Birth of a Nation- Racist film or accurate depiction of times?

Rating: 10/10 (7 April 2005)

OK, here's my dilemma, and I put this question forth, to the masses. Was Griffith indeed promoting his supposedly racist views, or was he merely depicting that period of time as an accurate, historical epic film? While I did find some of the scenes disturbing, I had to keep in mind that Griffith was born in Kentucky during the Civil War. Every where around him were the sad results that racism and bigotry brought forth. But to say that he was a racist because of the simple fact that he came from a very racially divided region, is not only wrong, but rather ignorant. Yes, white actors did indeed play Negroes in black face. Yes, he did portray blacks as ignorant, dirty and violent people. But keep in mind that the audience of films at that time were what we would call "lower" middle-class white male citizens. The upper class looked at film as a vile, sinful form of "entertainment". Therefor, I believe that Griffith was only trying to make a film that he knew people would go to. If he mad a film depicting blacks in a lighter, more forgiving way, no one would have watched it and we wouldn't be discussing it today, nearly a century later.
P.S. Although I don't believe that he was a racist, can anyone give me ideas on why he used whites to portray blacks, and how the whites must have felt portraying a "inferior" race?