>movie is about the Civil War, the lingering post-war resentment over the conflict, the harmful actions that spring from resentment, and the evolut...

>movie is about the Civil War, the lingering post-war resentment over the conflict, the harmful actions that spring from resentment, and the evolution from North vs South to Black vs White, continuing the cycle of resentment and violence
>ends with the line "Dare we dream of a golden day when the bestial War shall rule no more. But instead--the gentle Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the city of Peace."

This is supposed to be the most offensive movie ever? To who, pro-war Satanists?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically one of my favorites movies, the cinematography here mogs almost everything that is produced nowadays.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      where can I watch this?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        it's the most seen film of all time and you can't find it?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          its only watchable on pay services

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/JRFReap.jpg

              >movie is about the Civil War, the lingering post-war resentment over the conflict, the harmful actions that spring from resentment, and the evolution from North vs South to Black vs White, continuing the cycle of resentment and violence
              >ends with the line "Dare we dream of a golden day when the bestial War shall rule no more. But instead--the gentle Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the city of Peace."

              This is supposed to be the most offensive movie ever? To who, pro-war Satanists?

              where can I watch this?

              >3 hour silent movie
              holy shit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Any decent version will come with a musical score. Most silent films aren't watched in actual silence, it just means the characters don't have recorded dialogue.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Silent movies acclimate very easily, on the simple fact that the acting is inherently more dramatic than talkies. With good direction, they can be riveting.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine not having the attention span to watch actual quality kinos

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A silent film just means you can choose your own soundtrack. I once watched 1922 Nosferatu with Type O Negative playing. It was a surprisingly well fitting score.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus fricking christ moron, this is one of the first films ever made and you can’t appreciate historical art.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                iirc the score had been quite revolutionary and the premier at a sold out and swanky Los Angeles theatre had a full orchestra. since there were roadshow showings across the country also,where the director cast and crew arrive to the city where the movies showing and basically do a promotional trade convention attached to the film, i suspect those also had an orchestra with them

                however, its unclear to me how that worked once the film got a wide-release: did every theatre have an orchestra to play along with the movie? of course not. so it must have had some sort of audio system

                >Although The Birth of a Nation is commonly regarded as a landmark for its dramatic and visual innovations, its use of music was arguably no less revolutionary.[42] Though film was still silent at the time, it was common practice to distribute musical cue sheets, or less commonly, full scores (usually for organ or piano accompaniment) along with each print of a film.[43]

                >For The Birth of a Nation, composer Joseph Carl Breil created a three-hour-long musical score that combined all three types of music in use at the time: adaptations of existing works by classical composers, new arrangements of well-known melodies, and original composed music.[42] Though it had been specifically composed for the film, Breil's score was not used for the Los Angeles première of the film at Clune's Auditorium; rather, a score compiled by Carli Elinor was performed in its stead, and this score was used exclusively in West Coast showings. Breil's score was not used until the film debuted in New York at the Liberty Theatre but it was the score featured in all showings save those on the West Coast.[44][45]

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I've got the Kino Lorber release that uses the original sheet music, and it's one of my favorite movie soundtracks. I watched it earlier today, and it always hooks me in.

                This is my favorite track. Feels so nostalgic:

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its nice

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There we go, I was trying to find something that included the music. It's such a good score.

