A Couple of Thoughts Before I Begin My Official Writing

• We discussed breaking down a specific scene and describing why the choices DW Griffith chose for framing that scene were so successful in stoking the flames of racial tensions in the country
• Making those connections with the discourse of science and law, and how they fueled the fire of success surrounding the film
• Examining DW Griffiths use of film techniques to instigate emotions in his divided audience; and whether that was his intent or not
• Making connections from the documentary to the assignment

Introductory Paragraph Brainstorm

America is a bonfire covered in gasoline, just waiting eagerly for a match to land on them and instigate a complete race war. Well, what could have been a perfect match then DW Griffith’s film, The Birth of a Nation? A Kentucky small town boy, there is no doubt that he made a piece of cinematography excellence, his name will always be said in film history; but in regard to American history, his callous and false retelling of Southern African Americans did nothing but set Civil Rights movements back decades more and fuel the white supremacist fire working its way through naive America. Politicans stand in the public eye barking about “impure unions” between non-whites and the good white people of America, scientists spout lies born of biased and false tests, all to fabricate a narrative that anyone that isn’t white, is only dangerous and uncontrollable. DW Griffith fed his narrative, foolishly, to this hungry public begging for a reason to not have to treat, the newly freed culture of humans they referred to decades earlier to as “slaves”, as equals. DW Griffth single-handedly answered every irrational fear of the ignorant white America, and fed into the narrative the politicians and scientists peddled to the public. He only worsened the racial tension and practically begged the public to bring back the Klan. He set the rights of non-whites, “non-Americans,” back by decades, if not more. He was the catalyst that reinvigorated the fire of racial hate and violence in America in 1915.

• I watched the video
• I am working on a Rough Draft of assignment two
• I already met with you on WebEx to discuss my assignment

How do you think the “knowledge” (those are scare quotes, meaning I don’t really think it was knowledge but scientific racism) created by biological determinists and white supremacists in the Supreme Court effected the laws crafted and applied to US territories?

Brian Bailie, PhD

Biological determinists incited further divisions among races in America by convincing their discourse communities that anything different from the “purebred white Americans” was evil and dangerous. The science discourse community attempted to prove, through flawed and biased, experiments and evidence that anything not white was not worth human worth. It also did not help that historically, slaves (who were not exclusively african-americans) were treated as less than human by the very government itself. Think back to the 3/5 Compromise of 1787; the compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for the purpose of the National Convention. That wasn’t the beginning of American government treating them as less than a whole person and worth every bit as much as the person next to them, no matter the skin color. Jim Crow laws became the modern day normal for the American people, freeing slaves from their literal shackles only to latch on figurative, yet very real legal shackles. All of these instances, of constantly holding back the rest of our country based on their cultural or visual differences, this bred ignorance, and long held stereotypes. Stereotypes that a lot of our legal constitution is based on, and stereotypes that continuously linger in the attitudes of many Americans in today’s society.

Lets’ think about this. For example, in this year (2020), if a white male American has safely reached the age of 80 years old…the have lived through the single most ignorant and dividing laws our nation could pass.

• Starting in the 1930s, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation conspired to create maps with marked areas considered bad risks for mortgages in a practice known as “red-lining.” The areas marked in red as “hazardous” typically outlined black neighborhoods. This kind of mapping concentrated poverty as (mostly black) residents in red-lined neighborhoods had no access or only very expensive access to loans.  This process did not begin to end until 1970.
• In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that a black family had the right to move into their newly-purchased home in a quiet neighborhood in St. Louis, despite a covenant dating back to 1911 that precluded the use of the property in the area by “any person not of the Caucasian race.”
• The Housing Act of 1949 was proposed by Truman to solve a housing shortage caused by soldiers returned from World War II. The act subsidized housing for whites only, even stipulating that black families could not purchase the houses even on resale. The program effectively resulted in the government funding white flight from cities.
• Segregation of children in public schools was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. 
• When Rosa Parks was arrested in 1955 after refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama, the Civil Rights Movement began in earnest

• Through the efforts of organizers like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the resulting protests, the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964, outlawing discrimination, though desegregation was a slow process, especially in schools.

• The state had passed the Elimination of Racial Balance law in 1965, but it had been held up in court by Irish Catholic opposition. Police protected the black students as several days of violence broke out between police and Southie residents. White crowds greeted the buses with insults, and further violence erupted between Southie residents and retaliating Roxbury crowds. State troopers were called in until the violence subsided after a few weeks.

I think I have made my point with this small history lesson; but this is exactly what the ignorance and fear mongering of government politicians, supported by biased, false scientific claims, did to this country. They incited racial divide, racial violence, and ignorance being carried throughout history. Lets’ go back to our 80 year old white male American example; his early teenage years would have been spent watching his country restrict non-white rights and lives, he would’ve watched the Civil Rights movement in his teenage years, most likely listened to his strong, white, American father mumble about how “those people do not deserve to be treated as equals”…the racism and ignorance has already been imprinted on our old man’s mind. A stereotype that will never escape the back of his consciousness, that will effect his entire life and how he makes decisions and decides to project onto his own family. It is like a chain reaction of bred ignorance, passed from generation to generation without any ability to see beyond their predesignated characters built in their heads.

