There you have it in its entirety which premiered 100 years ago by filmmaker dw griffith. We are going to open our phone lines as part of our reel america series. Joining us is hari jones, the curator of the African American some order civil war memorial and museum. Joining us is the author of birth of a nation. Thank you for being with us. Our phone lines are open. 20270 just how consequence are consequential was this film . In terms of film history, it was hugely consequential. It is a foundational moment in american film history. It was a breakout moment. Until then, films were 10 minutes or less. The incredibly ambitious dw griffith wanted to tell a big story in a big way and he produced this epic film employing all sorts of innovative techniques people had not seen before. This was literally americas first blockbuster film. This one sentence in your book that summarizes this film. You called it a masterpiece. You called it bigoted and slanted and set it was a dramatic flashpoint in a changing america. The film made 50 years after the end of the civil war and assassination of president lincoln. Indeed, the captures all of that. It is a film with a huge legacy in terms of filmmaking and also the Civil Rights Movement and protests. Because of its bigoted content it has been called pure evil, racist propaganda. At the time, its sparked it sparked enormous protests, especially in boston where the protests went on for plea plus three plus months and was unlike any other city. When was the first time you saw this film in its entirety . 1982. I was a freshman in college. I was prepared for the film and did a bit of studying. My professor gave us some reading to do before so i was well prepared for what i was about to see. As you look at the film today, what are your thoughts . It is very interesting the themes in the film and how consistent they are with things that are taught, like all negroes are ignorant, the construction was because of the African Americans. That kind of theme being brought forward. In fact, the reconstruction your of the films volume five of Woodrow Wilsons book, the history of the american people. That is the last chapter, volume four, which deals with the civil war. The film is consistent with what Woodrow Wilson had written in his book. Affect our new African Americans in the film the fact there are no African Americans in the film . There are white actors painted with black faces. I found that interesting as a way to keep the money circulating in the circle. I found that interesting as well. Dick lehr, was d. W. Griffith a racist . No question in my mind he was. He was adopting Thomas Dixons book the klansmen, extremely popular book. He was rabidly racist and hope letters wrote letters hoping he said he hoped anyone who saw the movie would emerge from the theater a true southern patriot. Not so obscure code for racist. Griffith was a son of the south himself. He grew up outside of louisville kentucky. His father, colonel griffith, but for the confederate straight for the confederacy. His father was a restauranteur and died in griffith was only 10. Until then, he was full of stories that came from his father about the old south and the war and this romanticized antebellum life that is imbued with racism. We began this with a one hour q and a earlier on your book. For those who missed it, can you explain why president wilson viewed this film in the white house in the east room . The viewing happened on february 18, 100 years, four days from now, ago. That happened as a personal favor to thomas dixon. Both dixon and griffith were clever marketers. Dixon had gone to college with wilson and had remained in touch as wilsons career soared, first as president of princeton and then as a president ial candidate. They remained penthouse. Penpals. When griffith was repairing to release the film preparing to release the film in early 1915, he reached out to wilson and said, can we screen this film for you . It became the first ever screening of the movie in the white house in 1915. You bookend that with last month president obama screening selma in the white house. It is a fascinating juxtaposition in my mind. Dick lehr is joining us from washington and hari jones in washington. We welcome our listeners on cspan radio heard coasttocoast. Our phone lines are open. Lets go to leroy joining us from the bronx in new york. Good afternoon. How are you doing . My question was, what was president wilsons reaction to the movie . Dick lehr, can you answer that . He was delighted by it. He thought it was terrific. As hari mentioned, much of wilsons own work of history was reflected in the film, so that played to wilsons ego. It shines a light in the story i am telling in the book with the white house and other events involving wilson, it shined 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 that goes to griffiths cleverness and marketing skill is that the screening in the white house was supposed to be off the record. That means it was not public. Reporters were not there. Anyone that was there was family and friends of wilsons. They were not supposed to speak about it. Those were rules griffith immediately ignored. He did two things. Before the night was out, he sent a telegram to his favorite film critic, grace kingsley, at the times. That was one thing griffith put out. The other thing he did was, you asked about wilsons reaction. A line has been credited to him that he was enthralled by the film and came up with this great line about it, history written enlightening. There has been a lot of debate about whether he said that. He denied ever saying it when the screening and protests developed and it became a political hot potato for him. That is where griffith comes in. In addition to sending this telegram to grace kingsley at the l. A. Times, he later told a reporter im going to quote this from my book because it is wonderful stuff. He did not mention wilson by name, but he told a reporter the white house screening was a huge success. I