                I'm also annoyed by the fact that the Kino Lorber release is based off of a 2011 restoration, whereas there's a newer 2016 4K scan of the film that looks a lot better, but that version has a poorer mono soundtrack, not the 5.1 orchestra score that Kino used. In the current political climate, I doubt we'll see a great definitive release of Birth of a Nation any time soon, if ever, even though everyone agrees that it may be the single most important film in film history. That's part of why I wish people would be more open minded and try to understand the movie before bashing it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Is the soundtrack on the Kino release properly mixed to 5.1? They usually just upmix the original stereo recordings with whatever they have at hand.
                For what it's worth, I checked it on Youtube and it doesn't have Ride of the Valkyries during the scene you posted, while the BFI/Photoplay 2015 restoration does. I'd recommend the latter solely on those grounds.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'd think so since it's a new recording for the release.
                >For what it's worth, I checked it on Youtube and it doesn't have Ride of the Valkyries during the scene you posted, while the BFI/Photoplay 2015 restoration does. I'd recommend the latter solely on those grounds.
                As much as I like Ride of the Valkyries, I'd rather listen to the original soundtrack than stock audio.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.mont-alto.com/recordings/BirthOfANationScore.html
                >Griffith worked with composer J.C. Breil to prepare a different score for the premiere in New York
                >including [...] most famously, Wagner’s “The Ride of the Valkyries.”
                It was part of the original score at one point in its ever changing history.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Still, it's not a unique composition, just a public domain piece. You might as well play any song you like at that point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >look at the description
                >"Disclaimer: I don't support racism"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >did every theatre have an orchestra to play along with the movie?
                Yes, minimum would be a pianist but even today only the smallest towns lack an orchestra.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It’s public domain, dude. Just go to YouTube and you’ll find thousands of uploads of it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I immediately found it for free on Internet Archive.
            https://archive.org/details/Popcornarchive-theBirthOfANation1915_hj8ip

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I bet they probably have it on Internet Archive.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >make thread to discuss a movie set in the past
        >everyone just talks about the past instead
        Should've expected it but still disappointing

        It's public domain, so you can find it on youtube or even Wikipedia

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >PrepHole spouts over and over that "film is a visual medium"
        >they'll avoid watching silent movies, which rely fundamentally on visuals alone
        It's not about your post, just the state of this board.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          meant for

          [...]
          [...]
          >3 hour silent movie
          holy shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's a genuinely good movie that's hampered by the fact thr it makes liberals seethe so people are afraid to watch it least they get labeled as a bigot

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This movie invented blockbuster cinema. Every time a marvel fan claps for a bucket of slop, they're really clapping for the KKK. Every time a hollywood israelite counts his gold, he's paying into the immortal legacy of David Wark Griffith.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >the South wuz gud boys
    >they din do nuffin

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but you are completely ignorant of US history, so there is no point trying to help you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >crying soiface
        >y-yer ignant!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Neither side are portrayed as "good boys." The movie depicts a back and forth of people attacking each other even after the war ended, and each action causing more hatred and division, more violence and injustice. The assassination of Lincoln for example is not shown for you to cheer the South. They make John Wilkes Booth look like a scheming butthole.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Booth actually succeeds
        >south hates him
        Typical crab bucket.
        It's where the Black folk learned to behave, after all.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Lincoln was going to deport the the slaves back to Africa, dumbass. Booth fricked it up for everyone

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That wasn't ever a certainty

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            He wanted to as an ideal but he realized quickly that, especially without their cooperation, it was practically impossible to do. They brought 375,000 or so slaves to the US over the course of a bit more than a century. They ended up with 4 million by the time slavery ended.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              why are you denying the holocaust

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The holocaust was transporting israelites a few hundred miles by train on the same land mass with the purpose of killing them, and mostly without them knowing until it was too late. For the Black folks it would've been taking them on boats across the Atlantic ocean into west Africa with them being alive as a goal, not just on the ride there but when they arrive there as well.
                Lincoln's second idea was to have the US buy land in Central America, which is closer and easier to transport and assist them if they need help. Ultimately the black community didn't want to make their own country though and after already going through the Civil War and setting them free, nobody wanted even more conflict and bloodshed over the issue so they just stayed as second-class citizens for the next 100 years.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the black community didn't want to make their own country though
                Isn't that literally Liberia though, just not on a scale to where it actually made much of a dent in American racial statistics

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Liberia was founded before the Civil War, but it didn't catch on with many blacks, especially post-war

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao, were you homeschooled by your sister/mother perchance?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              I went to public school in New York

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Booth was cowardly piece of shit. If anyone was pulling crabs, it was him. The war was over.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Booth doing that harmed the south far more than it helped.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Because Booth assassinating Lincoln paved the way for Carpetbaggers and hampered Reconatruction since Republicans wanted to get even

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >John Wilkes Booth
        Early Mk ultra victim

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The North were literally imperialists by forcing the South to stay. "United we stand" how are you united if that's done so by gunpoint? By no moral standards could we ever call the Civil War moral.

