OK.

A Birth of a Nation is a fictionalized account of history that PRESENTS itself as factual or at best a subjective historical account. The films various overt racist imagery (watermelon eating sambos loving slavery, to lazy black politicians drinking) is coupled with slides claiming historical accuracy. Comparing the two films simply illustrates the idiocy of your argument.

300 is a fictionalized film making no attempt to accurately represent history, but present a stylized hack-em flick/graphic novel. The use of darkness, of deformity, mysticism and general depravity is a simple literary/film tool to provide contrast between the obvious good and evil forces of the film. What of the presentation the Priests at Delphi as deformed, depraved perverts. I'm sure Greece's real oracles would be very happy with their presentation, not even mentioning the fact that historical, the Priests at Delphi supported Leonidas.

Obviously, the film is making no overt effort to prove the unworthy qualities of another race, a clear narrative in A BOAN.

You're really just picking hairs, looking way too deep into the film and digging deep for something that's not really there. You can find something, you just have to look so hard you really want to find it.

As for the Spartans. You all are really trying to say the film's racist b/c they didn't hire dozens of native Greeks? Are Rome and Gladiator racist b/c they employ English, Scottish and Australian actors, rather than Italian? So you're also angry that acting is a profession, as all gangster roles should be played by actual gangsters, all poor played by poor, etc....?

Seriously.