Having the Good Judgement to Accept a Racist Movie
While surfing the web, I came across the film The Birth of A Nation. Shot in 1919, although it was a racist interpretation of America’s history it’s noteworthy as the first film to cinematic techniques like pan shots and jump shots. Its technical achievement has landed it in the annals of cinematic history as a film of great importance. For this reason, in 1992 the Library of Congress deemed it important enough to be placed in the National Film Registry.
This got me thinking about the previous discussion that broke out a month or so about President Ahmadinejad. There I took up the position that Columbia showed a lack of good judgment by allowing him to speak. This got me thinking.
Would the Library of Congress have demonstrated good judgment in refusing to add The Birth of a Nation to the National Film Registry?
Provided that this film represents a major technical achievement for cinema then it seems the good judgment lands on the side of adding it even with its deplorable racial content. As I thought about this further I realized my justification for over looking the blatant racism was rooted in the fact that the film had other merits. This got me thinking about the merits of Columbian inviting president Ahmadinejad.
The obvious merit, and the one most likely espoused by those that supported allowing Ahmadinejad speak is that it presents an opportunity to hear what he has to say. This can only be compelling if Ahmadinejad was to be candid and honest. Otherwise it’s simply a repetition of his anti American rhetoric softened up for consideration of his audience. Such talk is without merit. In such a case good judgment is not letting him speak.
Had Ahmadinejad taken the opportunity to denounce the Mullahs, or advocate for democracy in his country, I would’ve gladly seen merit in letting him speak. It would be good judgment to let an authoritative figure from the Middle East denounce the elements we deplore, and that sullies his culture.
As it was, he failed to embrace the values that make our culture superior and took the opportunity to claim homosexuals do not exist in Iran. And some of you actually disputed the notion that it’s good judgment to not let him speak. Good Grief.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“compelling if Ahmadinejihad (sic) was to be candid and honest”
I suppose that it was your expectation that Columbia University exercise summary judgment in deciding that what Ahmadinejad would say would be dishonest, before he even said it?
November 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“advocate for democracy in his country” Since you have previously said that when you speak of democracy this is shorthand for ‘political system in which the rulers are elected’ (in response to my pointing out that many of the countries you referred to as ‘democracies’ were in fact republics), I am curious as to why this would be necessary.
“Ahmadinejad became the 6th President of Iran on August 6, 2005, after winning 62% of the vote” - Wikipedia
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:07 am
Steve- since this movie is part of American culture and contains tons of racism and oppression, is American culture bad? (or, to close an obvious mode of retreat, was American culture from teh time this movie was popular bad?)
November 6th, 2007 at 2:15 am
On the whole, America during this time period was not bad. Let the flaming begin.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:45 am
You seem to be begging someone to say this, so you must have an interesting response ready.
So you’re ok with cultures that lynch black people but chastise us for being ambivalent in regard to cultures that stone homosexuals to death?