D. W. Griffith's Film The Birth Of A Nation

Movies and entertainment outlets speak volumes about the current state of a nation’s culture. Cinematic creations in the United States allow small voices to be heard and controversial issues to be addressed. However, a repetitive and monumental issue continues to be addressed, yet continues to persist in our 21st century culture, racial inequalities. Since the inception of the United States, black men and women alike have been disenfranchised at the hands of the “white man” in America. Instead of continuing the conversation today, the issue is continually silenced referencing the successes and achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century. Nonetheless, an unfortunate reality looms upon this great land; racially based systems and structures continue to exist in 2015 the in United States. This paper synthesizes three films focused on racial inequalities in different time periods. Separate but Equal (1991), Selma (2015), and Crash (2005) illustrate how influential the Civil War amendments are, while serving as an uncanny reminder of how the racial prejudices during the 20th century continue to exist in our great nation today. Needless to say our nation has made great strides, but still has a long way to go.

In “Teaching Resistance: The Racial Politics of Mass Media,” bell hooks focus her message on the role of the media when depicting black and white characters, how it negatively makes an impact on the public, and how white and black people see each other. Although racism began centuries before mass media could spread stereotypes, media’s artful approach to the masses has been useful to continue what has long existed. Mass media’s contents are so subtle and morphed into jokes and entertainable means, that the public becomes easily distracted and over time, they unconsciously absolve stereotypes and false ideas. The fight against these channels has long ago started, and as hooks states in her article, people should turn to “low-risk small acts that can become major interventions.” She suggests boycotts and protest letters that will bring awareness and will be used to gradually deconstruct the negative ideas media strongly built.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

The first amendment most importantly protects freedom of speech. Dennis Mahon, a member of the KKK, was trying to exercise his freedom of speech, through airing a television program called “Race and Reason.” The Missouri Knights group chose public cable access to broadcast because

There are many elements of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to address. The area of the Freedom of Speech applies to every aspect of our daily lives. An examination of this area shows us why there are protected and unprotected areas of speech: speeches and actions that have been debated throughout our nation’s history and why they are important and have such an impact on our individual lives and social activities today.

The history of African Americans in early Hollywood films originated with blacks representing preconceived stereotypes. D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, stirred many controversial issues within the black community. The fact that Griffith used white actors in blackface to portray black people showed how little he knew about African Americans. Bosley Crowther’s article “The Birth of Birth of a Nation” emphasizes that the film was a “highly pro-South drama of the American Civil War and the Period of Reconstruction, and it glorified the role of the Ku Klux Klan” (76). While viewing this film, one would assert that the Ku Klux Klan members are heroic forces that rescue white women from sexually abusive black men. Griffith

In the final chapter of his 2012 book, Winn aggregates his analyses of these films and states that every one of them presents African Americans as being inferior to whites in all ways and as being a threat to white authority and society. Winn (2012) ends his discourse with a discussion in critical media pedagogy, and states, “By studying how racist ideologies affected specific media productions in the past, we can better learn how to consume, interrogate, and interpret current media and use that understanding to encourage change” (p.128). “Therefore, now, more than ever before, people need to be able to understand, question, challenge, and evaluate media for themselves. One way to address this need is through critical media literacy” (p. 129). Critical media literacy can help audiences understand how underlying ideologies can effect communications of institutions and shape their views of the world.

Many people come to the United States looking for freedom and liberty and where their essential rights are protected under the Constitution. However, freedom should not be taken for granted as for every rule there may be limits. The First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Corwin 48). In other words, the First Amendment granted freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition. The First Amendment is clear enough for anyone to comprehend and process easily; however, people sometimes misunderstand their rights by doing what their First Amendment right does not protect, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. Seven of the most important law cases in the United States’ history are what shaped the American’s society and allowed people to hopefully know and recognize their limits and restrictions when it comes to their speech whether it was a literal speech or a symbolic speech.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

While I won’t claim that free speech is without its flaws, I will contend that it is itself necessary to equality which was brought up as a counter argument. When we allow speech that has no impact on public safety to be regulated we open the door to interpretation, this is a gamble. Does the interpreter share my views, or yours, or someone else’s entirely? What would America look like if the proponents of slavery were allowed to regulate speech on the topic, or the world if the National Socialist had achieved their goals? Speech can harm, it can be hateful, and cause adverse reactions, but so can many things we think nothing of because they serve to facilitate everyday life. If we regulate speech based on harm it will only be as harmless as those that regulate it. I think that is something most wouldn’t care to risk, regardless of color, creed, or nationality. When a majority solution can’t be found we as a people tend to prefer freedom as the doctrine so we may all be equal in

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

Centuries ago in American society, individuals were not granted the free will to act and speak freely. First Amendment rights allowed citizens to do so. On a historical outlook, the oppressed fought for the rights of various groups in the United States. Although laws and situations evolve, groups in America continue to face inequality and issues with freedom of speech. There is room for further improvement; freedom for all citizens needs to be fulfilled. The impression of being free is what gives the United States the ideology of being a part of a democracy. Recent events have revealed issues with freedom of speech and questioning about what kinds of speech is protected. In order to close the gap in

The Birth of a Nation was released on October 7, 2016. It has grossed $15,803,772 (boxfficemojo.com) almost doubling its production budget of $8.5 million. As historians try their best with other historical facts, The Birth of a Nation has its part of fictional moments. Historians may be able to list events in chronological order to help inform readers, but if not every moment and conversation had been documented, historians can only fill in the blanks. This is the case with the Nat Turner film because not everything had been documented. It was pleasing to see some film producers in Hollywood are trying to be honest about diversity and slavery. Many people, who knew of Nat Turner, had general knowledge of the insurrection and its legacy. There

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people