"Films like this should not be banned, they should be seen, debated and critically destroyed. But what solidifies its reputation as vile art is its cause of the eventual foundation of the 2nd generation of the KKK, the 1st generation organisation having already been dead many years before this film appeared in 1915."
What pathetic nonsense from a person who either can't read or chooses to ignore things that do not fit in with his prejudices. The second part of the film (about the rise of the KKK) opens with two titles, the second of which says.... (roughly) "This is an historical representation of the Civil War and Reconstruction Period and is not meant to reflect on any race or people today." Moreover, the films socio-historical analysis of the period was the academically accepted judgement of the time - hence the extended quotation of Woodrow Wilson's book on the subject.
This is not a suitable film for children, just as the films of David Lynch are not suitable for children, but it is unsuitable not because of its socio-political stance, but because it represents disturbing events.
The simple fact is that before 'The Birth of a Nation' the cinema was a novelty that barely aspired beyond the fairground, after Griffith's masterpiece, it was well on the way to becoming the greatest art form that our species has created. There is NO work in ANY art form, except, perhaps Homer's 'Iliad' that has so totally defined its aesthetics as does 'The Birth of a Nation'.
I leave the final word to Orson Welles who said "I have never really hated Hollywood except for its treatment of D. W. Griffith. No town, no industry, no profession, no art form owes so much to a single man."