The zombie genre has an ugly history. The term itself, zombie, and its basic existence, that it’s a reanimated corpse, derives from Haitian Vodou but wound up being appropriated by white writers. This appropriation of a culture’s beliefs was used by white writers and filmmakers to demonize Black folk.
For a long time, it was used as a tool for racist fearmongering. But starting in 1968, the late George A. Romero, one of our greatest horror directors, flipped the genre on its head (either intentionally or unintentionally) to comment on America’s treatment and deep fear of the Black body with having a Black lead in Night of the Living Dead. Keep in mind the year it was released, 1968, was a time of civil unrest within the United States. A year marked with the Civil Rights Movement, the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr, and the Black community demanding to be seen and heard. No longer will we be silenced, brutalized, by the white majority. We exist, we are Americans.
Romero, in years since the film’s release, has repeatedly stated that any political undertones found within the film are unintended, and that casting Duane Jones, a Black actor, as the lead wasn’t meant to say anything about what was going on in the country then. Even if it wasn’t intended, it still made a clear impact and message onto the world in which it was released.
The zombie genre was ultimately founded in the fear of the other, but Night of the Living Dead flipped that racist history on its head with not just Jones acting as the lead and hero of the film, but how it was resolved, by him being gunned down by another human being. Night of the Living Dead continues to reflect how Black folk struggled and fought for survival, how we, like any other person, or character, just wants to survive, to live, only to be murdered in cold blood.
The zombie genre has had a massive resurgence with the AMC horror series The Walking Dead, based on the long-running comic series of the same name. And like Night of the Living Dead, The Walking Dead has parallels with the world around it. The difference here is, unfortunately, that while Romero’s masterpiece stands as a provocative, powerful mirror of the United States in 1968, The Walking Dead acts as a return to the toxic, abhorrent roots of the genre itself.
The World The Walking Dead Came to Be In
The Walking Dead premiered on October 31st, 2010, two years into Obama’s first term as president. The series is primarily set in the Southern United States, starting in Atlanta, Georgia, and is currently set in Richmond, Virginia. The series’ (former) protagonist, Rick Grimes (played by Andrew Lincoln), was a cop in the larger Atlanta area. With a white cop in an area notorious for its racism against its Black residents in a genre built upon the fear of the Black body, someone who operated in a system built atop of discrimination and the killing of Black folk, the series is already operating in loaded territory. And given the fact that you could constantly see, hear, and read racist vitriol about Obama everywhere, the series arrived in a time where it would need to be aware of what it was doing.
Early on, the series had two white supremacist characters, brothers Merle and Daryl Dixon. Introduced as minor antagonists, these members of Grimes’ group of survivors were treated as clear obstacles to the group itself. The series’ only real instance/acknowledgment of the racism happened in the series’ second episode, where Merle called a Black member of the group (T-Dog, a character clearly created through a white gaze) a racial slur. Now, by no means is this interaction written with any degree of subtlety or personal experience. But the fact remains that this was one of the series’ very, very few examples of bigotry in its setting.
Even today, with a diverse cast of characters ranging in race, gender, sexuality, and disability, the series never acknowledged any form of racism or bigotry in its world. Even more, the series’ continued denial provides a clear belief on the show’s part: in this world, racism doesn’t exist. Upon the dissolution of society, people varying in ethnicity and religious belief managed to band together to survive, and this belief negates the severity and continued existence of racism and other forms of bigotry in our day-to-day interactions. This creative decision proves that the series, or those behind the series, believes that racism is a continuance perpetuated via passed down bigotry and institutional racism. When society collapses, racism does so as well. And this is even clearer with previously mentioned characters Merle and Daryl.
Despite being a white supremacist and misogynist, Merle is a fan favorite. Contribute that to Michael Rooker’s performance, but the fact remains that a white supremacist is a favorite among viewers of the series since his death in season three. And that’s not mentioning his younger brother, Daryl. Even those who haven’t watched the series are familiar with the character, played by Norman Reedus. The phrase “if Daryl dies, we riot” is one that continues in The Walking Dead’s fanbase, and it’s stunning to remember that Daryl himself was a white supremacist. And yet, he is one of the most loved characters on the show. People might bring up the idea that he is “no longer racist” due to his friendships with people of color, his continued interactions with others who don’t share his beliefs, or that his older, more openly racist brother is no longer around.
This development can be chalked up to the constant changing of hands between showrunners, or the appeal of Reedus himself, but it doesn’t matter. Racist beliefs and mindsets can’t be quickly extinguished by interacting with people of color. This isn’t true, and more so, this is a belief that dwells within the minds of either conservatives or centrists. Hate doesn’t fade from interactions. Such hate was never truly wrestled with in the world of The Walking Dead, and by the show’s logic, it no longer exists, if it ever did.
For several seasons, The Walking Dead continued a troubling worldview with xenophobic undertones.
Fear and hatred of immigrants have been stoked since Donald Trump made that speech announcing his plan to run for President of the United States. What had already existed before was emboldened through policies and rhetoric found either on conservative news media or from the administration itself, and it was especially so for this series. For so long now, the series has used storylines based on the fear of “outsiders” and those who would want to do harm to the communities in that post-apocalyptic America. Fear, paranoia, and violence have been done in the name of protecting their communities because often the series had storylines based around the idea that this (often insidious) group outside of their community walls want nothing but to slaughter their people and ransack their homes. This xenophobic belief is found everywhere these days, and it can be found in the plotting and rationale in The Walking Dead.
In season five, the main characters were held captive by a community of cannibals, and this community’s origin supports the worldview of the series. See, in the past, this community opened its doors and welcomed everyone looking for refuge. In doing so, they were manipulated by an unnamed group of survivors who took advantage of their open call of “those who arrive, survive”. They tortured, killed, and (heavily implied to have) sexually assaulted members of the group. The lesson they, and viewers, learn is that they shouldn’t have been “naïve”. The Terminus group is eventually killed (brutally, I might add) by the series’ protagonists. From the outset, it would seem like this would be a refute of the antagonistic group’s ethos. Focusing on themselves above anyone they would come across was shown to be sadistic, evil, and, in the end, inefficient. And more so, the main group of survivors is accepted into the community the Alexandria Safe-Zone after struggling to survive in the wilderness. Stated like this, season five looks like a rebuff of an ethos that not only permeates through seasons past but the whole post-apocalyptic genre itself. But it wasn’t, as seen through the events of season six.
In the first half of season six, we’re introduced to a storyline centering around the “Wolves”, a group of psychotic murderers who move from settlement to settlement to brutally murder every single resident (a group that was alluded to in season five). They have no home of their own; rather, their sole goal is to destroy every prosperous community they come across, and they nearly succeed when they attacked the characters’ own community, the Alexandria Safe-Zone. And only through killing every one of this group were they able to succeed.
What, then, is the show trying to say? To be ultimately willing to accept those who look for refuge and asylum, but to be ready for those who seek to take advantage of their mercy? But it seems more likely that the series is saying something darker, and more xenophobic in nature, that the only truly noble and honest asylum seekers are our protagonists, and everyone else in the series’ world has ulterior and more selfish motives. The series used a similar plotline in season nine – one that is horrific, and much clearer in its messaging.
The second half of season nine started with a massive time jump, and for a majority of that second half, viewers were treated to a markedly different Alexandria Safe-Zone. For several years, the community became an isolationist one, with Michonne (played by Danai Gurira), the settlement’s leader, being actively against the acceptance of anyone outside the community’s walls. Why you may ask? In “Scars”, the 14th episode of the season, viewers were given a lengthy flashback detailing the origin of her immense skepticism of outsiders.
See, she came across a woman, Jocelyn, who she knew prior to their current post-apocalyptic hellscape. Jocelyn, accompanied with her several young children, are given immediate refuge given the fact that she not only knew her, but that it’s only her and countless children. But, surprise, surprise, Michonne was manipulated by her former friend and is eventually tortured by her and by these children. And, in an effort to defend herself, she not only killed Jocelyn, but she also killed every one of those children. A vile plotline, yes, and it is an example of the series’ nihilism, of course, but it’s worse than that.
The Walking Dead is ultimately a return to the genre’s bigoted origins.
A woman, a woman of color no less, given asylum while taking care of orphaned children to only end up being a roving band of killers is… my god. A group that is on the surface innocent only to be revealed as conniving and ruthless whose only real goal is to continue suffering on people they come across (not dissimilar to the Wolves in season six), in a setting (the South) that’s not only known for its history of racial violence but also xenophobic fear of immigrants in a story that was built on the very fear and disgust of people of color, well, it paints a picture. A clear one, at that.
The zombie genre is one founded in racist and xenophobic viewings. With Night of the Living Dead, the film acted as a rebuttal, an act of defiance, in having what was often used as a figure of horror into someone that’s a hero. In that film, white Americans were given a glimpse of what we’ve endured for centuries.
But with The Walking Dead, the series marked not a remark, a rebuke, or any form of subversion. Rather, it marked a return to the genre’s founding.
So, what do you think? Am I reading too much into the popular horror series, and is ultimately not worth discussion? Or is the series unintentional with this messaging, if you think it is there? Please tell me in the comments.
The Walking Dead currently airs on AMC.
Does content like this matter to you?
Become a Member and support film journalism. Unlock access to all of Film Inquiry`s great articles. Join a community of like-minded readers who are passionate about cinema - get access to our private members Network, give back to independent filmmakers, and more.