was gratified when a man we all revere or ought to set it teaches history by lightning. He was pushing this line that wilson, i believe did say at the screening. Our next color is joining us from philadelphia. Good afternoon. Welcome to American History tv. Please go ahead. I would like to know how he can remain calm and collected knowing this film never should have been shown on t. V. How can he remain calm . We will go to hari jones first. I would say the most 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. This is the way people were perceiving African Americans and arguing for the clue clucks clan being the savior of the south. This was an argument being made. It was an argument made in wilsons history of the american people. I would say i stay calm in the sense that i know i have to understand this perspective and that we need to address this perspective. To be informed, i must stay calm and use my wits. We are showing the film in part because it is the 100th anniversary, because of dick lehrs book. As with all of our programming we want you to watch the event in its entirety and draw your own conclusions. Also a chance to weigh in. And share your thoughts. We are going to dan 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, plus or minus . Thank you very much. Hari jones, we begin with you. As long as we believe there are white and black people, the and not the human race 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 blackwhite paradigm dominates us. As long as we are defined by the color on our skin and not the content of our character we will have this problem. How long has this film been in the Public Domain . It came out in 1915. In terms of people who want to access it on the web . We are in the internet age, digital age. You can watch all or 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 that some whacked out filmmaker. Filmmaker produced. It was americas first blockbuster film. It was a reflection of the racism of the time. The 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 in serious scientific journals were publishing studies by alleged scientists and researchers showing the size of black brains, black mens brains were smaller than white mens brains. They were debunked and it was a debate. 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 in the way griffith did. I think 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 protests 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 all the chaos and 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 saying 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. You are next. Good morning, everyone. Just to build off the point that mr. Lehr made with regard to the scientists of the time saying that scientifically blacks were less intelligent. Those 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 nazi germany and say it is a great piece of art. We look at it as something that was terrible for the time and therefore we dont air it on cspan or have longwinded discussions about how good the great the cinematography was. This was a propaganda film for the ku klux klan. It did a lot to damage Race Relations in america. 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 and have the government overlook it because the president at the time said this was a great piece of cinematic art and history. 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. Really look at it and say this was a propaganda piece to further disenfranchise a group of people that were already enslaved in this country. We need to look at it for what it is. We need to stop romanticizing. Thank you for the call. We have a chance for the guests to respond. Appreciate it. Hari jones. The film is a blockbuster film. It is certainly propaganda. But a lot of the history that is written, as they have pointed out with dunnings School Wilson at princeton, dunning at columbia, the kind of history they are producing his is 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 and wilson is because they actually endorsed wilson in the 1912 election, even though his book had been published. They still endorsed him. This film was a real embarrassment to them as well, especially trotter. It is an embarrassment. They had gone out on a limb and say wilson is our guy. And said wilson is our guy. We supported him in the 1912 election. Here he is clearly a racist. , we will go to ann in dallas, texas. Thank you so much for putting me on. 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. I was very offended and 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, what 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 of our guests a chance to respond. If you can question dw d. W. Griffith today, what would you ask him . What is your fear for the success of africanamericans . What is your greatest fear . And their financial success. Thank you very much from dallas, texas. We will go to declare for a response. We will go to declare dick lehr for a response. That question, the last one asked, what he might fear, was at the beginning of reconstruction. In the state house of South Carolina that 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. I think it captures what he probably feared. He thought of blacks as being unworthy of the right to vote, of freedom. Look what happens. Their shoes are off. They are swigging whiskey chewing on chicken legs. , one of the first orders of business is to pass a law so they can legally marry a white woman. That is where my mind goes on that. I will give you a chance to respond in a minute. I will go to glenn who has been waiting from stonington, connecticut. Thank you. Interesting conversation. Picking up on the conversation just there, it was amazing to watch. You could tick off all the racist tropes as the movie went on. The reversion of history, the jim crow law, the violence of jim crow seems to be the violence of reconstruction, a complete inversion. Going tear last i would say the point, great fear is what we saw constantly through the movie the ultimate fear, the fear of white women being available to black men. You just saw it again and again and again. If you could comment on that gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. We will go to hari jones. 