Birth of a Nation is a film made by a man named D.W. Griffith in 1915. This film is highly controversial due to its historical inaccuracy of the Civil War time period and it’s racial stereotyping. Birth of Nation attempts to portray the South in a positive light for all who lived there while ignoring the plight of African Americans who were denied the same civil liberties of White Americans. The film strives to persuade the viewer that the south was in danger of being forever changed by the “wicked” progressive thinkers who wanted to reunify the Nation with equal civil rights for all.
D.W. Griffith’s message is similar to another man’s named Ludwig Hoffman. In 1896, Hoffman published his book titled; “Race Amalgamation”. The intent of Hoffman’s work is to persuade his readers to believe his notion that different races interbreeding with whites should be viewed as wrong. Unlike Griffith, Hoffman backs up his claims with the pseudoscience of the time. Hoffman believed that whites were superior and interbreeding led to weaker offspring due to white blood being diluted. Both of these men were clearly misguided but their infiltration of their respective discourse communities demonstrates a real danger to all of society. Film and Science have very tangible effects on a nation, but which has the most potential to do lasting harm or the most persuasive effect on America? Given these two examples, I would say Birth of a Nation had the largest felt effect at that time.
“Race Amalgamation” is a good example of the Science community falling victim to rhetorical topics. I believe the field of Science should be above the society that it is serving. Scientific fields have to be above reproach. This idea is inherent by use of the scientific model. Experiments and research will be quickly invalidated without proper methods and controls. I also believe that society does not question the field of science. This could be due to the seemingly dauntless challenge to be a member of the scientific community. Surely someone who obtains the title of doctor or professor is above questioning by the layman right? This is why the work of Ludwig Hoffman was so damaging. People who read his book might very well have believed it simply because it came from the scientific community. 1986 was not a time in which everybody had easy access to information like today. But similar to today, ease of access to information does not make it credible. Race Amalgamation also worked to further the misguidance of others within the scientific discourse community. But I feel that Hoffman’s work mainly galvanized others in his own discourse more than the public. Not everybody will read a science book but almost everybody will go see a film.
Birth of a Nation had enormous rhetorical appeal at the time of it’s release. Many in the north wanted equal civil liberties for African Americans after the Civil War. While many in the south did not want to change their lives, heritage, or “values”. America was divided by the idea of civil right progression after the war and Birth of a Nation further drove the wedge between the two different ideologies. W.E.B. Dubois and other likeminded individuals were a voice for progressive thinking but progress came at great cost and resistance. The voice of the resistance for change were men like Ludwig Hoffman and D.W. Griffith. It was a battle of discourses and unfortunately for Dubois, the resistance to progress had the more powerful communities of law, science, and film. Hoffman used his discourse to persuade readers that science and nature were the forces behind white supremacy. D.W. Griffith used film to propagandize African American stereotypes and to display his desire for a united white supremacist America.
Ludwig Hoffman, the man who wrote “Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro” Used the veil of scientific methods to garner his results that whites were mentally and physically superior to other races. He mixed numerical values, data columns, and educated verbiage to appear scientific throughout his work. He demonized whites breeding with other races for sake of the afflicted offspring. His message comes off as a fearful warning to other likeminded whites that times are changing and the status quo is in danger.
D.W. Griffith, the man who made the film has been credited for being a brilliant technical film maker. He used colors in his film to show emotion and sway his audience to feel certain ways about different characters, locations, and events. An example of this was when he used blue or green during scenes of the south to show sadness and prosperity respectively, while using red during scenes of dread or violence. Costumes were used to show the dignity of white southern men and the depravity of African Americans, white sympathizers, and bi-racial individuals. These film techniques were weaponized for a rhetorical attack on an already unhinged society. The film opened city after city to thousands of people who lined up to see it. Even the President of the USA praised the film stating; “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” With the film obtaining sanction from the highest office in the country, those who disagreed must have felt utterly defeated. I believe this film was a much more persuasive rhetorical piece based off it’s sheer ease of access by the public at that time. Everybody was talking about, even the President. Film uses music, images and draws upon the viewers emotion. There is no greater propaganda weapon in my opinion than film. D.W. Griffith recognized this and utilized it to spread his beliefs. Unfortunately for society at that time, it was hateful and inaccurate, leading all those who accepted the message into hate and ignorance. This is evidenced by the record recruitment numbers of KKK members following Birth of a Nations release.
Hoffman and Griffith have given us examples on how damaging discourse communities can be. When powerful people join voices for a common cause, the effects can be felt throughout societies and even generations. The clandestine way in which some discourses operate gives rise to concern and these two examples prove that. Luckily hindsight is 20/20 and we can right the wrongs of the past but what of the present? How can we be sure that current authoritative discourses are not swaying us to believe ignorant or inaccurate ideas? History is a powerful teacher.
Jeffs Blog 2.0 