      "But they ended slavery!"
      1, slavery was already on the way out in the South and the civil war just accelerated it by a mere 5-10 years, and 2 the North wasn't even interested in doing that in the start of the war. They even offered the South permanent slavery enshrined in the constitution in order to keep them from leaving, which the South turned down. They decided to adopt the anti-slavery stance late into the war just as a way to keep euros from involving themselves and afterwards to whitewash their own actions and to permanently stain any secession attempts in the future.

      The Civil War propaganda is just pure psy-op stuff.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Confederates: We started this war because we want to keep slavery
        Some homosexual 200 years later: they dindu nuffin

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't dispute anything I said. Also unrelated but this is such a fricking moronic argument that people act as if it's some achilles heel. What, you gonna say we went into the Middle East to find WMDs because "well that's what was said one time so that's that."

          >imperialism is bad now
          >the south wanted to get rid of slavery
          Southern education.
          If they wanted to leave, they could leave.
          But you dont get to take the land with you.
          Or you can, if you can fight for it.
          They couldnt.
          They didnt last a presidential term.
          [...]
          >Dey tooker slerves!

          >imperialism is bad now
          Imperialism is bad when the Imperialists are worse than the original culture, yes. Try and keep up.
          >the south wanted to get rid of slavery
          It was recognized as an institution that couldn't last forever, yes.

          >But you dont get to take the land with you.
          I hope in a few years the government seizes any property and land you own.

          >They didnt last a presidential term.
          Reminder that the Union captured Jefferson Davis early in the war, and could've easily brought him to court, but never did because they knew he would successfully argue that secession was completely legal. Even they knew back then they were in the wrong.

          This isn't Europe. You aren't a real culture, and you're not leaving with a third of the country. The fate of america and thus the world was at stake.

          >This isn't Europe. You aren't a real culture
          Reminder that the US South was always seen as the only region in the US with any culture close to a European country, part of the reason the North desperately wanted to burn it down. And even after doing so, they STILL don't have close to the culture the South does.

          >The fate of america and thus the world was at stake.
          Yeah, looking around it's really clear how much we all benefited from that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Reminder that the US South was always seen as the only region in the US with any culture close to a European country, part of the reason the North desperately wanted to burn it down. And even after doing so, they STILL don't have close to the culture the South does.
            this is America, not Europe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >muh culture
            Should have stayed in Britain.
            This is Murrica.
            >muh phasing out
            >muh land
            You dont own any land, you rent it.
            >could've easily brought him to court, but never did
            Yeah, the North should have kept burning. No disagreement there.
            >muh legal
            Laws are based on the guns.
            North made it illegal.
            Their land.
            Their nation.
            Their decision as to what is right.
            Seethe more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Davis was captured days before Appomattox. I'm going to assume everything else you are saying is equally as false. Idiot

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Reminder that the US South was always seen as the only region in the US with any culture close to a European country,
            Was it? This is a genuine question, I don't know american history, but I've always thought all the cultural stuff was happening in New England.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              New England was like an extension of England. The South is where the US developed its own flavor, although it was a combination of English, French, Spanish, Irish, and Scottish, developing in the environment of the western frontier