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 the day. There is this fear of africanamericans being assertive. Wilson even says in his book that the klan was justified in attacking northern teachers because they were teaching the negro to be assertive. He is arguing it is justified to attack an innocent teacher who is simply educating someone. The consequence of that education is that person is more assertive towards whites. 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 of the union . Do you really care about this nation . If you do, what will you do now to heal the wounds . Hari jones is the curator of African American them the African American civil war memorial Freedom Foundation and museum here and he has frequently been seen on the History Channel and p. B. S. 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 what is in the film, but also what is being taught, because the film is not far off from what is being taught in the classroom. We can still examine the residual effects of it in todays 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 anything like before. To pick up the threat of an earlier question, why we play this and talk about it is as a moment in film history, as 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. This is the the front end of the media revolution called 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 where i first saw it in college. It is not going to go away. I think it is really important. I think it has gotten better over the years that people pay more historical attention to the fact it was propaganda, that the content is so troubling, and to understand 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 said the worst thing about this movie is how good it is. It started legendary actress willing guest lillian cash gish, 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 there prior to his taking office . Lets stay on that point. We will go to dick lehr. We also heard from hari jones. When you call him a racist . When you call him a racist . Would you call him a racist . I believe he is a racist. Hari is right. He and others in the 1912 residential race decided wilson was their candidate, the lesser of a bunch of evils. In some ways, he was naive. Wilson was blathering about his goal was to be fair to all americans. Trotter and other civil rights leaders put too much stock in that because wilson was racist. When he became 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 meditation of slaves, suddenly the federal government in an accelerated way 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 encounter to meet with the president in 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 if they ever returned again they would have to find themselves a new spokesman. Wilson later regretted the way he lost his own cool because it fueled the fire of the protest. Of the protesters. 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. Good afternoon. 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 real black people. I have special contempt for any black person who would do that. I was surprised by the positive way they showed lincoln at the end of part one, they blamed the union for starting, for attacking sovereign states. But lincoln was described as having a big heart. That surprised me. I am from boston. Could you talk more specifically about the rally in boston . Thank you. We will turn to dick lehr joining us from boston. He also teaches at boston university. I will pick up the boston piece, if that is ok. History of lincoln is not in my wheelhouse, but the movie but i think the movie portrayed lincoln and his assassination 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, in Griffiths Point of view, 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 Boston Branch 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 tremont theatre that was located at the corner of Boston Common where trotter got arrested, along with a handful of other protesters and demonstrators. There are jawdropping 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 employee in play 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. We have been showing 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 understand they were also selling tickets. Wilson wrote letters 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 and reconstruction in the south 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 had a crisis 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. The naacp rises in the steam under the leadership of james weldon johnson. Lets go to jim 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. You had this film pseudoscientific studies on the size of africanamerican brains, studies into juju next eugenics, all of this fed 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. Griffith himself considered this to be accurate. In his own mind. There was a huge disconnect. He did not get it. He did not consider himself to be hurtful here and harmful to black america. And yet, one of the things that has always puzzled me is very it is the less here he is being confronted in several different venues by men like Monroe Trotter or dubois. Why isnt his brain going, wait, 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. John is on the phone from from lansing, michigan. Good afternoon. Hi. My question relates to the legacy of reconstruction. Like many americans, we are justifiably proud of the reunification of the nation and abolition of slavery. Part of the 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. You had the disenfranchisement of a number of citizens in the south. A lot of negative things were done. How do we approach that time period that is intellectually honest, is the general question i have . Hari jones is the curator of a foundation that focuses on this. What is your response . You want to tell the story accurately and use primary sources. 