Is the film technically innovative? Yes. But it's hard for me to watch people heap praise on the film and also try to excuse its content when the film itself led to a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and open racial discrimination that lasted until the 1970s. In the South, it was like lighting a powder keg. And in case there are any questions, Griffith was racist. Sorry to break it to you. So was President Woodrow Wilson. President Wilson helped legitimize the film's version of history by endorsing it. President Wilson himself was good friends with Thomas Dixon, the author of the novel. It was a product of the times, but that doesn't make it ok.

A disgusting yet fascinating look at white paranoia and negrophobia in America. From nostalgia for slavery and the old days of the "civilized" South and fears of miscegenation, to the myth of rape used to justify lynching in the post-slavery era and the violent intimidation of black voters, the film is as much an epic about racism in America as it is about the division of the North and South. Add to that models of feminine purity and vulnerability, and you essentially end up with this white male fantasy parading itself as historical drama. Hyvaa, if you really think that the primary reason that Griffith is accused of racism is using white actors in blackface, you have a lot to learn.
Technically, the film is of course highly accomplished--exceptional, in fact, especially for a film made in the 1910s. Nobody denies this. But I really don't think that it's an adequate reason not to be outraged by its many flaws.

It goes without saying, but blackface is the least of this movie's problems.