clear division between blacks and whites so no more evil mulattos would be produced. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The first point is incorrect: many of the 'black' people in the climactic attack on the log cabin are white people in makeup. Cop 633 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a plot summary

The article really needs a plot summary. For example, there's the subplot about how the young girl throws herself off a cliff to avoid being raped, which many people at the time saw as a psychic parallel to the murder of Mary Phagan, playing into the psychology of the lynching of Leo Frank, and the founding of the second Klan, all in the same year.--Bcrowell 20:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Question about image

Can anyone confirm that this image is a depiction of Flora jumping off of a cliff? Thanks! --Bcrowell 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. She runs away from a black man after he asks her to marry him. He chases after her to try and change her mind, until, eventually, she winds up on a cliff and threatens to jump if the guy doesn't back off. He doesn't, so she does, and that's the scene. (Ibaranoff24 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

I have only two words for her: Good riddance!

Who were the black actors (if there were any) in this movie?

Who were the black actors (if there were any) in this movie?

The IMDB reveals: "The black characters are played by white actors with make-up." – Quadell ^(talk) 12:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

At a few scenes where a group of blacks is seen, many will be real blacks. A good example is when the arrested elder Cameron is paraded before a group of blacks. User:Ud terrorist

I also believe that some of the actors up to and including the scene where the child falls off the wagon are not in blackface Ud terrorist 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Question About The Big Parade Out-Grossing Birth Of A Nation

I'm a communications major in college right now, and in my book, An Introduction to Mass Media 4th Edition by Stanley J. Baran says that Birth of A Nation was outgrossed by Gone With The Wind. Is there a mistake with my book (I know the chapter on video games contains many errors) or is it with this article? --THollan 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is some inconsistency in the page: it says that it was surpassed by The Big Parade in one part and by Snow White in another. Rapidflash 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not necessarily contradictory, as it says that The Big Parade outgrossed it (meaning without taking into account the cost of making either film) while Snow White was more profitable (thus, I assume, taking into account the costs of the films). I don't know if either of these assertions are actually correct, though.--Derco 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Title

Can anyone explain the title? What nation was "born"? Is the KKK a nation (the "Invisible Empire" as they call it?) Or is it a new South? If a new South, why would they say the nation was "born" when the KKK said they were out to preserve "the Union as it was" (ie. a Union in which blacks are kept in submission)? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found out and added the explanation to the article. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I read today...

...that the movie's financial backer was Jewish.

tell that to klan cunts.

What about the male ones? You realize the c-word is meant as a highly offensive term for females, right, and that its usage isn't the same as bitch? (I feel like such a pedant for pointing that out...)Runa27 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not everywhere it's not. In the UK it's rare indeed to hear a woman referred to as a c*nt - it's an epithet reserved almost exclusively for use on men. Curiously, I don't feel at all pedantic. ;) MC

It's unfortunate that the c-word is now "highly offensive." It was of Pagan origins and directly translated meant "the free and beautiful flower" or something like that. However, the Catholic church felt it was too empowering to women to refer to their the female body as something that was beautiful and autonomous. So they put out some official statement denouncing "cunt" as the word of the devil and adopting a new word, "vagina", that would more accurately reflect women's position on the social hierarchy. Vagina's translation: "the sword's sheath."M. Frederick 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? I believed that most of the four-letter words were of obscure origin.Asteroceras 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Here's a link to further (and more knowledgeable) discussion on the topic. http://www.blogmark.co.za/index.php?q=node/4789 . Hope this helps. M. Frederick 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake Wilson Quote

The whole story is told by historian Arthur Link in Wilson: The New Freedom, pp 252-54. Wilson implicitly endorsed the film by inviting Griffith to show it in the White House--but no one knew what was in the film at the time of the invitation. Aides said that Wilson had no comment whatever after seeing the film. Wilson explicity wrote that he "he disapproved of the “unfortunate production.” " [Woodrow Wilson to Joseph P. Tumulty, Apr. 28, 1915 in Wilson, Papers, 33:86.] The alleged quote by Wilson: "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."-- was not reported in any newspaper at the time and was officially denied by his top aide: "...the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."--Letter from J. M. Tumulty, secretary to President Wilson, to the Boston branch of the NAACP. See also Roger Ebert's discussion which notes there is no evidence whatever that Wilson said that at: [1] Rjensen 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please advise - is the "the white men were roused..." quotation displayed in the movie legitimately attributed to W. Wilson?

