Interestingly, I tried to upload this post but experienced an error in the process of visibility. Nonetheless, ever since I was a child, I had an interest for horror films. Preferably, I enjoy ghost stories where the suspense grabs your attention, but I do not discriminate against horror films in the vein of Saw.

However, after a few years of research, I now believe that horror directors, screenplay writers and producers are a bunch of racist bigots.

Strangely enough, my non-Black friends are unaware of the institutional racism permeating throughout this genre. It seems unless you are Black, the discriminatory element is something you can gloss over as simply a plot-related element.

My friends and I would often joke about it because this discrimination seems to be an ongoing joke within Black circles.

I like to call it The Black Actor Must Die Because They Are Easily Disposable Trope.

I have viewed hundreds of films since my childhood, but I was unaware of the blatant bigotry. After all, I did not have the wherewithal to decipher the hidden, and of course bigoted agenda. Well, that was until high school.

I decided to catalog a list of horror films, in order to see if they are able to pass the Blackdel Test.

In the event you are not aware of the Blackdel Test, it is a test named after the famous African screenplay writer, Altonfuku Blackdel.

It addresses horror films that feature a Black actor or actress, and whether they are able to survive the entire film without dying. He also adds that if the actor or actress must perish, at the very least, they should not be the first victim of the film’s antagonist.

I believe when he created the test, he was kidding around. Over time though, he became aware of the racial undertones.

In fact, over 90 percent of horror films fail the test.

According to the test, even in the off chance that the film does pass, the Black character is usually embedded with stereotypes. It seems even if the film does pass the test, it still promotes a racial bias.

In my opinion, when you support films that fail the test, you are in essence supporting racism.

After all, if you do not reject these films, then you are a bigot. There is no in between. It is like being a parent. Either you have a child, or you do not have a child. What else is there?

Some may consider this trope as unintentional, but that is not the case. Due to its intentional angle, I want to address the trope through conversation and its harm against the Black population.

What is a trope?

A trope is any literary or rhetorical device, as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony, which consists in the use of words in other than their literal sense.

In short, it is a plot device used in forms of media such as video games, movies, television shows, etc.

A trope can be entertaining within a film, but it becomes problematic when it becomes obvious and overused. It is due to this continued and intentional usage, which helps to fuel offensive stereotypes about Black lives.

One of the most prevalent examples of this trope occurs whenever the Black actor in question, dies after acting stereotypically aggressive towards the film’s antagonist.

It fuels the message that Black people as a whole are hostile, making it difficult for anyone to reason with them.

After their death, the character’s demise will guide other leading characters in the film to seek revenge against the film’s antagonist.

Unsurprisingly, their supposedly random death will outrage Black viewers. The screenplay writers chose to kill off what was potentially an important Black character, for the sole purpose of giving a White leading actor a more complex and interesting story arc.

It conveniently creates a narrative for the friends of the deceased Black character. They eventually come up with crafty ways to overpower or escape from the antagonist. I have one question for this reasoning.

Why could this not occur without the character’s death?

This is simply an overarching pattern about the treatment of Blacks in horror films, which is quite telling about their actual treatment, all throughout the world.

When I first created the list of offensive horror films, I immediately experienced backlash from horror fans, where they believed it was unfair that I was singling out Black actors.

To be honest, I expected it. This criticism happens whenever we point out tropes affecting the Black population.

You eventually encounter the obvious objections. The fans would often criticize the stereotypically aggressive Black actor, by saying that non-Black actors are killed and tortured in horror films as well, so no big deal if it happens to Black actors.

Personally, I believe there is a major difference. Whenever there are cases of non-Black actors experiencing torture by the antagonist, they usually come back with more resolve and determination to overcome the villain.

This occurs through a carefully crafted development of character. In short, the screenplay writer intentionally tries to improve the non-Black actor.

Here is another interesting fact; there will always be a larger selection of non-Black actors with positive representation in horror films.

By torturing or killing a small number here and there, it will not influence the overall opinion of viewers. More importantly, they do not always die first because Black characters take ownership of that trope.

What is even more telling, the non-Black actors will not perish or experience torture in the same way. Instead, they die heroically by going down fighting.

In comparison, Black actors usually die senselessly. Violence against Blacks is at epidemic levels, so these horror films assist in fueling stereotypes.

This trope is to identify the variety of ways, which we victimize and disempower the Black population and their fictional representation.

I am not saying Black actors cannot die in horror films, but it matters how and why they die.

I can go on and on about this trope, but if you are not aware, this was entirely satire. I enjoy using the explanation of provocateurs, which I then apply to my own creation. The sole purpose is to highlight the sensationalism of their argument.

If I was able to make you believe anything I presented in this post, then I was successful in my attempt to show how powerful provocateurs are today.

I mentioned in a previous post that I consider provocateurs as bottom feeders, and it is not because they play on the emotions of others. On the contrary, I think we use things to appease to the emotions of others.

Instead, the issue is that provocateurs genuinely believe what they are saying, or sincerely want you to believe in their lunacy.

I did not believe anything represented in this fictional trope, but I created the post with the intent of using exact examples, which are currently spreading on social media. I made up everything. I made up the screenplay writer from Africa and the trope.

However, though they are fiction, I used the reasoning that provocateurs apply to different topics, where they envision a problem, which I then applied with my fictional trope.

I was able to do this by looking for a problem, and whenever you seek a problem, the likelihood is that you will find it by looking through a provocateur’s lens.

When you manipulate people for the purpose of financial gain, or to spread lies to further an agenda, we honestly should not care who they are.

They could be a religious leader, renowned plastic surgeon, pop culture critic or politician. We should assess the information logically, and if it does not add up, reject the notion entirely.

This is my perspective on the sensationalism of provocateurs. Was I successful in my attempt to satirize?