12 Blockbuster Hits With Racially Offensive Undertones Directed at Black People

planet-of-the-apes-classic-01

Planet of the Apes

The original Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston and released in 1968, served as a “what if the shoe was on the other foot”-type scenario, where white men experience the type of discrimination regularly experienced by Black people. Though it was intended to show support for Black people’s fight for human rights, it reinforced the racist notion of Blacks not being fully human, choosing apes and monkey of all animals as stand-ins for Black people. It also played into the issues of skin-color hierarchy, making lighter apes more intelligent than their darker, more uncivilized counterparts.

 

 

lord of the rings poster

Lord of the Rings

The motion picture trilogy and the novel by J.R.R Tolkien, upon which it is based, has been accused of being racist for having all the good guys white-skinned, mostly blond and mostly blue-eyed. The bad guys, on the other hand, are described with combinations of black, slant-eyed, unattractive, inarticulate or a psychologically undeveloped horde.  Although Tolkien had an entire Black civilization in his novel, director Peter Jackson didn’t include it or any Black actors, for that matter.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top