But I think Moore's real point is simply that the Birth of the Nation does some of the same things as later superhero movies, with the KKK as the superheroes. They also happen to wear uniforms that are strikingly similar as it happens...
But it doesn't mean Siegel and Shuster were consciously -- or even unconsciously -- inspired by Birth of a Nation and the KKK. It might mean that there is a connection/commonalities in the reasons both forms were so popular.
Birth of a Nation was released in 1915. It was enormously popular, it was not some fringe thing, it was a mainstream popular success which generally did not have it's politics questioned in the mainstream, although there were protests by Black people. According to wikipedia, "It presented the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) as a heroic force." Heroic, eh?
Superman's first apperance was in 1938.
Every culture has heroes, and every culture tells tales of impossible heroics. It would be more accurate to call Achilles the first superhero, or Beowulf, or Gilgamesh. All of these characters are larger than life, and all of them are morally flawed.
American racists had racist, American heroes. That doesn't mean that Captain America is devoid of commentary about the nation's role in today's world. And if Moore had watched Civil War, for example, I think even he would be forced to agree.
He's saying that there are so many white heroes and the whole culture of the "super men" in comics, that they might as well have been the "Birth of a Nation".
Nothing kooky about it.
It is kooky, and ironic, to imply that people dream of racial genocide solely because of the color of their skin.
Super heroes are described as that superior set of people, more advanced than mere humans (stronger, smarter, genetically advanced in many cases, and more relevant to boot). Heck, even the name superhero/supermen etc alludes to Nietchtze's and the Nazis' Ubermench.
They are also predominantly white, with good looks and physique.
That's the very definition of a super race...
If you are trying to suggest that the movie Birth of the Nation glorifying the KKK, or the KKK itself, have nothing to do with white supremacy and racial genocide... then we're just done here.
To be fair, Moore didn't really flesh out the argument either. But I definitely find it enticing. if you don't, that's fine.
If you're someone whose faith commands that you not go near swine of any sort, a catalog with several pages of bacon-themed products might start to feel like it was written with someone else in mind...
While bacon-mania certainly has some corporate/big-farm backing, and at least a small amount of being a pushback (like some pro-steak sentiments) to being demonised by some for your choice of food preference, I find it more than a bit of a stretch to suggest there is any antireligion thing going on aside from those few for who everything is a chance to be anti-[insert-religion-or-other-thing-here] that they jump at enthusiastically.
- signed, the world's most passive aggressive dinner companion
> In fact, I think that a good argument can be made for D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation as the first American superhero movie, and the point of origin for all those capes and masks.
Super heroes capes and masks as inspired by KKK hoods? I don't think it was probably intentional/conscious in the minds of those who originated it, and I don't think Moore necessarily means it was either... but it's definitely an interesting cultural collective unconsciousness sort of lineage.