The birth of a nation which premiered 100 years ago by filmmaker e w griffin. In the next 45 minutes we will open our phone lines. Part of the real america series. Joining us is hari jones. The curator of the africanamerican civil war memorial Freedom Foundation and museum. From boston is the author of the book, the birth of a nation how a legendary filmmaker and a crusading editor reignited americas civil war. David lehr. Thank you for being with us. The phone lines are open. 2027084901 for those in mountain and pacific time zones. Dick lehr, we will begin with you. In terms of history it is a foundational moment in american film history. A breakout moment. Until the threehour plus epic, films were much shorter. 10 minutes or less. The ambitious d. W. Griffith wanted to tell a big story in a big way. He employed all kinds of innovative film techniques that people had not seen before. This was americas first blockbuster. It summarizes this foam. You called it a masterpiece. You called it a heated, slanted and a dramatic flashpoint in a changing america. A film 50 years after the end of the civil war and the assassination of president lincoln. It is a film with the huge legacy in terms of filmmaking, and in terms of the Civil Rights Movement and protest. Because of the bigoted content and has been called up your evil. Its racist propaganda. It sparked protests, especially in boston where protests went on for three plus months. Hari jones, when did you first see this film its this film in its entirety . 1982. I was a freshman in college. I was prepared and did a little studying. I professor gave us reading to do before, so i was well prepared for what i would see. What are your thoughts as you look at the film today . It is interesting the themes in the film. How consistent they are with things taught. Like all negroes are ignorant, extravagant, bad government in reconstruction was because of the africanamericans. That theme the brought forth. The reconstruction era of the film is volume five of Woodrow Wilsons history of the american people. The first part of the film, the civil war, is the last chapter of volume four, dealing with the civil war. The film is consistent with what Woodrow Wilson had written in his history of the american people. There are no africanamericans in the film. There are white actors with black faces. To keep money circulating in the circle. I found that interesting as well. Was he a racist . No question. He is adapting Thomas Duncan since novel, the klansmen, a popular book from the early 1900s. Dixon himself was extremely racist. He wrote letters at the time saying he hoped that anyone who saw the movie would emerge from the theater a true southern patriot. Not so obscure code for racist. He was a son of the south. He grew up outside of louisville, kentucky. His father, colonel griffith, fought for the confederacy. His father was a wreck and tour. He died when griffith was tenured his father was a raven tour he died when griffith was 10 years old. We begin with a onehour q a that you conducted earlier on your book. For those in the state, can you explain why president wilson viewed this film in the east room of the white house . It happened on february 18, 100 years and four days from now ago. That was a personal favor to taunus dixon. Thomas dixon. Dixon had gone to college with wilson and had remained in touch as wilsons career soared, first as the president of princeton then as a president ial candidate. As dixon prepare to release his film in 1915 x and reached out to wilson and is said, can we screen this phone for you . It became the firstever screening of a movie and the white house, on february 18 1915. You juxtapose that, and book end it with president obama screening soma in the white house. It is a fascinating juxtaposition. We welcome our listeners on cspan radio. Our phone lines are open. 20274 889 00 in the eastern half of the country. 202 7488901. Joining us from the bronx, new york. Good afternoon. Caller what was president wilsons to the movie . Can you answer that . He was delighted. He thought it was terrific. As hari mentioned, much of wilsons own historical work was reflected in the film. That played to wilsons ego. It shines a light in the story between the white house and other events involving wilson. It shines a light on that side of him. The racist side of him. It was a very successful screening inside the white house. One of the interesting things going toward griffiths governess in marketing skills is that the screening of the white house was supposed to be off the record. Reporters werent there. Anyone who was there, close family and friends of wilsons, or not supposed to speak about it. Those were rules that griffith immediately ignored. He did two things. He sent a telegram before the night was out to his favorite film critic at the times letting her lead to her call him the next day with the screening at the white house. And then you heard about the white house reaction. A line has been credited to him that he was enthralled by the phone and by the film and came up with the line it was a history written and enlightened. After that there has been debate over whether or not he said that. He denied ever saying it when the screening and protests developed and became a political hot potato for him. Griffith, in addition to sending the telegram to grace kingsley at the l. A. Times, he told a reporter, and i will quote it from my book because it is wonderful stuff, he told a reporter he did not mention wilson by name, but that the white house screening was a huge success. He said he was gratified with a man we all riviere, or ought to, said it teaches history by lightning. He was pushing this wine that wilson, i believe, did say at the screening. Joining us from philadelphia. Welcome to American History tv. Caller good afternoon, sir. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Caller to your guests. How can you remain calm and collected knowing that they are showing of the home that should never have been on tv . The more difficult moment is reading wilsons history of the american people. I can stay calm reading that, so i can stay calm seeing the film. It is examining the history. The way people perceived africanamericans. Arguing for the ku klux klan being the savior of the south. An argument that was being made. It was made in wilsons history of the american people. I stay calm in the sense that i have to understand this perspective, and that we need to address this perspective to be informed. I must be calm and use my wits. We are showing it on tv in part because it is thewe want you to watch the event in its entirety and drawing room conclusions. Also a chance to weigh in draw your own conclusions. Also a chance to weigh in. From carmichael, california. Good afternoon. Hi, there. Thanks for taking my call. Watching that film, i think it is safe to say that absolutely nothing has changed in america if that mindset still is prevalent all over the place in america. My question to you is, how much longer do you think it will take before all of us human beings can get along, meaning black and white, gay and lesbians, how much longer is it going to be . 10 years, plus or minus . 100 years, or 1000 years, us or minus plus or minus . Hari jones, we begin with you. As long as we believe there are white and black people the white race, the black race, i think this problem will persist. How much longer . As long as we dont think of ourselves as human beings first. The paradigm dominates us. As long as we are defined by the color of our skin, it will be a problem. How long has this film been in the Public Domain . In terms of people who want to access it on the web . We are in the internet age, digital age. You can watch any part of this movie at any time. That is why i think, this is the 100th anniversary of the premiere of the film. One of my motivations for writing the book, frankly, was to develop a larger context of 1915 to show that this wasnt kind of a oneoff film, a whacked out filmmaker. It was americas first blockbuster film. It was a reflection of the racism of the time. This sort of notions of White Supremacy that were embedded in all walks of life in 1915. You had someone like wilson writing history that is a reflection through this racist prism. In the science of the time, and i write about this in the book scientific journals were publishing studies by alleged researchers showing the size of black brains, black mens brains were smaller than white mens brains. It was debunked, but it was a legitimate point that was supposedly being made. History it was not just wilson. The leading historian of the time was charles dunning. The Dunning School of history. He portrayed the civil war and reconstruction. It is important to understand the larger context. Most importantly, what moved me was not just to hear the movie was controversial and it triggered in various cities, snowballing, really breaking open in boston, but to tell that story in a hopefully richly detailed way that conveys to the reader that there was a good part of america, especially black america, that was appalled by this, and the idea that the klan was a Healing Force for the lawlessness of reconstruction. Men like Monroe Trotter, w. E. B. Dubois, were reacting very strongly in a way that, as one historian decades later said these men laid the first stone of the modern protest movement, we are not going to stand by as this movie makes its way across america, selling out to theaters everywhere. Lets go to tony from lakewood, washington. Good morning, everyone. Just to build off the point that mr. Lehr made with regard to the scientists of the times hang that scientifically, blacks were less intelligent, though scientists are not heralded today as great scientists. The same way as this film, even though it is 100 years, it should not be heralded as a great piece of cinematic art. We dont look at propaganda from nancy germany nazi germany and say it is a great piece of art. It was of the time. We dont air it on cspan or have longwinded discussions about how good the cinematography was. This was a film for the coop ran for the ku klux klan. It basically built a fire under those who were acting as terrorists against the people that lived in the south to allow them to commit terrorist acts against black people. The government overlooked it because at the time they said it was a great piece of cinematic art. I really feel it is time that we stop looking at these films and saying, these are great works of art, and they were very racist, and therefore it was a piece of work for the time. This was a propaganda piece to further disenfranchise a group of evil that were already enslaved in this country. We need to look at it for what it is. Thank you for the call. We have a chance for the guests to respond. Appreciated. Hari jones. The film is a blockbuster