The Southern Heart

In Wil Haygood's book Colorization: One Hundred Years of Black Films in a White World, there is particular emphasis on the infamously racist blockbuster The Birth of a Nation (originally titled The Clansman). This makes sense, as the focus of the novel is to showcase the rise and fall of black directors, actors, writers, and producers through Hollywood, which was dominated by white stories, of which The Birth of a Nation is a prime example. It is unfortunate, then, that such an important line in this book is credited to the little bit of white history mentioned, and especially to such a racist and influential man.

In 1914, D. W. Griffith announced he was taking on a project that would adapt the 1905 novel The Clansman into a feature-length silent film. As Haygood notes, Griffith's motivation for adopting such a controversial series was to tell the "true" story of the American south, as it "hasn't been accurately told in history books" (Haygood 10).

This is a very important note within Griffith's entire narrative because he makes it clear that he is very proud of his Southern roots, especially in relation to white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith stated that he believed the Civil War and its aftermath had not been accurately portrayed in the history books of the time, and he wanted to make a film that would fix this misrepresentation.

He wanted to teach the truth of the South, the "Heart," in a sense. Too bad his truth is a bit ironic.

Griffith's idea of Southern Heart was white supremacy. Pure and blatant racism toward African Americans was coupled with the idolization of white women and (violent) white supremacist groups in his masterpiece of racist cinema. Black and mixed-race people are demonized and portrayed as lustful, violent, and manipulative, while white people are pure, brave, and honorable. 

How is this the historical Southern truth, though? Griffith wanted to portray the Southern heart by glorifying slavery and racism, but he didn't actually include anything that went against his own agenda. He did not include any internal Confederate issues or mention how desertion was a large issue (in part because many Southerners did not support slavery or even want to succeed at all). 

Considering he did not include these incredibly important parts of white Confederate history, it is no surprise he did not accurately portray African Americans, both free and enslaved, within his film, because to do so would mean to consider them as people. There was nothing about the harsh conditions slaves were forced into, or how they were intimidated and even tormented into submission.

For these reasons, then, Griffith clearly fails at his goal because "Black History is American History," (Dawkins) and to tell the truth about the South, one has to include everything, not just the stuff they like. 

Personally, this raises a rather confusing question, at least to me. Griffith's racism is clear and unabashed, and he was obviously proud of it. However, his intentions behind adapting The Clansman into a movie was that he wanted to tell the truth about the South as it was never told in history books. By leaving so much out, however, he did not tell the truth about the South like he claimed he wanted to.

I believe the most likely answer is that this was intentional. He made it clear that he hated black people. He made it clear that he adored the Klan. He adapted a movie that supported his ideals and claimed it was true, so he could lure more people into his way of thinking. But I also wonder if there was some part of him that truly believed this was the real story. We've all seen the crazy conspiracy theories out there today, for example, lizard people controlling the world and giants living in the core of the Earth, and there are plenty of people who believe those. What if this, at least to him, was just some sort of conspiracy that he genuinely believed; because that truly seems to be the case in his 1930 interview.