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The North is more industrial and cold whereas the South is warmer and more agrarian. The South has a richer oral culture and that extends to things like music as well. New Orleans is the closest thing America has to continental Europe but that's more because they were originally French rather than originally Southern.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Northeast had a strong culture, but it eventually entirely disappeared. I don't know why, but it DEFINITELY had nothing to do with all the Irish, Italian, Portugeese, French Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian, Cambodian, Ugandan, Indian, Nigerian, Dominican, Ecuadorian, Vietnamese, Puerto Rican, Filipina, El Salvadorian, and Chinese immigrants. When you point to music, you probably don't know about that the North had similar music to the South in the pre-globohomosexual era. You can look up New England fiddle, hornpipe, and contra music and you'll hear the similarity.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              No. Saying the South had Euro culture is like American blacks trying to say they wuz kangs.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The South was a region known for not having any taverns or inns Antebellum because you could just walk up to any plantation, say you needed a place to stay, and be given one. It was also filled with colleges and universities which contributed to the culture of "culture" so to speak. It also was always more religious, even back then they complained about the godless yanks.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The Black is definitely not equal to the white man in any way form or sense, they've had centuries to prove that and look at where we are still.
          Slavery however is not normal nor acceptable. They should never have been made slaves and Americans should have picked their own fricking cotton instead of being such fat lazy morons who fricked up the entire world just because they couldn't control their urges to inflict misery on others.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Genuinely curious, what were confederate soldiers fighting and dying for? 99% didn't have slaves themselves, so why were they fighting?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They fought for their home states. Believe it or not, back then there wasn't much of a unified American identity. People were loyal to the state they're from.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Their home was literally being invaded by another country. Of course they would defend themselves from foreign (yankee) agression

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Lincoln's postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, observed it like this,

            >It is not merely a question of constitutional law, or Slavery, with which we have to deal, in "securing permanent peace." The problem before us is, the radical one of dealing with the relations of masses of two different races in the same community. The calamities now upon us have been brought about, as I have already said, not by the grievances of the class claiming property in slaves, but by the jealousy of caste, awakened by the Secessionists in the non-slaveholders.
            >In considering the means of securing the peace of the country hereafter, it is, therefore, this jealousy of race which is chiefly to be considered. Emancipation alone would not remove it. It was by proclaiming to the laboring whites, who fill the armies of rebellion, that the election of Mr. LINCOLN involved emancipation, equality of the Black folks with them, and consequently amalgamation, that their jealousy was stimulated to the fighting point. Nor is this jealousy the fruit of mere ignorance and bad passion, as some suppose, or confined to the white people of the South. On the contrary, it belongs to all races, and, like all popular instincts, proceeds from the highest wisdom, It is, in fact, the instinct of self-preservation which revolts at hybridism.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Confederate Conscription Acts of 1862–1864

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Here's a better question, what were the Union soldiers fighting and dying for? They didn't care about black people that much, and they hated Southerners, so Southerners fricking off and no longer interfering with politics should've been welcomed, and was for many.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Being sent to prison for dodging conscription was worse. If you were rich enough you could pass your conscription to someone else. No one wanted to fight, same tale as always.
            Thats the only rrason Im not thrilled about tearing down confederate statues. The boys in grey who had no choice should still be remembered in some way.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >because we want to keep slavery
          This is the most small brained take in all of human existence.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          How many Confederate soldiers owned slaves? How many Union soldiers even cared about black people let alone thought they were equals?

          The idea that the Civil War was a great quest to free black people is a heroic myth made up by the victors. It was more about centralizing power and authority within the executive government (e.g. the presidency was supposed to be a glorified secretarial position).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >imperialism is bad now
        >the south wanted to get rid of slavery
        Southern education.
        If they wanted to leave, they could leave.
        But you dont get to take the land with you.
        Or you can, if you can fight for it.
        They couldnt.
        They didnt last a presidential term.

        Lincoln was going to deport the the slaves back to Africa, dumbass. Booth fricked it up for everyone