film. It is certainly propaganda. A lot of the history that is written dunnings school, wilson at princeton, dunning at columbia the kind of history they are producing his propaganda. This is the real problem, the propaganda of the history. In the case of William Monroe trotter and w. E. B. Dubois, one of the reasons they responded to the film is because they actually endorsed wilson in the 1912 election, even though his book had been published. They still endorsed him. This was a real embarrassment to them as well, especially trotter. It is an embarrassment. Wilson is our guy. We supported him in the 1912 election. He is clearly a racist. We will go to ann in dallas texas. Thank you so much for putting me on. I im one of those blacks that grew up in the integrated midwest. When i moved to the south to go to a private university, i was told by whites and blacks that i spoke white. It was an eyeopener. I also watched the birth of a nation for the first time in college. I wonder, just like the last caller, when i am wondering is why, why are we still presenting this as a work of art when it is definitely propaganda . It is definitely propaganda. Am i right . At that time, when it came out the kkk had declined in membership and my second question is, it shows the white woman getting raped, why hasnt it ever been shown in film about how africanamerican women were constantly raped, and it was legalized by white men . I will give both are guests a chance to respond. If you could question dw griffith today, what would you ask him . What is your fear for the success of africanamericans . What is your greatest fear . Thank you very much from dallas, texas. We go to dick lehr. That question one, that question, the last when asked, what he might fear, was at the beginning of reconstruction. The state house of South Carolina is now controlled and dominated by exslaves and free blacks, the way he portrays that , for some reason, that is where my mind went to. He thought of blacks as being unworthy of the right to vote, of freedom. Look what happens. Their shoes are off. They are chewing on chicken legs. One of the first orders of business is to pass a law so they can legally have a mary a white woman. That is where my mind goes on that. From stonington connecticut. Thank you. Interesting conversation. Picking up on the conversation just there, it was amazing to watch. You could take off all of the racist troops, the reversion of history, the jim crow law, the violence of jim crow seems to be the violence of reconstruction, a complete inversion. I would say the great fear is what we saw constantly through the movie, the ultimate fear, the fear of white women being available to black men. We just saw it again and again and again. If you could comment on that gentlemen. Thank you. I keep going back to wilson. Wilson talks about this, the white men of the south being put under the heels of black men being dominated by them in the politics of today. There is this fear of africanamericans being assertive. Wilson even says in his book that the klan was justified in attacking northerners because they were teaching the negro to be assertive. Attack an innocent teacher who is simply educating someone. With wilson and griffith, what i would ask them, i would ask, do you really believe this is in the best interest of our country . Is this really in the best interest . Do you really care about this nation . What will you do now to heal the wounds . Hari jones is the curator of the civil war memorial Freedom Foundation and museum here and he has frequently been seen on the History Channel and ebs. Dick lehr is joining us from boston. He is a professor of journalism at boston university. His latest book is the birth of a nation. Lets go to marvin from saginaw, michigan. Good afternoon. Our last caller talked about the history of this country being skewed by basically propaganda such as this. I would like to ask one of, both the guests, how they feel about this being basically the first propaganda piece of this country. Thank you for the call. Mr. Jones . How i feel about this movie being the first propaganda piece . It is disheartening that this is the kind of work that was presented as such a cinematic blockbuster with all these innovative techniques, the longrunning film. It is disheartening that that is what actually happened. I do feel that it gives us an opportunity to examine ourselves , but also to examine not just what is in the dome, but also what is being taught, because the film is not far off from what is being taught in the classroom. You can still examine the residual effects of it in todays classroom areas classroom. Dick lehr, can you go through some fast facts about the film how long it took to put together, and why it was significant in terms of its length . He began filming on july 4 of 1914. He put together the movie in six months or so. The filming, then the postproduction, the music, editing. The length was a breakout. Three hours for an american film was much longer than an audience had ever seen before. His reconstruction in part one of the civil war battle scenes was cinematography and film sequence and action that people had never seen it anything like before had never seen anything like before. Why do weekly this and why do we talk about it, as a moment in film history it is a foundational moment. It is not going to go away. It is not just a propaganda piece that just some guy put