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 they do not like 65, 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 to have a contract or 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. And legislation for enforcement. In 1871, which this film deals with a great deal, it is when you get your antiku klux klan act. If you read wilson, he makes you believe grant was reluctant. He reluctantly comes aboard. If you read the congressional globe, it was grant that requested Congress Stay in session on march 23, 1871, so they could pass the legislation. He said the outrageous in the south demanded it. It demanded we protect the citizens. You get this legislation written by benjamin butler. That really is the anger that you see in wilsons writing. This antiklan legislation. Enforcement acts of the amendments. It is telling that story, it tends not to get told. The mulatto lieutenant governor. There is not one of South Carolina. However, there is one in louisiana at that time. Pinchback is a leader in the loyal league. Most of the problems, according to southern congressman, is because they are responding to this organization that during the civil war 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 tend to leave out the intelligent africanamericans. What was congressman rainey saying on the floor of the house arguing for this legislation . What was congressman eliot saying . We tend to 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. You still see the effects of this. With the civil war, you will see movies like glory that is not accurate. 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 American voices, butler, who thought highly of African Americans but he is rarely read. His troops are highly successful during the civil war. The army that is first into richmond. That is butlers army. These are colored troops. Butler would say that they broke the iron chains with the bayonet. They proved their manhood 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 . That is why i included invited both of you today. Please continue. I would second that in terms of the call for primary resource work. I embrace that. A quick example is, in the book, i spend a couple chapters developing the story of trotters father and griffiths father, who fought on opposite sides of the civil war. Talk about primary resources, i came across a noah trudeaux, who assembled a great collection of what he called voices from the 55th, one of the allblack regiments from boston. I dont know how he did it or where he found the letters, but in there were a dozen letters from trotters father james who fought in the 55th regiment from boston during the civil war. To read those letters, you are there. He brings you there. He brings you close, on the ground, in the field, and gives you a strong sense of the value of black soldiers, their courage, bravery. The father was at the forefront of protesting against unequal pay. Also the fact they could not serve as officers. There it is. It is all in his voice and it is all in the primary resource material. Our next call is from the boston area. Bill is next. Good afternoon. Hi. How are you . If you watch the birth of a nation dispassionately, the answer to the race problem then and now is a sexual problem. All i ask one to do is to watch it and then immediately watch millbrooksmel brooks blazing saddles. He is a director and uses humor, but it is obvious the blackwhite issue is sexual and i think it is inescapable. Another thing, if you look at Norman Rockwells the problem we all live with, ruby being escorted to class, if you look at it and closely examine it, its just the opposite of what you think it is. It is a very highly sexualized illustration. Hari jones, you are shaking your head. Dr. John rock, who was a dentist, lawyer, schoolteacher and the first African American to be admitted to the bar by the Supreme Court gives a speech that said the emancipated black man will marry our daughters. That is their concern. He goes on to say, they have some reason because if the daughters are like the fathers there is a tendency to prefer those of my hue. He is saying there is even a discussion over the sexual issue, whether africanamerican men would want europeanamerican women. That is an ongoing theme. I think we do certainly see it in the movie. From california, sandy is next. Welcome to ahtv. I just saw the birth of a nation for the first time in my life. I am a 54yearold woman. I am just curious. When i came away from this is without black slave labor, the south never would have been developed to the way it was and the way it did. So, i think maybe they should show this movie in high school. I would have loved to have seen this in high school when my mind was being developed. But come from that side of history that, yeah, forced slave labor helped build half this country. Let me take her point and also share with you from our Facebook Page a lot of comments. Including this from edward perkins. He calls this the moral arc of the universe. To sandys point, and edward perkins, dick lehr . In terms of the juxtaposition, yeah. A couple of the callers earlier talked about the point that we have not made progress, when will we make progress . I cant break it down. You like certainly, we have made i feel like certainly, we have made progress. But in the study of history, i think what is so disturbing is that the stereotypes, the images of black americans as lawless, as violent, as dangerous to american values, griffiths view of blacks and those stereotypes rooted in his film, they are still echoing through the Public Discourse and the often emotional debate and aftermath and discussions following ferguson or eric garner in new york. You hear people once in a while jump into talk radio. They use those same kinds of stereotypes. That is deeply disturbing. Sometimes i wonder if one of the benefits of a film like this seeing it in its stark racism and crudity, is, wow. Maybe someone talking that way today might realize what really, they are doing and saying in terms of race and Race Relations and attitudes about people not like themselves. If they see it back in a different time, in a different place. It is so in your face and stark and outrageous. Stephen from roanoke, virginia. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I wanted to bring up that several people have called and said this film should be burned or bandned as racist propaganda. I feel the film is a brilliant film despite its virulent racism. The question i want to ask is showed those people should be given the right to censor or destroy the film outright or other films they disagree with like the great soviet filmmakers of the 1920s. They were all real bolsheviks. Should we ban those films, too . I dont think we should ban films. I dont think we should be afraid of the discourse. This is a part of the american landscape. We must be able to discuss it. When artists do what we dont like, we must laud them to be the rush allowed those artists to be free to do what we dont like. This propaganda i do not like. However i would not support , censoring artists because they do something i dont like. We say, well, the magnitude of it. Lets put it in its proper perspective so we do not wind up accepting this as truth. Let us not start censoring art. Dick lehr, did any of the actors or actresses who were part of this film regret it later in their lives . They did. If i can jump in on that comment, i think this caller and hari are developing a really important, dramatic theme in this story from 1915, which was censorship and banning. I totally agree with hari. Some of the fascinating complexity of this drama is that the civil rights leadership, trotter, dubois, the naacp their goal, practical solution was to get this film censored. Going into the story, when i was researching it to write this book, i found that deeply troubling. Trotter is a newspaperman. He is the editor of a black weekly newspaper. You would think he would be waving the First Amendment banner. About free speech and freedom of the press. That is another thing that requires going back in time, developing context, and how, learning that dubois and trotter were both uncomfortable. Now were talking about Civil Liberties. Art, expression, and limiting or restricting it, banishing it outright. They were uncomfortable with that. To really drill down, why do they do it . First of all, for a couple of reasons that are fascinating the First Amendment was not anywhere nearly as robust as we take it for granted today. Secondly, this is the front end of this new medium. The Supreme Court of the United States the month before the film opened in boston had ruled unanimously in a case out of ohio that film did not come under the First Amendment protection at all. It did not warrant any kind of constitutional protection. It was viewed as a business, pure and simple, subject to government regulation. This is the mindset of the time. But even as you engaged in the free speech argument, i think one of the things trotter and dubois were advocating or pushing, and they did not use this term because it was not in play at the time, even if it is considered to be under the First Amendment, it is not without limits. This constitutes hate speech. At some point, you cross the line. Then something can become subject to regulation. They were appalled. Lynching was widespread at this time. It was a popular event. People attended it in town squares in the south. The protesters and the militants against this film saw the propaganda in the film as an incitement to violence. In terms of the First Amendment argument they were saying at a , certain point, that has to be regulated. It becomes another fascinating dimension to the Civil Rights Movement, to this whole Civil Liberties question. Lets go to woodbury virginia. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Glad you have me on. I have a question and comment. I will do the comment first. I have a colleague who is jewish and i am an African American. His wife is a teacher. He told me one day, do you think it would be better for black and white people if we stop teaching slavery in our schools . I looked at him and went, well if that is the case, should we stop teaching about the holocaust as well . Shouldnt we all respect each others suffrages in history . My question is, were there any other president s after wilson sharing the same sentiment as wilson . Thank you. Hari jones. I dont know if they shared any of the sentiments about the film. I cant really comment on that. I cant, either. I did not mean to interrupt if he was going to continue. My story stops at the end of the 1915 protest of the movie. Then summarizes the rest of the protagonistslives griffith and , trotter. One of the callers asked if anyone, if any players expressed remorse. Interestingly, later in life griffith, it was the one and only time i came across, because he was always very defensive of his film, that he did experience some remorse. He told this interviewer that he had come to believe that perhaps this movie should not be shown to the young people as their minds are being shaped, as they are learning, and all that saying that black americans have gone through enough, enough harm has been done, and perhaps there are hurtful elements in this film. That was the only evidence of remorse that i ever saw from him, or secondguessing, in any way. In my mind, in todays ranking of films, i guess it would be the best he would be i guess he would be thinking it would be an r rating. We have about a minute left. Lets go to san mateo. I was curious. Is it evidenced wilson was racist by segregating the armed forces . Thanks for the call. Hari jones. Yes. Wilsons secretary of the navy , Josephus Daniels out of raleigh, north carolina, would kick africanamericans out of the active Naval Services immediately