        >Dey tooker slerves!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This isn't Europe. You aren't a real culture, and you're not leaving with a third of the country. The fate of america and thus the world was at stake.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit imagine being this fricking moronic
        > slavery was on the way out!!!!
        Yes that's why the South was rabid about enforcing the Missouri Compromise
        > united by gunpoint!!!! NOT FAIR!!!
        The Supreme Court, dominated by Southerns you know, had declared it unconstitutional. If they wanted to change it, they could have ousted for a constitutional convention. They never did.
        > Lincoln didn't want to end slavery
        Yes, he was 100% willing to shelve the slavery issue to avoid the most deadly war in American history.
        > anti slavery to keep euros from getting involved
        Is this a Joke? Literally the only European Power that even supported the Union, during the entire war, was fricking Russia. No other Euros gave a shit about slavery, all the South wanted was the Brits to break the blockage, which wasn't going to happen because England just switched to Egypt and India for cotton (and cotton was all the dirty South had to offer anyone because moronic Le Cash Crop Southerns
        > Civil War history is a psy- op
        Yeah, by the South. History books are getting so fricking skewed, because they MUST sell books in Texas, so the point where Longstreet takes all the blame for Gettysburg and Lee gots off Scott free (which any civil war historian will tell you is a fricking joke).
        > TLDR
        Fricking idiot homosexual. Suck start a shotgun

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The Supreme Court, dominated by Southerns you know, had declared it unconstitutional
          What court case?

      • 1 year ago
        Awanama

        >All no source
        I'll take “Things That Never Happened” for $1,000, Alex

        https://i.imgur.com/zZCubkT.png

        Confederates: We started this war because we want to keep slavery
        Some homosexual 200 years later: they dindu nuffin

        >Confederates: We started this war because we want to keep slavery
        >Some homosexual 200 years later: they dindu nuffin
        Yep, Conservatives being historical revolusionist again

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >To who, pro-war Satanists?
    the same people who spend $100 billion on ukraine after blowing $1.5 trillion in afghanistan

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Wait, so did the union fight to keep the southern tax base, or to free the slaves? And which of those is supposed to be "based" enough to send hundreds of thousands to their death?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      remember what we did to the indians? it was like that.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >we

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          me personally

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why didn't you finish the job.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              that would be inhumane

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They fought to keep the other half of the continent's land, just as they fought to obtain it in the first place. It's too much on the line to let go of.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So just to keep the taxes of a region that today is a money sink? So a fed could buy one more boat?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Oklahoma was going to be a Native American ethnostate with full recognition within the Confederacy
    wtf why does no one talk about this? how would it have turned out, I've never met a native american before

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      governments say that about every remote territory before minerals are found there

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Same way it turned out without the confederacy.
        >lol jk, ours now

        It was different from how the US did/does treat them, instead of some nebulous vague description of land it was literally a state with all the protections and recognitions. Like if Ohio today was an ethnostate.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >doesnt this sound nice
          >please help us
          >we promise we wont do anything after

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Same way it turned out without the confederacy.
      >lol jk, ours now

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If we didn't frick it up then, we would've fricked it some other way. People love telling themselves "it would've been different if only". But it was always going to be this way.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Griffith did nothing wrong

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He really didn't. He tried to make a centrist movie about not letting hatred consume and divide you and then ironically got attacked by the NAACP, a racial self-interest group.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >le centrism
        "This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."

        You are either being disingenuous or just falling for the oldest propaganda trick

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think you even understood what I said

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The north was even more evil than the south. The south had slavery, which was a greater evil but thats only one of the many facets of the conflict. It was a brother war where the abusive older brother defied family morals just to help his younger brother quit his sick addiction

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            it's UNITED states. The war was to avoid changing the name

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              More like UNITED at gun point of the yankee oppressors. What if you tried to divorce your husband and he threatened you with gun when you tried to divorce him? Would that be a real marriage? Of course not, that would be evil.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So the south was a woman, or a homosexual?
                And there would be no problem, right up until the b***h tried to take the house.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the second amendment says you can carry guns. the north just decided as a group to carry guns southwards. You should have welcomed them

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >it's different when we do it!
          Clockwork, some things never change, etc.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes that war was about slavery. Only people saying otherwise are chuds and morons.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I really like the scene where he rams the flag down the cannon barrel

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >pro-war Satanists
    Cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Every single one of them Republicans.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, BotN is about an oppressed group of people who violently rebel against a Republican government. Strange how so many leftists hate it today