together in an ordinary way. No, this was, in terms of filmmaking, this new medium. Look at the front end of the media revolution, the feature film. This is a historic mark. So, i think some of the callers said they saw it in college. I am assuming it was a film History Survey course. That is when i first tighten college. It is not going to go away. I think it is really important. I think people will continue to Pay Attention that it was propaganda. The content is so troubling. Under and the context in terms of the power of this new film all across america. Richard brody from the new yorker wrote about it a year or so ago and that, the worst thing about this movie is how good it is. It starred a legendary actress who lived to be 100 herself before she passed away. Lets go to larry from washington. Good afternoon. Thank you cspan. Curious about the wilson white house. I understand he did not have one black employee. Were there any blacks their prior to his taking office . Lets stay on that point. Lets go to dave layer. Lehr. Was he a racist . I believe he is a racist. Hari is right. He and others in the 1912 essential race decided wilson was their candidate, the lesser of a bunch of evils. In some ways, he was a naive. He was blathering about his goal was to be fair to all americans. Wilson was racist. When he came president , it was on his watch that the national government, you know, the federal government, which was lincolns government which had been behind the civil war and the emancipation, some of the federal government, jim crow was moving through the federal agency under wilsons watch and with his blessing. We have talked about the wilson white house screening. Very interestingly two months earlier in late November Trotter led a delegation of civil rights leaders. It was a followup meeting to a 1913 and counter encounter to meet with the president and the white house to complain about jim crow in federal government. Trotter said to the president nothing has changed, except it has gotten worse. What is going on . It was an encounter that made the front page of newspapers around the country. Wilson was not used to being talked to the way trotter was talking to him. He essentially threw trotter out of the white house. He told the delegation of they ever returned again, they would have to find themselves a spokesman. Wilson later rented the way he lost his own cool because it fueled the fire of the protest. But i think trotter got in his face in a way wilson was not used to and found unacceptable. Did you want to respond to larrys point . James buchanans white house is the white house that did not have any africanamericans prior to wilson. Lets go to bruce next from boston. Hi. Thank you for taking my call. My first comment is i dont think it is true that there were no actual black people in there. In part one of the slave quarters, there clearly were were real black people. I have special contempt for any black person who would do that. The way they showed lincoln at the end of part one, they blamed the union for starting, for attacking sovereign states. That surprised me. I am from boston. Could you talk to us about the rally in boston . Thank you. We will turn to declare joining us to dick lehr joining us from boston. I will pick up the boston peace, if it is ok. Piece, if that is ok. History of lincoln is not in my wheelhouse, but the movie portrayed link in the way it did because from the southern perspective, following though war, lincoln was on record as trying to corral and restrain what was seen as the vengeful, punitive, carpetbagging radical republican reconstructionists. With his death, that unleashed the carpetbaggers to come to the south and wreak the havoc that was dramatized in the film. To jump to the other part of the question about the boston protest, again, once you break it down and develop what we call a day to day, trotter was at the forefront, along with leaders of the naacp of this amazingly multifaceted protest against the film that played out in city hall, in the courthouses, on the streets. At the theater that was located at the corner of austin common where trotter got arrest that, along with a handful of other protesters and demonstrators. There are job dropping photos in the newspapers of the day showing pictures of 3000, 4000 demonstrators marching on the statehouse in boston, trying to get the governor to intervene in their protest against the movies premiere in boston. Those photographs are amazing. I think most people, i certainly did not realize there was such a militant and direct protest action and strategy in place in the early 1900s. My general understanding is that booker t. Washingtons strategy was the dominant strategy of the day. This clearly represents the turning of the page, the passing of the torch, so to speak. Some of the pictures of that demonstration in boston, one could assume it also might have drawn more attention to the film and more people going to see the film. You are right. Dubois and trotter spoke about that, they traded letters. They understood. Letters were written gloating about that. Let them fuss and carry on because it guarantees more ticket sales. I think trotter at the end of the day, dubois said, lets stand unanswered. This portrayal of black america would be far worse. We have this tweet. What was the impact of the naacp and the black press campaigns against birth of a nation . Hari jones . Supporting wilson at first