It also does not help, that with a mostly male, mostly white, and mostly older group of people running our government…it will probably take another 100 years before anyone even attempts to change that majority think that runs our government offices.

Microsoft Word

Free Write – Assignment 2 – Brainstorm

I strongly believe that DW Griffith’s film would not have been such a “success” had the discourse communities of science and law alienated the non-white Americans so fully that the feeling of discontent with the differing races never quite left the white Americans. Politicians played off the hate and fear of the races, pitting them against each other and making the creation of a superbly racist film even possible, and successful at that. The film drove home some of the deepest fears of the white American public. Hoffman claimed that intermixing between races produced inherently flaws offspring, that it would lead to a complete devolution of the human race and ultimately by breaking these societal laws, it would taint and crumble civilization as you know it; he fear mongered. John Tyler Morgan fought against just about everything that the non-white Americans put into office, he used his platform to rationalize that the blacks would always be inferior to whites, and that they could never be educated because they just won’t comprehend the knowledge. “They ain’t as smart as us white folk.” He was from Alabama and actively made his disdain for the black Americans very obvious. But, ultimately both of these men’s arguments sum up to the Mismeasure of Man, and how the author of that particular piece of literature broke down every falsehood and failure of the supposed “science” of measuring a person’s intelligence and human worth through the weight, width, etc. of their skull. All of this formed a discourse community that had convinced itself that it was right above all else, the soul voice in this cacophony of ignorance was W.E.B Du Bois; an black American author that published many essays appealing to the “fence sitter” population of white Americans. He wrote from the heart, personalizing his essays to make any reader understand and feel his plight as a black man growing up in a society that continuously hated him strictly for the color of his skin. This was a strong argument in opposition to the ignorance surrounding the media everyday, but it wasn’t enough to sway hardly anyone when The Birth of a Nation hit screens all over America. DW Griffith thought he was making a piece of masterful, historically accurate grandeur, but he was only inciting race hatred further; like throwing gasoline on a simmering fire. The discourse communities had preached and fear mongered about how the black man was violent, and lewd, and dangerous to the white American, and what scene does DW Griffith put in his “masterpiece”? A white woman being chased off a cliff by a black man, while her brother watches helplessly. He shoves a scene in about a father wanting to kill his daughter just to save her from the “abomination” in her womb, of a mixed baby. Everyone hailed him as making a piece of fine cinema, but it only stoked the flames of racial diversity in the country.

I am all caught up!

The Birth of a Movement Notes and Class Recap

• This is a documentary about the backlash against Griffith’s film, The Birth of a Nation.
• Why we’re watching it; to observe how abnormal discourse occurs when the institutional channels of communication are blocked off.
• How discourse communities attempt to legitimate themselves and their discourse.
• To show that discourse communities are not utopian communities.
• To demonstrate the effect that the discourses of white supremacist law and science had on the lives of everyday Americans, both black and white.

The Birth of a Movement Documentary Questions

1. What were the names of the newspaper and the organization started in response to both The Birth of a Nation and white supremacy in general?
   • The Guardian; “For Every Right With All Thy Mite”
   • NAACP
2. How do you think the organizations referred to in the previous question were ways to legitimate black Americans’ discourse concerning white supremacy and Jim Crow Laws?
   • It gave the black Americans a voice, and allowed them to see that they weren’t the only ones wanting more rights and respect.
3. What were the prime differences between Trotter’s and DuBois’s approaches when it came to combating white supremacy?
   • Trotter was aggressive and radical
   • DuBois is neutral and quiet
4. When discussions to ban The Birth of a Nation failed, what methods were used to disrupt screenings of the film?
   • Trotter published and spoke against the “vicious film”; the First Amendment isn’t without limits
   • Curley asked Griffith to trim the most offensive part of the film; Griffith did not understand why it needed cut, he was convinced it was historically accurate
   • Marching to the State House to demand a ban
   • Throwing eggs at the screens, boycotting the film
   • Marched to the Governor’s Office demanding change
   • Riots and protests in the streets, demanding censorship
5. What specific, illegal–but often overlooked and unpunished–act of violence against black Americans was common in the United States at this time, and why was The Birth of a Nation seen as a possible accelerant for this ritualized violence?
   • Lynching; The Birth of a Nation romanticized the “heroism” of the Klan, when in reality they were no better than any common criminal gang.