Not The First Feature Film

This article claims that Birth of a Nation was the the first feature film in history. I will excuse this arrogance if you'll read up on the subject first. I know for a fact that The Story of the Kelly Gang was released in 1906 at feature length. I have personally been to Screensound Australia and they confirm that to their knowledge this was the first ever feature film worldwide. You may resume your delusions...

The Birth of a Nation was the first American Feature film. The Ned Kelly flick was the worlds first. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Australia??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.142.114.24 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Produced other films?

The article says that he produced Gone With The Wind. The paragraph about GWTW seems to be correct, but IMDB does not list DW Griffith as a producer of GWTW. Is this from some source? If not then, then shouldn't the sentence and the paragraph about GWTW should be removed? 69.180.251.23 23:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE!!!!

I have REMOVED false, and unaccountable portions of this entry.

All paragraphs that cited the website: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ as a source have been deleted due to the fact that the "Digital History" site is itself a controversial source which has been accused of gross bias and revisionist history by many scholars and academic historians. In fact, the author of that site and his staff (who included their "Birth of a Nation" review without sourcing) are clearly showing a subjective bias in discussing the debate of the film's plot (as opposed to describing the film itself which is the purpose of the Wikipedia entry).

I have also deleted the ridiculous posting that D.W. Griffith had anything whatsoever to do with "Gone With The Wind". Some genius wrote in the entry that Griffith produced that film, which is wholly incorrect.

Certainly the plot and story of the film is not one we condone today. However, as a Wiki entry, it should stick to only the FACTS. There exists plenty enough mention of the film's debated story and subject matter without using this entry as a launching point of any views (pro OR con). The links to such discussion or debate sites will suffice.

Remember that just because you find an online source, does not mean that source is reputable, authentic, or unbiased itself. It is fine to call a film "controversial" but NOT FINE to edit the entry with "fictional urban legends" that have no proper sources born from documented historical fact.

For all you ever wish to know about "Birth of a Nation" or Griffith, please consult the book which is the ultimate authoritative source (as agreed upon by ALL film historians). That book is: "D.W. GRIFFITH - An American Life" By Richard Schickel (Limelight 1996). You may also contact the faculty of both UCLA and NYU film schools and ask the opinions of their resident film historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booger1 (talk • contribs) .

I think some of the edits may have been over-reactions. There should be more discussion about the controversy around this film, and the ways it is interpreted by groups like Digital History. It is reasonable to have the views of Digital History in this article if they are clearly attributed to them. If they are misrepresenting information about the film, that doesn't need to be in the article. If the "misrepresentations" are controversial, they should be in the article with additional citations that challenge their opinions. NPOV does not mean that controversial issues are removed from articles, it means that the representation are cited and balanced with viewpoints pro and con. -- Samuel Wantman 06:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that for someone to simply say, out of thin air, that "BOON was responsible for the resurgence of the KKK" is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous. Please cite one legitimate source that attributes this? Ask any credible film historian at any film school. Search any KKK website and find it and I'll believe it. The TRUTH and FACT is that this is a statement that cannot be credited. No source! This would be akin to my going over to the "John Hinckley" Wiki entry and adding a line that says "He shot Reagan because he thought the President was the devil". Thus, should THAT statement remain?

PLEASE realize that if some person were to read this entry, and saw that "BOON was resposnible for the resurgence of the KKK" they will most likely take it as a point of fact. Wiki has a greater responsibility than to allow a statement (a SERIOUS allegation in fact) like that to remain without a credible reference. Please, just be fair about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Booger1 (talk • contribs) .