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      'hol up
      wuz those real black actors n shiet?
      I thought they wuz all black face crackkkas

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This would be more racist to me except you could change the clothes and apply it to today or any time period.
      Not that all blacks are like that, but having lived around them, that scene is not at all hard to imagine.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        in real life that would in in a mass brawl with shootings and stabbings so that scene was already kind of woke

        The point the movie is trying to make, which is lost on people who are actively seeking to be offended, is that people whose only experience with the law is being oppressed by it don't take it seriously as a force for egalitarianism. They're going to use it for oppression too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      in real life that would in in a mass brawl with shootings and stabbings so that scene was already kind of woke

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The American South as a region was a parochial and backwards entity full of Ulster Scots trash, a hotbed of British Loyalism and indentured to an outdated mode of production. The North was right in subjugating it both to secure the borders of it's national territory and to ensure the historical ascent of the United States as a country into the global epoch defining historical revolutionary force it would eventually emerge as.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://letterboxd.com/film/the-birth-of-a-nation/reviews/by/entry-rating-lowest/
    I love reading all the trannies seethe at this masterpiece

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Those kind of commends are in every somewhat political movies like death wish but this is glorious

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        allah poster has to be a PrepHoleer

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Even if the confederates had won, slavery was about to become economically obsolete anyway because of the cotton gin. Slavery was a stupid thing to fight over just to keep ultra-rich plantation owners ultra-rich for a few extra years at the expense of both slaves and the majority of the white population. The Civil War was stupid shit.

    That said, studying the war also makes it clear that the confederates were objectively the more skilled side in terms of war and tactics, and that the union only one by basically spamming hordes of Irish meat-shields as if they were a Call of Duty killstreak.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It was fought over state rights, not slavery

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >over state rights
        States rights to do what?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Irrelevant

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is it? Especially since no rights were being limited before they attempted to leave the union, and Lincoln not calling to limit any states rights.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              not him but a state theoretically had the right the to secede at any time for any reason. The power is derived from its citizens. Saying "your reason for secession is something we now deem immoral" is itself completely irrelevant. Mormons should've been allowed to practice polygamy, it was their territory they settled. Self determination shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. You can't had a secessionist civilization founded by slave owners and then tell their descendants down the road that those same seceding states can't secede again because "we all now think slavery is... le bad."

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If you want to get to it from the union perspective slavery was not the point, it was the point to the south. The North fought to preserve the union, stuff like the emancipation proclamation were political tools hence why they didn't effect states like Missouri which had not rebelled. The war was truly over whether the union was optional, and the side that said it isn't won.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Emancipation Proclamation never made sense to me when it was taught in school because the war wasn't fricking over so why the frick would it matter what one side says about territory it doesn't actually control yet.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Political weapon as I said. Big thing is that playing the card when they did was a big factor to why England didn't help the south. As soon as the South was portrayed as fighting on the side of preserving slavery and it was an explicit thing in law than no other power would help the south as Europe had largely banned slavery at this point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The North fought to preserve the union
                Why? Why fight to be stuck with people you hate and disagree with on many fundamental levels and have a culture completely different from your own?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If you let one domino fall than the entire union crumbles.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The union only existed because states willingly choose to join it. If the states are forced at gunpoint, its not freedom.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No one was forced to join it. But once you are in you are in, you can't just leave on a whim.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >on a whim
                It wasn't like everyone in the south just got up one morning and collectively said "frick it, we're leaving".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that is basically how it went. Lincoln won the election and then multiple states decided to just leave despite him explicitly saying he wasn't going to ban slavery.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The series of events leading up to that happening had been in the works for nearly 20 years. Lincoln's election was just the last straw.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't much change the fact the states left because their aristocracy larping elites got mad their lifestyle might be threatened.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That has frickall to do with the "leaving on a whim" shit said earlier.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The key point is you don't get to leave at all. If you the individual want to than you know where the door is, but you aren't allowed to take the unions land with you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The key point is you don't get to leave at all. If you the individual want to than you know where the door is, but you aren't allowed to take the unions land with you.
                This reeks of bootlicker mentality. "God I love the federal government govern me harder daddy you own it all"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah that's just how it is, since the guys who tried to leave lost to the federal government. I mean you are free to try I guess but I'd imagine it would end much of the same way.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Its not the unions land. Its the state’s land.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >him explicitly saying he wasn't going to ban slavery.
                kek that just means the South were experts at detecting bullshit
                you played yourself