1. What is the deal with Dr. Cameron about to bash in the head of his daughter, Margaret right before the Klan shows up? What fears about sex and intermixing are being referenced here, and where have we read about this before? Who else was about to get her head bashed in?
   • Dr. Cameron, I suppose, thought he was saving his daughter by attempting to take her life by his own hand.
   • The fear is that intermixing is an abomination to God, and that in doing so will bring about the eventual end of civilization due to bad breeding. Unintelligent offspring.
   • Elise is about to have her head bashed in as well, but is saved.
2. What’s up with that final scene of a city on the hill, people living in paradise, and Jesus? What do you think Griffith is trying to say about a society where white supremacy is not only custom but the law?
   • Griffith is trying to say that white supremacy is the law that God intends to have rule the Earth, and with that law will bring about a paradise that is the intended for us as a human race, and as a society.

Background on Flora and Gus

• Gus is a Union soldier stationed in the Piedmont during Reconstruction
• Flora is the “little sister” of the Cameron family
• Gus has been lurking on the edges of a few scenes where Flora has been either the focal point of part of the ensemble
• Gus is eventually lynched by the Klan

Birth of a Nation 2:13:00 mins – 2:24:00 mins

• Notes:
  • Flora is the “little sister” stereotype, and like usual, she is rebellious of a potentially overprotective brother shielding her from the world
  • She is careless, a classic stereotype
  • Gus is cautious; he backed away from the white woman that can get him killed
  • Iris editing, to focus on a squirrel…is this showcasing how clueless and naive she is? Focusing on a squirrel instead of her surroundings?
  • The coloring of Flora’s outside wanderings..it is almost pink, and innocent color.
  • Iris focus on Gus and Flora discussing Gus wanting to marry. She runs from him, off a cliff, begging for help.
  • She won’t listen to his pleas, she kills herself. But why? Has her younger naivety shunned her from understanding that he means no harm? Has the older brother taught her to fear all colored men no matter what? Is the society quick to judge that every colored man is dangerous to an alone white woman?
  • Gus seems almost trying to save her naive self from dying…but to the brother it looks like Gus is intentionally trying to kill his sister.
  • And there it is, she dies.
• Questions:
  1. How is the actor playing Gus costumed? What does this tell us that we should feel about Gus?
     • Gus is a white man playing a black man in the film so he is in obvious blackface. His clothing is tattered and old, obviously meant to represent is lower class. He is portrayed as sneaking around and maybe even following Flora into the forest. This is supposed to entice the audience into fulfilling their public portrayal of heathens; the public thinks badly of them, and they respond well to a satisfied image of that thought.
  2. How is the actor playing Flora costumed? What does this tell us that we should feel about Flora?
     • Flora has on a nice dress, conservative makeup, pinned back hair; and most importantly to this film, she is white. Paler than a pile of flour. She is the picturesque view of the carefree, pure, innocent white woman that the public identities with. Society is a clear painting of white=good and black=bad, relating that back to a film the public will identify with and spark discussion; Flora is simply the perfect stereotype.
  3. How is lighting used to make Gus seem menacing?
     • The lighting focused on Gus is dim, yellowish, and highly shadowed. The dark patches seem immensely deeper and darker with the yellow tint added to the screen. The darker tint to this character’s screen, in stark contrast to Flora’s, makes an unconscious comparison in the mind that the darker color=evil.
  4. How is the lighting used to make Flora seem innocent?
     • Compared to the opposite of Gus’ lighting, Flora is silhouetted in pink, bright light. Just short of a halo, Flora was a painted angel in the film, the pink light reflects on her skin making it even more pale and white. The painted public image of “good” by the white man’s society.
  5. How does the actor walk and what types of actions does he perform as he follows Flora? How does this tell us he’s–for lack of a better term–a predator?
     • Gus is seen as walking low to the ground, creeping, and peeping on Flora. Reminiscent of a wolf stalking its prey.
  6. What actions and interactions do we see Flora engaged in while she’s being followed by Gus that tells us Flora is childlike?
     • She is seen abandoning her bucket, chasing after a squirrel, frolicking through the woods, and most importantly, she isn’t paying attention to her surroundings. She has her head in the clouds.
  7. How is the music associated with Gus different than the music associated with Flora?
     • Gus’ music is deep, in the chest, with a steady rhythm like a shark closing in on its prey. Flora’s music is upbeat, in the higher scale, almost muscial-ish in the way that it matches her dancing in the woods carelessly.
  8. How does cross-cut editing between the Flora-Gus chase scene with Ben, Flora’s older brother, communicate to us the danger that Flora is in?
     • The music picks up, and the cross cutting between the two shows the panic on Flora’s brother’s face and how hopeless her chase with Gus really is. Her continuous unfortunate mistakes in running blindly into the forest from an unknown enemy.
  9. Thinking back and using the theories of discourse and multiliteracies, how would you say the work of writers like John Tyler Morgan and Frederick Hoffman shaped a viewing public that would accept this sequence with few to no reservations?
     • Morgan and Hoffman paint the colored people of this society and time piece with such evil that the modern public of this society easily accepts that every non-white person is a predator and nothing more than an obvious wolf in sheep’s clothing.