I am not saying that you are wrong, and I am all in favor of being fair about this. But attributing statements like these to their source, and countering them with other opinions, is more useful than removing them. I do not know which statement is true. You, yourself have just added a comment that the statement is controversial. It is better to ADD counter views and rebuttal arguments than removing a controversial statement. Let us assume that you are 100% correct and BoaN had absolutely nothing to do with the resurgence of the KKK. If there are websites and documentaries that incorrectly say that it did lead to a resurgence, then the best thing we could do is state the view about the resurgence and then show that it is widely challenged with proper citations. (P.S. Please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end) -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The web site run by a KKK historian who's in the clan says that BoaN was the source of increased membership.http://kelticklankirk.com/KKK_Wizards_and_Prominent_Klansmen.htm

I am the person you called "genius" for the Gone With the Wind error. While I am no genius, I am human, and do regret the mistake.

1. Have you searched Google books for "birth of a nation" and the single word lynching. It turns up 475 pages.

2. You condemned and deleted the link to University of Houston's historical film archive. Steven Mintz, Professor of History at the University of Houston, and co-author of Hollywood’s America maintains those pages. Why do you find Mintz and his archive to be disreputable? One click from the link you deleted in this Wikipedia article provides those details.

3. At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America by Philip Dray (Random House Inc, 2002) ISBN 0375503242 From Publishers Weekly (on Amazon): "Between 1882 and 1944 at least 3,417 African-Americans were lynched in the United States, an average of slightly more than one a week. It was not until 1952, as Dray notes, that a full year went by without a reported racial lynching. Covering the South's resistance to racial equality from Reconstruction and the 1875 Civil Rights Act (which gave rise to the widespread acceptance of public murders) through the mid-20th century, this prodigiously researched, tightly written and compelling history of the lynching of African-Americans examines the social background behind the horrific acts. Yet Dray (We Are Not Afraid) also covers the myriad attempts of popular and judicial resistance to lynching, in particular the campaigns led by Ida B. Wells and by the NAACP. He has pulled together a wealth of cultural material, including D.W. Griffith's 1915 Birth of a Nation, Reginald Marsh's famous 1934 antilynching cartoon in the New Yorker, among much else, to supplement his impressive survey of the breadth of lynching in Southern society. While there is much shocking material here the 1918 lynching and disembowelment of eight-month-pregnant Mary Turner; California governor James Rolph Jr.'s 1933 statement that lynching was "a fine lesson for the whole nation" Dray never lets it dictate the complex social and political story he is telling. He faces the underlying sexual impulse of most lynchings head-on and shows how, in the 1913 lynching of Leo Frank, the fear of blacks was transferred to a Jewish victim. Whether he is explicating why the feminist-run Women's Christian Temperance Union refused to speak out against lynching, or why FDR refused to endorse anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s, Dray balances moral indignation with a sound understanding of history and politics. The result is vital, hard-hitting cultural history." Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

4. On February 22, 2000, in an article titled "A Painful Present as Historians Confront a Nation's Bloody Past" staff writer Claudia Kolker wrote in the Los Angeles Times:"The end of World War I brought both economic crisis, and an anti-Red fever that extended to minority groups and trade unions. Just three years earlier, a defunct Ku Klux Klan leaped back to life with help from the film Birth of a Nation" [2]

5. On March 16, 2000, in an article titled "For Directors, a Prize By Any Other Name Racist Views of Film Pioneer Overshadow Art," Washington Post staff writer Sharon Waxman wrote:

"Griffith's work caused considerable pain to African Americans. His landmark 1915 film, "Birth of a Nation," is considered by historians to be the first feature film ever, an ambitious story of social upheaval during Reconstruction. It depicted the Ku KluxKlan as heroes riding to the rescue of innocent Southern whites demeaned by buffoonish and evil blacks and white carpetbaggers. In one scene, newly elected black representatives chew on chickenlegs, drink and put their feet up in the legislature. In another, an African American renegade chases a virginal white girl with evil intent. The film was a huge hit at the time, and is blamed with contributing to a resurgence of the KKK and sparking riots and lynchings." http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:FJTmMFY6xnAJ:loper.org/~george/trends/2000/Mar/89.html+%22Griffith's+work+caused+considerable+pain+to+African+Americans.%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

(or, using the quote marks, google the cached version of "innocent Southern whites demeaned by buffoonish"

6. Even as late as 1965, in his book, The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo (Yale University Press), Gary May tells how the Klan Klavern was watching Birth of a Nation while Liuzzo, the civil rights worker from Detroit, was murdered. http://www.etown.edu/docs/History/Viola%20Liuzzo.doc.

7. On the relation between the film and the Leo Frank lynching, see Cedric Robinson, "In the year 1915: D. W. Griffith and the Whitening of America," Social Identities 3, no. 2 (1997), 161-192 (and countless other articles.)

8. Was it a good year to premiere a film at the White House promoting the Ku Klux Klan? "A Lynching, a List and Reopened Wounds," by Kathy Sawyer, Washington Post, June 20, 2000 "Twenty-two people were lynched in Georgia in 1915, the Atlanta Constitution noted recently, "all but one of them black." Most rated little attention. Frank's hanging got a three-line banner across the front page."

9. It is never a good year. On June 21, 1964 civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, disappeared in Neshoba County, Mississippi. The three were volunteers traveling to Mississippi to aid in the registration of African-American voters as part of the Mississippi Summer Project. The FBI recovered their bodies, which had been buried in an earthen dam, 44 days later. The Neshoba County deputy sheriff and 16 others, all Ku Klux Klan members, were indicted for the crimes; seven were convicted. On July 2, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [3]

This is what was deleted. It should be put back in, along with any of the first eight items listed above to meet the criterion for additonal documentation.

The Birth of a Nation has been linked to the second emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, which was revived the year of the film's release after a period of virtual non-existence since the 1870s. [4]

and this:

The message embedded in the film was that Reconstruction was an unqualified disaster, that African Americans could never be integrated into white society as equals, and that the violent actions of the Ku Klux Klan were justified because they were necessary to reestablish legitimate and honest government. [5]

skywriter 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Along these same lines, and per Wiki policy, I have removed the following possibly inflammatory comment from the first paragraph of Racism--Responses:

According to Spike Lee, the premiere of the film in California ended with lynchings outside the theatre. (included is a reference to "Mark A. Reid. Do the Right Thing").

Spike Lee may indeed have made that comment, as reported by Reid, but it is not based upon any historical documentation and therefore should not be included in the responses made to the film at its debut. It may indeed have a place under LATER responses (where it should be treated, and quoted, as an opinion without verifiable data behind it, but as it appears here it says nothing about any actual fact regarding the film. StavinChain 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Scholarship Supports View that Birth of a Nation Triggered Violent Klan Revival

Above are detailed arguments why this film sparked the revival of terror by the Ku Klux Klan. Booger1 has not replied to the arguments, but continues to insist, in stealth edits, that no scholarship supports the view that this film has been linked to the re-emergence of Klan terror. I therefore intend to incorporate some of this material into the main article, and to revert Booger1's unsupported text. Before doing so, I welcome comments. skywriter 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is where to bring up how much Klan membership increased because of the film; from under 50,000 to more than 6,000,000. From a Klan site profiling Imperial Wizards: http://kelticklankirk.com/KKK_Wizards_and_Prominent_Klansmen.htm

Imperial Wizard Colonel Simmons 1915 - 1923

Colonel Simmons revived The Ku Klux Klan on Thanksgiving day, 1915. He was officially sworn in as The Imperial Wizard by three Klansmen who had been members of the original Reconstruction Era KKK under Grand Wizard General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Thus Colonel Simmons established an unbroken LINK between his Ku Klux Klan and the original KKK. Imperial Wizard Simmons and the Second Era KKK also granted a free life membership to anyone who had been a member of the first Ku Klux Klan.

