Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
Answer:
by explaining how civil rights activists used images in television, magazines and newspapers to bring attention to their work
by explaining how civil rights activists used images in television, magazines and newspapers to bring attention to their work
Explanation:
Answer:
- house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi
- seizure of East Timor
Explanation:
Myanmar and Indonesia have both been ruled by military regimes for quite a while now. In Myanmar the military regime did not allowed the elected president of the country Aung San Suu Kyi to be in office, but instead they occupied the government offices and continued to rule, while their political opponent was sent in home prison for over a decade. Indonesia on the other hand has had an expansionist politics, and it is weird how the international community hasn't reacted to it, especially because the country managed to break every single human right. One of the invaded territories is Timor, occupying half of the island, the western one, persecuting people, murdering on ethnic and religious base, exploiting the resources.
Answer:
the rise and dominance of the Republican party