was a real problem, compromise for them. Within the naacp during this time, the voice dubois, and you have the changing of the guard. The naacp is rising. I think it helped the naacp. Trotter does not get much from it. His newspapers the guardian and he kind of fades away. Lets go to gym in apple valley, california. What are your thoughts about the film . I just wondered if anyone saw the wider picture of everything watching part two, the scene where they dumped the body on the doorstep. They used the term aryan in the film. Hitler was a product of his time. I dont know if the author touched on this, but this was a broader perspective view have this film, pseudoscientific studies on the size of africanamerican brains, studies in eugenics, into the holocaust as well. Thanks for the call. Dick lehr . We did address that earlier. The notion of White Supremacy was featured in all walks of life at the time. This is a reflection of that era griffith himself considered this to be accurate. It was a huge disconnect. He did not get it. He did not consider himself to be hurtful here and harmful to black america. Yet, one of the things that is always puzzling, here he is being confronted, several different venues, with men like men Monroe Trotter or dubois. Why isnt his brain going, wait, maybe die unders handing of black americans is not maybe my understanding of black americans is not complete. Yeah. Its pretty awful stuff. If you are just joining us or you are tuning in on cspan radio, we are looking at the film the birth of a nation, which was released 100 years ago. Hari jones is joining us in washington. Dick lehr is in boston. Caller from lansing, michigan. Hi. My question relates to the legacy like Many Americans we are justifiably proud of the reunification of the nation and abolishment of slavery. One reason i feel i know less about reconstruction than the politics of the civil war is because i am not proud of what happened at that time. We had the disenfranchisement of a number of citizens in the south. How do we approach that time period that is intellectually honest, is the general question i have . Your response . You want to tell the story accurately. Lets take lincoln. I will step back with the treatment of lincoln. He issues a proclamation offering amnesty to almost anyone that would return to the union. Johnson, after lincoln is assassinated has an amnesty plan that is not too much worse than lincoln however, when Congress Comes back in session in december of 1965, they do not like what johnson has done. He has allowed many of the former planters to reenslave the former slaves by the vagrancy laws requiring 9 00 curfews, having certificate saying you are employed. If not, you will be put in prison. This happens. When Congress Comes back in session, stevens in the house and sumner in the senate are aggressive in their leadership in changing this. You get the 14th amendment. You get the 15th amendment. In 1871 which this film deals with a great deal, it is when you get your antiku klux klan act. If you believe wilson, grant was reluctant. He reluctantly comes aboard. If you read the congressional goal, it was granted that requested Congress Stay in session on march 23 1871, so they could pass the legislation. He said the south demanded it. It demanded we protect the citizens. You get this legislation. That really is the anger that you see in wilsons writing. Antiklan legislation. The enforcement acts. It is telling that story, it tends not to get told. The malala no mulatto lieutenant governor. There is one in louisiana at that time. Pinchback is a leader. Most of the problems, according to southern congressman, is because they are responding to this organization, the 4 ls. During the civil war, it was the single most important source of intelligence. That organization is wellorganized. This is one of the fears of the southerners is that they will organize and they will have political power. So, when we tell the story of reconstruction we tend to leave out that organization. We tend to leave it out when we talk about the civil war. We leave out the intelligent africanamericans. What was the congressman saying on the floor of the house arguing for this legislation . What was congressman eliot saying . We leave it out. That is not taught in the schools. What we really need to do is focus on using these primary sources so we can tell the story more accurately instead of this rather slanted history that we have gotten on the civil war and reconstruction. We have felt the risk the effects of this. We need to do a better job in telling the story. I think that is where we deal with reconstruction and we deal with the civil war, by using these primary sources in telling a more accurate story, using primary sources, letting africanamerican voices be heard, and letting the european voices, butler, who thought highly of africanamericans, he is rarely read. The troops are highly successful during the civil war. The army that is first into richmond. These are colored troops. Butler would say that they broke the iron chains with the bayonet. They proved it on the battlefield. That is not a story that was generally told, certainly not told by the author of the novel the author of the history, and the director of the film. If i might jump in . Please continue. I would second that in terms of the call for primary resource work. I am brace that. A quick example is i embraced that. A quick example