"Imperial Wizard Dr. Evans (1923 - 1939)

Dr. Evans, a dentist, and a very ambitious fellow to say the least, literally tricked Colonel Simmons into turning leadership of the Klan over to him in 1923. He ruled the Ku Klux Klan as Imperial Wizard the longest yet, stepping down after 16 years of holding that esteemed Office. Under his command and leadership in the years 1923 through 1939 the KKK reached an all time high in numbers if not in might. At its height the Klan actually had over six million official members in America." BigGuy

Amazing is it not...how instead of writing objective facts, someone like yourself (or other self-ordained editors found within Wiki) like to "play God" by insisting what THEY have "discovered" MUST be fact.

Let's extract one example: the piece written by the L.A. Times writer. Did you actually read her article? Did you see HER sources and notes? Have you spoken to her to see what she based her reporting on? Was it interviews with individuals, or her opinions, or was she culling info from NAACP reports?. I think you can see my point here. If one man tells a college professor that the world is flat, and that Professor mentions it over a dinner conversation...does it make it true? Or if some kook puts it on a website, and says he has "academic references" to support his theory, but never publishes them OR offers any EMPIRICAL DATA...how can you verify it? Where was Claudia of the L.A. Times' Empirical Data? Statistics? And who compiled the statistics? Who performed the analyses of those stats?

It is obvious that there is no winning with you "skywriter", because you feel empowered to influence people based upon your own ego. You refuse to consider objective possibilities thus it may make YOU look ignorant. I've seen your other postings so I am confident in this assertion. And I suppose I risk being banned for life by you for challenging your version. The best way to serve history, and objectivity, would be to say the following:

"According to some sources, The Birth of a Nation has been linked by some news reporters to the second emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, which was revived the year of the film's release after a period of non-existence. Although this theory is not conclusive, some opinions exist to support this theory."

That should be it. Period. Either that, or have the decency to put a big banner at the top declaring this article DISPUTED. But I doubt you'll do either. Just think, for a second, that some kid may actually use this article as a learning source. He/She may give it total credibility. Without the suggested edit listed above, they will read your writings as "gospel", and not as "the opinions/theories of a few writers".

This is how history gets screwed up...and passed on generation after generation. Because people allow their inflamed personal opinions to force others to believe THEIR side of the story. When the TRUTH is best presented as an objective middle ground showing ALL sides. I have spent my career as both a journalist and an analyst...I am a career professional at the task of taking raw data and culling it into an objective report without any bias, and to present all sides, pro and con, to a story. I have done it successfully for many years. Too bad there are no credentials or training required for people who like to write their own versions of history on Wikipedia.

The paragraphs above subsequent to my comment are nonsense. Dixon approached DW Griffith to make "The Clansman" into a movie because Dixon wanted to revive the Clan. Claiming that the film did NOT revive the Clan is nonsense. There's no dispute about that. The Clan and nutty nativists STILL use BoaN to recruit members; follow the links on far right sites further and further along, you'll find a link to watch BoaN on the internet. BigGuy

Public Domain

Is this available for download anywhere? It's in the public domain after all.

If you use Limewire or BitTorrent you will find it there --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Surpassed by?

The article lists two different films, The Big Parade and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, as the first films to gross higher than Birth of A Nation. Which one is right?

link description

Why do we have a link described as a "controversial and biased critique of the film?" It's obviously a negative critique, but the claim that it is "biased" is meaningless - any kind of criticism obviously comes from a point of view, and is thus "biased". As for "controversial," that would suggest that it has aroused controversy - is there any evidence that a website review of "Birth of a Nation" has aroused controversy? john k 02:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is pretty crap. I'd prefer to just remove it. john k 02:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Coulter

I'm confused about the entry today concerning E. Merton Coulter. Is this entry in the Georgia Encyclopedia egregiously in error?

... Writing with purpose and teaching with passion, Coulter emerged as a leader of that generation of white southern historians who viewed the South's past with pride and defended its racist policies and practices. He framed his literary corpus to praise the Old South, glorify Confederate heroes, vilify northerners, and denigrate southern blacks. ... and his junior high school text History of Georgia (1954). Published in the same year as the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision mandating public school integration, Coulter's junior high text taught children that slavery greatly benefited southern blacks, and emancipation negatively altered their condition. "People in the South did not believe the Negroes ... would know how to vote," Coulter wrote. Because former slaves often "sold their votes to dishonest people who wanted to win elections," Coulter assured Georgia's youth that the white people of their state determined that blacks should not participate in elections and "worked out a special plan" that kept "most of the Negroes from voting." Similar themes permeated Coulter's other works. To him the term Georgians applied to whites only; the state's black inhabitants constituted a subservient, inferior, and threatening element.

[6]

I propose that the entry in the article concerning Coulter be removed or at least moved to a page on Coulter. It doesn't seem to have a place in this article. Prove me wrong. Skywriter 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Coulter is included to show that a certain viewpoint was not uncommon at the time of the movie by giving the example of an historian writing decades later. If that is the intention I think the point is valid, if a bit strained. There's no doubt that the KKK is viewed differently today then in 1915. The intro needs some work- it needs an introductory first paragraph that summarizes the article and gives the core facts in the first sentence. -Will Beback 06:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback wrote--"There's no doubt that the KKK is viewed differently today then in 1915."

Reply: KKK was viewed in 1915, and continues to be viewed in 2006 by black people as a terroristic gang of hooded hoodlums. Views among most, but not all whites have changed.Skywriter 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to the casual reader who Coulter is and what he stood for. If the sentence on Coulter is left in, then his views should be more directly described within the article. Skywriter 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia has no article on Coulter. To add needed context, there needs to be an article.Skywriter 13:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's too obscure otherwise. -Will Beback 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

disagreements on premiers

Why don't the people who keep reverting each other on where and when were the premiers please cite your sources. Verifiability in the face of contested facts is a wonderul thing.Skywriter 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Black v. "African-American"

As a Black man, I am somewhat bothered by the usage of "African-American" (moreso in general) in reference to Blacks in an article of this nature. Considering at this point in time in US History, while Blacks were referred to as a lot of things, "African-American" wasn't one of them. For articles of nature, I ask that the term "Black" be used.

• JSmith9579, 01:53 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Unfortunately, "Black" is not the most historically accurate term either. Even so, I defer to your preference and I appreciate the good edits. -Will Beback 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading through the comments and I feel that this article is missing a major point in the movie: Blacks and Mulattos are not the same. In modern times, we refer to both as African-American, but in the movie they are clearly separate. Or - am I the only one who has watched the movie and noticed that the white people with dark makeup are supposed to be mulattos and the ones played by real black people are blacks? --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Until the 1970s, "negro" was the popular non-offensive term and in the 1970s, "black" came into common usage. This has gradually changed to "African-American", which is not really preferable; consider this amusing term overheard from a US tourist in the UK: "British-African-American"; or the case of a visitor to the US, who could consider being termed "African" or "American" as offensive.

"Mulatto" meant half white, half black (there were other terms for 25%:75% ratios). These days we might say mixed-race, but would not be so specific as "mulatto" implies.

Asteroceras 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: also, "colored" was used in the US until the 1970s.Asteroceras 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, in some parts of Europe, a word is in use that translates literally into the dreaded n word. Overall, being bothered by a word used towards you is ludicrous. If I am called, say, a hillbilly or a redneck, or, due my heritage, a dumb swede, I rather feel amused towards my tormentor's lack of creativity.Dukeofwestvirginia (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

does anyone know who released and distributed this film?

In one source, Adolph Zukor and Paramount is the distributor and here it seems to indicate that it was Triangle.........which is correct?

DavidO

Lynchings were occuring before release of film, etc

In the opening paragraph this statement:

In the sympathetic depiction of the lynching of a black man by a white mob, the film affirms and promotes the cultural milieu that supported the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which led mobs of white people wearing white sheets and hoods over their faces in the lynching of black people

implies that the film led to the lynching of African-Americans. In fact, this had been going decades before the film's premiere. If someone can source this, fine. If not, then I think this needs to be re-written.

No one disputes that "Jim Crow" supporters and racists drew strength from the show; in fact, Woodrow Wilson, notoriously racist, had the movie shown in the White House. The Klan, however, has never been one organization, but rather a number of different, successive organizations using the name of the first KKK, founded by Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

While the reaction against Military Reconstruction was violent from the beginning--esp in Louisiana--segregation and the systematic legal denial of the franchise to African-Americans didn't begin in earnest until after the 1880s (see S.E. Morrison's Oxford History of the United States). In fact, before the 1890s, Democratic Party bosses openly solicited the votes of African-Americans. In tandem, violence against African-Americans was used, however, from the end of the Civil War until the 1960s.

The paragraph also states that It was one of the most popular films of the silent era among white audiences--again without a source to support the contention.

This article needs some significant retouching.

PainMan 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Beavis and Butthead comic in pop culture section

An item in this section begins: "In the January issue of the Beavis and Butthead comic series..." WHAT YEAR? Who wrote this? Nightscream 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Forrest Gump?

Is the Forrest Gump info really correct? It strikes me as strange vandalism. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinitario

I want this ", but is an actual history of the white-supremacist group La Trinitaria which formed the Dominican Republic in 1844" take out or show me proof that actually true. I find it very disrespectful this accusation with out proof. People would actually read this and actually think it true. So as soon as possible take that off. Of the bat La Trinitaria wasn't all white, the leader at the end was half white and black...if was a white supremacist group it would mean there were no black people in the ranks especially at the top. AvFnx 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

La Trinitaria

Unfortunatly this is true however disturbing it may be. Like the Haitian Revolution influenced Nat Turner, John Brown and other abolitionist movements. The counter-revolutionary movement by the Trinitaria had the same influence on white-supremacist movements during reconstruction because of its success of beating back black rule. This is not an attempt to discredit anyone just bring new facts to light. Sorry if anyone is offended but we have an obligation to report the truth.

I don't think anyone is offended, just incredulous. One academic saying that the Birth of a Nation reminds him of events in the Dominican Republic is a minor viewpoint. As such it should be given appropriate weight. I've moved it down to the "Political ideology" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

kkk.bz link, use as a recruiting tool

The lead claimed that the KKK was continuing to use the film as a recruiting tool, and gave a link to a kkk.bz page. However, there is nothing on the page to support the assertion. The film is briefly mentioned as part of a racist historical summary. A statement that the film is used as a recruiting tool would mean, to me, that the film was actually being offered to prospective recruits for viewing in order to recruit them, and the page simply doesn't bear out that assertion. I also dislike the idea of boosting kkk.bz's page rank with a WP link, especially if the reference doesn't actually back up the assumption. I've deleted the statement and the link. In general, articles on WP such as Ku Klux Klan have been used by a variety of white supremacist groups as ways of introducing link spam. I'm not accusing the person who inserted the link of doing that, but I think it is a reason to be very scrupulous about the accuracy and necessity for such links.--74.95.125.166 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most successful film ever?

Due to its controversial nature, this film is often overlooked, but isn't it the most successful of all time? Crudely adjusting this list's values to 2007 dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_throughout_history consistently ranks it the highest. Of course, obtaining values from following years may skew the results, but, even if this is difficult to measure precisely, was there ever another film that had a comparable cultural impact--for better or worse?

Forcedly prohibiting blacks from voting

Ive never seen this,thank goodnes,but ,do you mean to tell me they break the law by prohibiting citizens of the US from voting in an election by force and this is portrayed as,not even positivly,but HEROICLY?How many laws does this break?

New Babylon 2 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what happens at the end of the film. I can't answer your question about how many laws it breaks, but the article Disfranchisement after the Civil War looks like a good place to start. Cop 663 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous quote by Wilson

I added the famous quote, "It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." by Wilson in the page. If someone would like, they can add a section on Wilson's racist views. Xelnanga 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the quote Wilson that you added, whether true or not, should be retained in the article, but we need to find out and say in the article what the opinions are among Wilson historians are on whether the quote is true.The following copy & paste from Amazon.com might be of interest:

Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this)

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong 0684818868 James W. Loewen Touchstone Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong Books Critics Need to Give More Examples I'm willing to be persuaded that this author got it all wrong, but I need more examples from his critics besides just the one about North Africans not being "black." I was especially disappointed by the comment below from the History PhD, who said he'd found more than a hundred errors in the book. Mr. PhD didn't bother to list even three of those "errors". If you want to persuade me to your view, give me facts -- not feelings or academic credentials. HistoryFan October 29, 2005

$16.00 $10.88

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion Initial post: April 19, 2007 3:49 AM PDT

William Kerney says:

Loewen's quote that Woodrow Wilson said the Birth of a Nation was like "History written by lightning" was an urban legend. This has been conclusively disproved, but Loewen quotes it anyway as fact, and blames us for not knowing it.

He misses the cause for one of the Indian wars. The chief (who was friendly to the whites) died, and his son, who didn't like whites, took over. He blamed it on the failing fur trade or some other specious reason other than the most obvious fact about it. And then blames us for not knowing the real cause.

He's not an idiot. He's intentionally deceptive.

You replied with a later post Your reply to William Kerney's post:

 [Cancel]

Guidelines Reply to this post | Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

Do you think this post adds to the discussion? YesNo Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2008 6:24 PM PDT Last edited by you on Oct 31, 2008 6:25 PM PDT

Richard Locke Peterson says:

From Wikipedia:'Thomas Dixon, author of the source play The Clansman was a former classmate of President Woodrow Wilson at Johns Hopkins University. Dixon arranged a screening at the White House, for Wilson, members of his cabinet, and their families. Wilson was reported to have commented of the film that "it is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true". In Wilson: The New Freedom, Arthur Link quotes Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, who denied Wilson said this and also claims that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[8]'--Mr. Kerney, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Loewen's quote of Wilson hasn't been conclusively proved or disproved. Since Wikipedia isn't always right, I'd like to study this more. Could you tell me where I should look to examine what you called a conclusive disproof? Thanks.

Rich (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Forrest Gump 2

I'm watching Forrest Gump that was aired on AMC on Sunday (the ninth of March) and it said the part about the guy he was named after being a KKK man was taken from this movie. I looked it up and sure as hell, it's this movie. The AMC thing is the DVD in 16:9 ratio with the bottom part of the screen having trivia, and it says, "The shot was blended with fottage from D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915)." And I think it'd be something worth mentioning. I'm just not sure where to put it.-Babylon pride (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF???!?!!?

it says this was one of hollywoods "Hollywood's first anti-war films"??? ummmm do i even need to point out the stupidity of that comment i'm removing it .-Lotharsrevenge —Preceding comment was added at 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an anti-war film. Just because the central purpose of the film was not to decry war doesn't mean it's not an anti-war film. It not only explicitly states that it is anti-war, but sufficient time is dedicated to demonstrating the horrible consequences of war that it is reasonable to take this claim at face value. Amulekii (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rape attempt

The article claims that the black militia attempted to rape the Cameron daughters. This is nonsense. The daughters are hidden, but it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the militia attempted to rape them. This comment is only put in because this is what the writer imagines the film writers were thinking. Excellent mind-readers though they may be, this is not in the film, so I'm taking it out. Amulekii (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Budget

The information frame says that the budget of the movie is estimated to 110.000 dollars, but it is written on that poster [7] that the budget is 500.000 dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.44.210 (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)