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Where would be the lie though? He only manage to pull it off since they left and then mostly free states were left to pass the amendment, something that wouldn't have been doable had they not left. So it seems like the south played themselves.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He wouldn't have had the authority to do so. And ironically congress was able to pull it off once the south took themselves out of the vote.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How is this not an argument for letting the south leave?

                Hell imagine how happy everyone today would be if they had split back then, or even today

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's not talked about enough today, the fact that the impetus for the Civil War is still splitting American politics today. Race is is still the hot button issue in modern politics, with both political parties split along the lines of social justice vs. American nationalism.
                Everything that happens in Birth of a Nation, which is a 1915 depiction of an 1860s war, can still be found happening today.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                USA is a true superstate that's more resilient than empires of comparable size. The great fortress and future ark of western civilization. If that project were disrupted, the whole world could fall into chaos.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Give me your poor and hurried masses!
                >except those fricking Black folk AND MEXICANS REEE

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>Give me your poor and hurried masses!
                Written by a israeli poet in 1883, has nothing to do with the United States of America, which did specifically and with purpose exclude "Black folk and mexicans"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                that's not what happened

                So you're saying we'd have a world without a US hegemony? When are you going to say the downside?

                they would fight each other again and ally with rival europoor powers to create an intercontinental perpetual hyper war

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Emma Lazarus wasn't American.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So you're saying we'd have a world without a US hegemony? When are you going to say the downside?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >But once you are in you are in
                That sounds like a cult

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          to secede, obviously
          There were slaves in the North until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They were, in practical terms, permitted to form a government and secede. Once they became a foreign country they didn't have rights under the constitution.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The USA did not allow the CSA to secede, did not recognize their government, and considered the war a rebellion, not a war between states. So according to the USA, the citizens of the CSA retained their rights under Constitution.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Even if the confederates had won, slavery was about to become economically obsolete anyway because of the cotton gin
      Anon I think you got your timeline a bit mixed up here since the cotton gin had been around for over 50 years when the war started. In fact it is what made cotton farming viable as a cash crop.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The tractor was coming out at the same time too so either way the "WORK IN THE FULL MOON OR GET BROKEN BUCKS" system was on its way out

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The tractor was coming out at the same time
          That wouldn't come around for another 40 years.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The first half of the 1860s was a period of great experimentation but by the end of the decade the standard form of the traction engine had evolved and changed little over the next sixty years. It was widely adopted for agricultural use.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Much of the prewar officer corps went to the south. Maybe something established during the previous indian wars and mexican hostilities in the area. In a forgotten era of history, the gulf coast and southern border were lands of military adventure before the west.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The "frontier" of Davy Crockett and the Last of the Mohicans didn't even make it to the Mississippi.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's offensive because it is a masterpiece that took cinema to the next level but "unfortunately" that masterpiece just happened to contain a message that ~~*they*~~ don't like a bit...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >but "unfortunately" that masterpiece just happened to contain a message that ~~*they*~~ don't like a bit...
      I really think they would find it fine if they understood it themselves, but it's like anything involving black people turns into a hysterical mess when people try to talk about it. It's not an anti-black movie by any stretch, if anything it humanizes them more than the vast majority of films do. They're depicted as capable of both vengeance and compassion.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the scene where they ask the woman to make KKK uniforms makes me teary-eyed everytime

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Mae Marsh is an honest-to-God cutie pie. I need to check out her other movies.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        long lost womanhood and purity

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Please don't start a thread that belongs in /misc/ and try to disguise it as a serious discussion of a film.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Calm down, schlomo

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *