Tolkien was a snob.
gordon....@which.net
Hello again
Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle class
snob. I have caught the loose ends of threads where it seems that
Tolkiens racist leanings are being discussed. I do not doubt that
Tolkien was indeed racist in his views. Not racist in the way that the
L.A.P.D. are racist, but a racist none the less. However it is clear
from his creations that his racism is not his defining quality. I would
suggest that his pre-occupation with authority, class and caste appears
most clearly through his work.
Rubbish, nonsense.....who cares, I hear you cry.
Look at the facts!
Where in middle-earth are the working classes? We have large complicated
cultures and societies ruled by an elite. Yet we are never introduced to
the toiling masses who would be needed to support such large kingdoms.
The closest we get to working-class heroes are the hobbits on LOTR.
However with the exception of Sam it is very clear that these are all
"good public school" middle-class Hobbits. Sam himself takes on the role
of Frodo's servant and is constantly referred to as such. In other words
Sam is a working-class Hobbit who knows and is happy with his place.
However the working-class do appear in Tolkiens work. The three trolls
in the Hobbit, the orcs and uruk-hai in LOTR, the Easterlings in
Slimarillion, are all working-class. Now I am not saying that they must
be working class because they are evil, that is an association that
Tolkien himself appears to be making. Look at how the evil strongholds
are described. Angband "the hells of iron" is described using imagry
that could easily be interpreted as modern and industrial. Mordor too.
Tolkien is dismayed by the advance of industrial or working-class
society, and presents it as pure evil in his works. It is clear that
Tolkien longs for a return to the "good old days", where the
working-classes had no rights and no voice. Where the aristocracy ruled
and a persons destiny and life are ruled by their birth and blood-lines.
If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
GJMcManus
William
gordon....@which.net wrote:
> Hello again
>
> Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle class
>
> snob.
Wow! A troll? Or a defense of trolls?
I rather think that Tolkien's Bad Places have an industrial feel because
he hated industrialization, not the urban working classes that
industrialization (in our world) created. He believed (along with many,
many others, including Thomas Jefferson) that the proletariat would be
happier and healthier if it lived and worked in rural, agrarian
settings.
There's no evidence that Tolkien was status-concious or a social
climber. He may have been status-unconscious in a way extremely common
in Britain not long ago, and to an extent even today. The existence of
class-divisions is generally a shock to Americans when we encounter it,
even to Anglophiles like me. To conservative traditionalists like
Tolkien it was simply the way things were.
Tolkien disapproved of social levelling. "I am not a democrat", he
said, and went on to state that the end result of levelling was not
universal humility, but universal pride. "Tugging your forelock to the
Skwire may be damn bad for the Skwire, but it's damn good for you."
Lewis, actually, but Tolkien heartily agreed.
On language: It was a datum for Tolkien that "goodness" could be
reflected in speech- that people who have no love of beauty or grace
will take no care of their utterances and wind up with a vile dialect
suitable for curses and abuse but not much more. Orcs, naturally, would
speak like that.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
CFoster885
CJMcManus in a fit of blinding stupidity wrote-
<Large overinterperitve crap>
Listen you complete and total moron. First you come into this group and claim
that a factoid of mine was incorrect (quite rudely and incorrecty I might add)
Now you come in and post troll bait like this. You are an anti-social idiot
and we would be much better without your garbage. For some strange reason you
make me wish Mr. Martinez was back for he could deal with you far better than
I.
--
Casey Foster
***
"Benson Arizona, the warm wind through your hair, my body flies the Galaxy, my
heart longs to be there" -Dark Star Theme Song
Tenderfoot
A snob not. Upper-middle class probably. He was a professor and they usually
are.
>Tolkiens racist leanings are being discussed. I do not doubt that
>Tolkien was indeed racist in his views. Not racist in the way that the
You belittle the real racists by implying such a thing. Have you ever met a
real nasty racist? I assure you they have nothing in common with Prof.
Tolkien.
>L.A.P.D. are racist, but a racist none the less. However it is clear
>from his creations that his racism is not his defining quality. I would
>suggest that his pre-occupation with authority, class and caste appears
>most clearly through his work.
Yes, I think he was interested in power. But he usually showed that power
corrupts. He valued the little things in life more.
>Rubbish, nonsense.....who cares, I hear you cry.
>
>Look at the facts!
Sure, show me the facts and I'll look at them.
>Where in middle-earth are the working classes? We have large complicated
>cultures and societies ruled by an elite. Yet we are never introduced to
>the toiling masses who would be needed to support such large kingdoms.
>The closest we get to working-class heroes are the hobbits on LOTR.
>However with the exception of Sam it is very clear that these are all
>"good public school" middle-class Hobbits. Sam himself takes on the role
>of Frodo's servant and is constantly referred to as such. In other words
>Sam is a working-class Hobbit who knows and is happy with his place.
So far you haven't shown anything.
We do get to see working class, both in Bree and Minas Tirith, and also the
farmer Maggot. They were usually pretty clever people. Appearances can be
deceiving.
>However the working-class do appear in Tolkiens work. The three trolls
>in the Hobbit, the orcs and uruk-hai in LOTR, the Easterlings in
>Slimarillion, are all working-class. Now I am not saying that they must
>be working class because they are evil, that is an association that
>Tolkien himself appears to be making. Look at how the evil strongholds
No, that's an association you appear to be making.
We don't see much of the Orcs and Easterlings but I'm sure they have
different classes too. In fact, I'm sure they are even worse in that
respect.
>are described. Angband "the hells of iron" is described using imagry
>that could easily be interpreted as modern and industrial. Mordor too.
>Tolkien is dismayed by the advance of industrial or working-class
>society, and presents it as pure evil in his works. It is clear that
No, he was only dismayed by industrialism. He loved the small town country
life, which you will notice in his descriptions of the Shire. That means
working people would usually be farmers and the like so it's not the actual
work he dislikes, just the "modern" industrial way of life.
>Tolkien longs for a return to the "good old days", where the
>working-classes had no rights and no voice. Where the aristocracy ruled
>and a persons destiny and life are ruled by their birth and blood-lines.
Sam, your very poor common working-class hobbit, showed clearly that destiny
lies in your own hands. It was not the Kings of Elves and Men who saved
Middle Earth from their greatest peril. On the contrary, they often caused
it.
>If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
>working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
Again, I see no evidence. Please give some examples.
Tenderfoot
gordon....@which.net
You are the one posting "Troll bate" by posting such idiotic and poorly
substantiated crap, ie "Russian jews". A wise man once said:
"Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one."
Surely this is an open forum where people with an interest in Tolkiens
works can discuss matters that interest them. If you do not agree with
what I write then say so and leave it at that. If you have a sense of
humour then apply that to your retorts. Do not try to take control of
this group by labelling me as a "troll" (whatever that is, please
explain). If you and others keep attacking people and writing numerous
posts about how they are abusing this group then no-one except yourself,
Mr Martinez and a few of your faithful sycophants (not related to
oliphants) will be all that is left of this group. And then this group
will have far more assholes than opinions.
If you dissagree with me then the best way to deal with that is to
ignore me. I am already trying to ignore you.
GJMcManus
gordon....@which.net
William wrote:
>
> gordon....@which.net wrote:
>
> > Hello again
> >
> > Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle class
> >
> > snob.
>
>
>
I rather think that Tolkien's Bad Places have an industrial feel because
> he hated industrialization, not the urban working classes that
> industrialization (in our world) created.
assumption that they are working class is taken from their direct
speech.
(Please do not go on about this being only an assumption, that is all
any of us can make). Perhaps part of what Tolkien hated about
industrialisation was the working masses that it created and the
subsequent proliferation of working-class culture.
He believed (along with many,
> many others, including Thomas Jefferson) that the proletariat would be
> happier and healthier if it lived and worked in rural, agrarian
> settings.
>
A return to the "good old days" then. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Without industrialisation how could a culture produce goods and services
at a low enough cost to be available to all. In an agrarian mass society
only the rich would be able to pay for goods and services such as
healthcare and decent housing that would have to be produced in a very
innefficient manner by artisans at great expense.
Industrialisation and mass production, although in many ways further
enslaving the working-class, has no doubt led to their eventual and
progressive emancipation.
Do Tolkien and Thomas Jefferson believe that we would be happier to see
that process reversed?
> There's no evidence that Tolkien was status-concious or a social
> climber.
Okay I did not really mean to imply that he was a social climber, but if
that is how it seemed then I take it back.
He may have been status-unconscious in a way extremely common
> in Britain not long ago, and to an extent even today. The existence of
> class-divisions is generally a shock to Americans when we encounter it,
> even to Anglophiles like me.
I thought you were UK not USA, oops. Sorry.
To conservative traditionalists like
> Tolkien it was simply the way things were.
That does not make it alright.
>
> Tolkien disapproved of social levelling. "I am not a democrat", he
> said, and went on to state that the end result of levelling was not
> universal humility, but universal pride. "Tugging your forelock to the
> Skwire may be damn bad for the Skwire, but it's damn good for you."
> Lewis, actually, but Tolkien heartily agreed.
Your point is...
>
> On language: It was a datum for Tolkien that "goodness" could be
> reflected in speech- that people who have no love of beauty or grace
> will take no care of their utterances and wind up with a vile dialect
> suitable for curses and abuse but not much more. Orcs, naturally, would
> speak like that.
Who is Tolkien to decide what is and what is not beautiful or graceful.
And let us look at what he has selected to be the epitome of graceful
language. He has selected educated middle-class R.P. english. Any
deviation from that ideal is to be associated with uncouthness and evil.
To me that seems to represent some form of bias against working-class
culture and the working-classes themselves.
> _________________________________________________
> William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
> soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
> _________________________________________________
GJMcManus
Annatar Gorthaur
gordon....@which.net wrote:
>
> Hello again
>
> Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle class
> Tolkien was indeed racist in his views. Not racist in the way that the
> from his creations that his racism is not his defining quality. I would
> suggest that his pre-occupation with authority, class and caste appears
> most clearly through his work.
>
>
> Look at the facts!
>
> cultures and societies ruled by an elite. Yet we are never introduced to
> the toiling masses who would be needed to support such large kingdoms.
> The closest we get to working-class heroes are the hobbits on LOTR.
> However with the exception of Sam it is very clear that these are all
> "good public school" middle-class Hobbits. Sam himself takes on the role
> of Frodo's servant and is constantly referred to as such. In other words
> Sam is a working-class Hobbit who knows and is happy with his place.
Come on... it's a FANTASY novel. Set in a medieval, and more important,
FANTASY world. Words like "working-class" are irrelevant to a
fantasy-world.
> However the working-class do appear in Tolkiens work. The three trolls
> in the Hobbit, the orcs and uruk-hai in LOTR, the Easterlings in
> Slimarillion, are all working-class. Now I am not saying that they must
> be working class because they are evil, that is an association that
> Tolkien himself appears to be making. Look at how the evil strongholds
> are described. Angband "the hells of iron" is described using imagry
> that could easily be interpreted as modern and industrial. Mordor too.
> Tolkien is dismayed by the advance of industrial or working-class
> society, and presents it as pure evil in his works. It is clear that
> Tolkien longs for a return to the "good old days", where the
> working-classes had no rights and no voice. Where the aristocracy ruled
> and a persons destiny and life are ruled by their birth and blood-lines.
>
> If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
> working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
Simple coincidence. The Balchoth, the Wainriders, the Black (ironic :))
Numenoreans, the Variags, the Easterlings, were not black. But then
again, does it matter that the good guys are white? It's a fantasy novel
in a medieval setting. The racial differences in our world cannot be
applied to Middle-earth. Luckily not.
>
> GJMcManus
--
Annatar Gorthaur, Darkfriend Trollsbane a.k.a. Maarten de Jong
ICQ 3836817 e-mail: maar...@lx.student.wau.nl
"My sinful glare at nothing holds thoughts of death behind it
Skeletons in my mind commence tearing at my sanity
Vessels in my brain carry death until my birth
Come and die with me forever
Share insanity"
-- Slayer - Postmortem
Frank Marcus
CFoster885 <cfost...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804160119...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> CJMcManus in a fit of blinding stupidity wrote-
>
> <Large overinterperitve crap>
>
> Listen you complete and total moron. First you come into this group and
claim
> that a factoid of mine was incorrect (quite rudely and incorrecty I might
add)
> Now you come in and post troll bait like this. You are an anti-social
idiot
> and we would be much better without your garbage. For some strange
reason you
> make me wish Mr. Martinez was back for he could deal with you far better
than
> I.
> --
>
> Casey Foster
> ***
> "Benson Arizona, the warm wind through your hair, my body flies the
Galaxy, my
> heart longs to be there" -Dark Star Theme Song
>
Excuse me, but whatever it is that you have to say, try to show some
courtesy. There's no need to start using Orc-language.
Frank
William
gordon....@which.net wrote:
> William wrote:
> >
> > gordon....@which.net wrote:
> >
> > > Hello again
> > >
> > > Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle
> class
> > >
> > > snob.
> >
> > Wow! A troll? Or a defense of trolls?
> >
> Don't start. Freedom of speech and all that.
> >
> I rather think that Tolkien's Bad Places have an industrial feel
> because
> > he hated industrialization, not the urban working classes that
> > industrialization (in our world) created.
> Then why does he people such places with working class characters. My
> assumption that they are working class is taken from their direct
> speech.
> (Please do not go on about this being only an assumption, that is all
> any of us can make). Perhaps part of what Tolkien hated about
> industrialisation was the working masses that it created and the
> subsequent proliferation of working-class culture.
I doubt it seriously. What Tolkien hated was the destruction of trees
and plants and the poisoning of air, water and soil. "Working-class
culture" of course existed before industrialization, it was just the
culture of a rural working class. This culture Tolkien seems to approve
of: it is the normative form of hobbit-culture, exemplified best by
perhaps Farmer Maggot. "Growing food and eating it occupied most of
their time." Tolkien's heart was pretty plainly in the Shire- and its
corruption at the end of the book takes the form of chopping trees and
pouring indutrial waste into Bywater Pool. He never implies that Farmer
Cotton or any of the other common hobbits who revolt have somehow become
evil; Ted Sandyman was portrayed as a rat before he ever took to
industrial work.
>
>
> He believed (along with many,
> > many others, including Thomas Jefferson) that the proletariat would
> be
> > happier and healthier if it lived and worked in rural, agrarian
> > settings.
> >
> A return to the "good old days" then. Thank you for agreeing with me.
> Without industrialisation how could a culture produce goods and
> services
> at a low enough cost to be available to all. In an agrarian mass
> society
> only the rich would be able to pay for goods and services such as
> healthcare and decent housing that would have to be produced in a very
>
> innefficient manner by artisans at great expense.
This is a hell of an assumption. I take it you studied under Marxist
professors? In fact, rural England prior to 1750 was nothing like what
you have described. The aristocracy certainly had access to *luxuries*
not available to the common folk, but it's nonsense to say that decent
housing or food was somehow denied the farmers. As to medical care-
well, *nobody* had access to decent health care. It didn't exist.
And why do you suggest that the "inefficient" production of goods by
artisans is somehow less desirable than industrial slavery?
> Industrialisation and mass production, although in many ways further
> enslaving the working-class, has no doubt led to their eventual and
> progressive emancipation.
> Do Tolkien and Thomas Jefferson believe that we would be happier to
> see
> that process reversed?
Well, yes. They would have. Jefferson of course died in 1826 and never
saw the full horror of the Industrial Revolution, but he saw it coming.
He much preferred the nation of free farmers that America was at the
time. Tolkien firmly believed that the Machines had become Man's
masters. His great influences in early life were observing the
destruction of the countryside around Birmingham, and the first
mechanical war, WWI. And his response was indeed to hanker after the
"good old days."
I rather doubt that the masses have been emancipated at all. The
pioneers of the last century were free men. The workers of today are
puppets, pulled nearly apart by bosses, taxes, oppressive laws,
consumerism, and banal mass media.
>
>
> > There's no evidence that Tolkien was status-concious or a social
> > climber.
>
> Okay I did not really mean to imply that he was a social climber, but
> if
> that is how it seemed then I take it back.
>
> He may have been status-unconscious in a way extremely common
> > in Britain not long ago, and to an extent even today. The existence
> of
> > class-divisions is generally a shock to Americans when we encounter
> it,
> > even to Anglophiles like me.
>
> I thought you were UK not USA, oops. Sorry.
>
> To conservative traditionalists like
> > Tolkien it was simply the way things were.
>
> That does not make it alright.
> >
>
> > Tolkien disapproved of social levelling. "I am not a democrat", he
> > said, and went on to state that the end result of levelling was not
> > universal humility, but universal pride. "Tugging your forelock to
> the
> > Skwire may be damn bad for the Skwire, but it's damn good for you."
> > Lewis, actually, but Tolkien heartily agreed.
>
> Your point is...
That to Tolkien it was pointless and indeed counterproductive to base
one's life on envy. Universal pride was to him Very Bad- I can't say I
disagree with him.
> >
> > On language: It was a datum for Tolkien that "goodness" could be
> > reflected in speech- that people who have no love of beauty or grace
>
> > will take no care of their utterances and wind up with a vile
> dialect
> > suitable for curses and abuse but not much more. Orcs, naturally,
> would
> > speak like that.
>
> Who is Tolkien to decide what is and what is not beautiful or
> graceful.
The author, of course. If an artist can't give his opinion of what is
beautiful or graceful, who can?
> And let us look at what he has selected to be the epitome of graceful
> language. He has selected educated middle-class R.P. english.
Actually, High-elven is the epitome. But Tolkien writes his books in
educated Middle-class English because of course that's what he was.
Virtually all British novels are written in that idiom. Is this a
surprise? When Tolkien wants to put on the dog, he goes over to
Jacobean models.
> Any
> deviation from that ideal is to be associated with uncouthness and
> evil.
> To me that seems to represent some form of bias against working-class
> culture and the working-classes themselves.
Perhaps you have a big working-class chip on your shoulder? Given that
an Orc will slash, trample or burn anything within reach just for fun,
it's hardly surprising that he would treat language the same way.
Tolkien hints in the Foreword that he was being restrained: I expect
that unexpurgated Orkish talk would make sailors blush.
And it's certainly untrue that deviation from "RP"is associated with
uncouthness and evil. Butterburr, Cotton, Maggott, the Gamgees, Ioreth,
etc. etc: common folk who spaek as common folk but who are uniformly
good.
> > _________________________________________________
> > William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
> > soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
> > _________________________________________________
>
> GJMcManus
--
Damir Avdic
>Simple coincidence. The Balchoth, the Wainriders, the Black (ironic :))
>Numenoreans, the Variags, the Easterlings, were not black. But then
>again, does it matter that the good guys are white? It's a fantasy novel
>in a medieval setting. The racial differences in our world cannot be
>applied to Middle-earth. Luckily not.
The far Southerners were black. The Haradrim were dark of skin. In one
place, inhabitants of southern Gondor are mentioned as swarthy, the
implication very clearly being that they are worse than the rest of the
Gondoreans.
"Put your head on my shoulder, baby
Things can't get any worse
Night is getting colder, sometimes
Life feels like it's a curse
I can't carry these sins on my back
Don't wanna carry anymore
I'm gonna carry this train off the track
I'm gonna swim to the ocean floor"
- "Swim" - Madonna
Damir Avdic
Damir Avdic
Just who the hell do you think you are?
How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you? You are intolerant
(and racist), ignorant and overly aggressive. My stereotype for an American,
I might add, and you're proving me right.
With no explanation, you flame people and are condescending; you write
racist posts and insult people's intelligence (and taste in music :)). If
ever there was a troll, you're it. And then you go around calling people
trolls on some infantile troll patrol. What gives you the right???
As for your little friend, Martinez, I do hope you get him back soon so you
can be repulsive together. :)
Oh, and by the way, learn to spell, my eyes burn just looking at your
writing.
"Why did it have to end?
And why do they always say
'Don't look back'?
Keep your head held high
Don't ask them why, because
Life is short
And before you know
You're feeling old and your
Heart is breaking
Don't hold on to the past"
- "This Used To Be My Playground" - Madonna
William
To follow up with Tolkien's own words:
"Taking 'accent' to mean, as it usually does in non-technical language:
'more or less consistent alterations of the vowels/consonants of
"received" English': I should say that, in the cases you kwery, _no_
accent-differentiation is needed or desirable [for a radio
dramatisation]. For instance, it would probably be better to avoid
certain, actual or conventional, features of modern 'vulgar' English in
representing Orcs, such as the dropping of aitches (these are, I think,
_not_ dropped in the text, and that is deliberate.) But of course for
most people, 'accent' as defined above is confused with impressions of
different intonation, articulation, and tempo. You will, I suppose,
have to use such means to make Orcs sound nasty!" -Letter No. 193
Marc Greis
gordon....@which.net wrote:
> CFoster885 wrote:
>>
>> CJMcManus in a fit of blinding stupidity wrote-
>>
>> <Large overinterperitve crap>
>>
>> Listen you complete and total moron. First you come into this group and claim
>> that a factoid of mine was incorrect (quite rudely and incorrecty I might add)
>> Now you come in and post troll bait like this. You are an anti-social idiot
>> and we would be much better without your garbage. For some strange reason you
>> make me wish Mr. Martinez was back for he could deal with you far better than
>> I.
>> --
>>
>> Casey Foster
>> ***
>> "Benson Arizona, the warm wind through your hair, my body flies the Galaxy, my
>> heart longs to be there" -Dark Star Theme Song
> You are the one posting "Troll bate" by posting such idiotic and poorly
> substantiated crap, ie "Russian jews". A wise man once said:
Here you accuse Casey Foster of posting "Troll bate" (bait, actually)
and in the following paragraph you admit that you have no clue what
that is. How can you insult someone and then admit that you don't even
know what the insult means?
> "Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one."
> Surely this is an open forum where people with an interest in Tolkiens
> works can discuss matters that interest them. If you do not agree with
> what I write then say so and leave it at that. If you have a sense of
> humour then apply that to your retorts. Do not try to take control of
> this group by labelling me as a "troll" (whatever that is, please
> explain). If you and others keep attacking people and writing numerous
A troll is a person who comes to newsgroups where people are likely to
care a lot about something and then posts something that will
certainly be seen as an insult by the vast majority of the group's
readers. There are some funny trolls, but also the typical kind of
troll who is either simply stupid or tries to annoy people. Examples
are people who post things like "You will all burn in hell!!" to
alt.atheism or "God is dead!!" to alt.religion.christian. The same goes
for people who go to a newsgroup alt.fan.* and post "* sucks!!". Check
the title of this newsgroup. You're a troll. Face it. You trolled
before in the messages <3535A0...@which.net> (tsk tsk, calling a
message 'Flame ON'... how obvious) and <3511A3...@which.net>. Looks
like you already have a history. In <351226...@which.net> you said
you were new to this group, and as I suspect also to Usenet, so it
would have been a good idea to follow netiquette and lurk for a while
before posting flame bait.
> posts about how they are abusing this group then no-one except yourself,
> Mr Martinez and a few of your faithful sycophants (not related to
> oliphants) will be all that is left of this group. And then this group
> will have far more assholes than opinions.
I don't know if that kind of language is going to help the situation
though.
> If you dissagree with me then the best way to deal with that is to
> ignore me. I am already trying to ignore you.
Yea, that's what should usually be done with trolls. I could beat
myself for even writing this, but sometimes it's just hard to resist.
Marc
--
Marc Greis gr...@informatik.uni-bonn.de
Marc Greis
>> William wrote:
>> >
>> > gordon....@which.net wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello again
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone share my view of Tolkien as an aspiring upper-middle
>> class
>> > >
>> > > snob.
>> >
>> > Wow! A troll? Or a defense of trolls?
>> >
>> Don't start. Freedom of speech and all that.
LOL! Ah, I nearly regret that he didn't elaborate on that. ;)
>> I rather think that Tolkien's Bad Places have an industrial feel
>> because
>> > he hated industrialization, not the urban working classes that
>> > industrialization (in our world) created.
>> Then why does he people such places with working class characters. My
>> assumption that they are working class is taken from their direct
>> speech.
>> (Please do not go on about this being only an assumption, that is all
>> any of us can make). Perhaps part of what Tolkien hated about
>> industrialisation was the working masses that it created and the
>> subsequent proliferation of working-class culture.
> I doubt it seriously. What Tolkien hated was the destruction of trees
> and plants and the poisoning of air, water and soil. "Working-class
I always thought that was obvious from the books. But I guess it has to
be explained to some.
Of course, I could also assume that Tolkien hated the industrial
revolution because it created the working class, but that is not
necessarily a bad thing, because the working class was so poor that in
the end the development of the marxist theories was caused by the
poverty during the industrial revolution. I don't see why it is bad
when someone dislikes this time. Of course, it was a necessary step on
the way to our modern society, but that is still no reason to hope for
the destruction of the perfect (fantasy-)world in the LotR by an
industrial revolution. Has there ever been an industrial revolution in
any fantasy book? I don't think so. Does that mean that all fantasy
writers are bad people?
> culture" of course existed before industrialization, it was just the
> culture of a rural working class. This culture Tolkien seems to approve
> of: it is the normative form of hobbit-culture, exemplified best by
> perhaps Farmer Maggot. "Growing food and eating it occupied most of
> their time." Tolkien's heart was pretty plainly in the Shire- and its
> corruption at the end of the book takes the form of chopping trees and
> pouring indutrial waste into Bywater Pool. He never implies that Farmer
> Cotton or any of the other common hobbits who revolt have somehow become
> evil; Ted Sandyman was portrayed as a rat before he ever took to
> industrial work.
The society which Tolkien presented was basically as perfect as every
other 'good' society in every other fantasy book that I can think of.
Fantasy writers (usually) want to entertain their readers after all,
not confront them with problems that are obvious enough in the readers'
life.
>> He believed (along with many,
>> > many others, including Thomas Jefferson) that the proletariat would
>> be
>> > happier and healthier if it lived and worked in rural, agrarian
>> > settings.
>> >
>> A return to the "good old days" then. Thank you for agreeing with me.
>> Without industrialisation how could a culture produce goods and
>> services
>> at a low enough cost to be available to all. In an agrarian mass
>> society
>> only the rich would be able to pay for goods and services such as
>> healthcare and decent housing that would have to be produced in a very
>>
>> innefficient manner by artisans at great expense.
> This is a hell of an assumption. I take it you studied under Marxist
> professors?
I doubt it. Perhaps he read a few passages from marxist books or only
heard the word "working class" somewhere, but I guess that would be it.
The original poster seems to believe that all problems of the working
class have been solved in our modern societies, which is not true in a
marxist's eyes. In fact, a marxist would believe that it is going to get
worse, leading sooner or later to a new revolution.
[..]
> I rather doubt that the masses have been emancipated at all. The
> pioneers of the last century were free men. The workers of today are
> puppets, pulled nearly apart by bosses, taxes, oppressive laws,
> consumerism, and banal mass media.
Very good point.
[..]
>> >
>> > On language: It was a datum for Tolkien that "goodness" could be
>> > reflected in speech- that people who have no love of beauty or grace
>>
>> > will take no care of their utterances and wind up with a vile
>> dialect
>> > suitable for curses and abuse but not much more. Orcs, naturally,
>> would
>> > speak like that.
>>
>> Who is Tolkien to decide what is and what is not beautiful or
>> graceful.
> The author, of course. If an artist can't give his opinion of what is
> beautiful or graceful, who can?
And come to think of it... people who don't like it don't have to read
it. ;)
The Dark Lord
gordon....@which.net spewed the following filth from his ass:
>
<snipped most foul nonsense>
> Rubbish, nonsense.....who cares, I hear you cry.
>
> Look at the facts!
>
> Where in middle-earth are the working classes?
Uhmm...the people of the Shire. The people of Bree. The servants of
Elrond. (Do I need to cover every destination of the party.) No matter
where you go in ME there are bound to be servants, courtiers, peasants,
merchants, tradesmen, court functionaries, stable boys, etc.
<snipped more garbage about how Sam is a servant to Frodo and that somehow
makes Tolkien a racist>
> It is clear that
> Tolkien longs for a return to the "good old days", where the
> working-classes had no rights and no voice.
Ok. LOTR is a story. A very good story. Just because democracy did not
exist does not mean Tolkien was racist. The most successful (in terms of
length of existence) government on Earth so far has been a monarchy.
> Where the aristocracy ruled
> and a persons destiny and life are ruled by their birth and blood-lines.
Is that not true today? In America, the rich get rich and the poor stay
poor. If you don't believe me try to follow the educational debates on
"tracking."Oh yes, "tracking" exists in the US educational system. For the
uninformed, "tracking" is used to place children with low socio-economic
status in the same classrooms as other students with the same socio-economic
background. In other words, the poor kids are in one classroom and the rich
kids are in another. Who do you think gets the better teachers? Certainly
not the poor kids.
It's the same as segregation was before the civil rights amendment. Only
now it is occurring within our schools. Furhermore, the children know they
are in the "dumb" class and don't try as hard. Usually they are put into
vocational programs such as 'cosmetology' and 'auto mechanics.'
What if one of these children has a dream of going to college? That dream
is smashed because they are not taking the right courses. But I
digress...(and I hop off my soapbox and hopefully won't have to pull it out
again)
>
>
> If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
> working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
There are EVIL BLACK people in LOTR!?!! Where!?!! Really, show me an exact
quote that states that there are black people and that they are evil. You
really should have something to back up such an outrageous statement. One
problem with Trolls like you. You never check the archives to see how often
this has been argued or you don't check the "Tolkien isn't racist" argument
before proceeding.
If you look at LOTR more closely you'll notice that most of the people that
inhabit ME are racist. As most of the people of Earth are. The Shire
Hobbits think that Bree folk are 'just a bit queer.' The Elves mistrust the
humans and (especially) dwarves. Hobbits mistrust everyone. Humans dislike
orcs, hobgoblins and so on...
Once again to get it firmly placed in your mind:
Tolkien was not racist. The people who inhabited his world of ME were.
Brian
Piotr Kopycki
gordon....@which.net wrote in <35359A...@which.net>...
> Hello again
>
>
> Look at the facts!
>
> If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
> working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
>
> GJMcManus
>
If it would be a truth Sauron should have been "black" before his death.
Look, Sauron was able to charm
Ar-Farazon the Gold. He couldn't be balck and nasty. His soul was, but
where is racism here? If good man is white bad one must be black and if
good one is black white guy is bad. It is called contrast. If you don't
believe here is very short story told by my affrican universitymate,
about white men:
when Kaine killed Able God asked him "where is your brother?", and then
Kaine has gone white for fear.
And one polite request: SPEAK ABOUT WORKING-CLASS NO MORE. Tiz a fantasy
world.
Piotr
--
Piotr Kopycki
e-amil ku...@polbox.com
Marc Greis
Damir Avdic <teh...@ebox.tninet.se> wrote:
> Just who the hell do you think you are?
> How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you? You are intolerant
> (and racist), ignorant and overly aggressive. My stereotype for an American,
> I might add, and you're proving me right.
He didn't flame the original poster for disagreeing with him, but for
posting an obvious troll message. That's a big difference. And how can
you call someone a racist and in the next sentence admit that you have
stereotypes for citizens of whole continents yourself? Very odd.
> With no explanation, you flame people and are condescending; you write
> racist posts and insult people's intelligence (and taste in music :)). If
> ever there was a troll, you're it. And then you go around calling people
> trolls on some infantile troll patrol. What gives you the right???
If they are trolls, why should they not be called trolls? Aren't you
the one who trolled yourself in the message <6afq6a$rp8$1...@zingo.tninet.se>
and in <6aqp8d$8lr$2...@zingo.tninet.se> (in alt.fan.robert-jordan... compare
both messages, it is interesting how similar they are in a way).
the Piper
"Not all is well there," said Frodo, "but certainly gardeners are honored."
Marc Greis
The Dark Lord <smd...@gte.net> wrote:
>> If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
>> working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
> There are EVIL BLACK people in LOTR!?!! Where!?!! Really, show me an exact
> quote that states that there are black people and that they are evil. You
What would be more important to prove that Tolkien was a racist would
be a statement where he claims that certain people are evil *because*
they are black, since *that* would be a racist statement. Tolkien also
never stated that *all* white people are good. The problem with these
racism threads is simply that the trolls who post things like "Tolkien
was a racist" don't even know what racism is.
> really should have something to back up such an outrageous statement. One
> problem with Trolls like you. You never check the archives to see how often
> this has been argued or you don't check the "Tolkien isn't racist" argument
> before proceeding.
The problem is that usually they are too new to Usenet to know about
archives like Dejanews. I wish these people would lurk a while before
they post nonsense and flame bait.
Michael A Wolf
Marc Greis <gr...@informatik.uni-bonn.de> writes:
> Of course, I could also assume that Tolkien hated the industrial
> revolution because it created the working class, but that is not
> necessarily a bad thing, because the working class was so poor that in
> the end the development of the marxist theories was caused by the
> poverty during the industrial revolution. I don't see why it is bad
> when someone dislikes this time. Of course, it was a necessary step on
> the way to our modern society, but that is still no reason to hope for
> the destruction of the perfect (fantasy-)world in the LotR by an
> industrial revolution. Has there ever been an industrial revolution in
> any fantasy book? I don't think so. Does that mean that all fantasy
> writers are bad people?
Actually, I can name one fantasy book (series, actually) where an industrial
revolution occurs: _The Guardians of the Flame_, by Joel Rosenberg. As fantasy
goes, I don't think it's all that bad, probably because in most ways it's very
much unlike Tolkien (the most apparent exception to this are various legends,
places, people, etc who are referred to but never really explained). As for
why I dislike a lot of fantasy: too much of it tries to be another LotR, and
ends up failing miserably in various ways. Since JRRT was a pioneer in the
type of literature, he is all too often emulated, but poorly so, and for me at
least, I'm too often left with a bad taste in my mouth.
--Michael Wolf
Ilweran
In article <6h5ihn$ppr$2...@cubacola.tninet.se>, "Damir Avdic"
<teh...@ebox.tninet.se> writes:
>How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you? You are intolerant
>(and racist), ignorant and overly aggressive. My stereotype for an American,
>I might add, and you're proving me right.
And you're not being racist?
Ilweran
*******************
Eight words the wiccan rede fulfill,
"And it harm none do as ye will"
CFoster885
>Surely this is an open forum where people with an interest in Tolkiens
>works can discuss matters that interest them.
Please don't play the martyr it will get you no where. By disgussion you
classifiy insulting the author. This isn't alt.disgussion.tolkien, it is
alt.fan.tolkien and we don't take kindly to incorrect insults against the
auther.
CFoster885
>Just who the hell do you think you are?
I don't know, you didn't quote anyone. Or say who this is your talking to.
But I will take it you are talking to me, check the .SIG
>How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you?
I insulted someone for insulting tolkien in alt.FAN.tolkien, which is a flame
by definition.
>You are intolerant
>(and racist),
I am not racist. You are intolerant of Americans. As to racism, you are the
one posting about Gollum obviuosly being black and such crap.
>With no explanation, you flame people and are condescending;
I have a perfectly good explanation, if you post <insert name here> is a snob
in alt.fan.<isert name here> it is an inflamatory remark.
>you write
>racist posts
Name one, I have posted something on racial classifications but it was not
racist in anyway, since I just quoted a study, and didn't even mention my own
race.
>What gives you the right???
The fact this newsgroup is unmoderated and must be kept decent by the people
who post here.
>As for your little friend, Martinez
If you think I'm budding up with Mr. Martinez you obviously have not been here
very long.
CFoster885
>The problem is that usually they are too new to Usenet to know about
>archives like Dejanews. I wish these people would lurk a while before
>they post nonsense and flame bait.
Amen.
M.J.G./98
this is kind of interesting...the snob part and the racist part.
Does anybody know if Tolkien put persons of African(excuse for using
"labels" like this but I'm not sure of the proper way) origin(I mean black
people) in his Middle-Earth world?
I don't recal ever meeting one in the book...
hmm...
just wondering...
anyway...
thanks...
bye....
the Piper wrote in message <6h5pn1$j...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Per Erik Rønne
Annatar Gorthaur <maartenj***@lx.s*t*u*d*e*n*t.wau.nl> wrote:
> > If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
> > working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
> Simple coincidence. The Balchoth, the Wainriders, the Black (ironic :))
> Numenoreans, the Variags, the Easterlings, were not black. But then
> again, does it matter that the good guys are white? It's a fantasy novel
> in a medieval setting. The racial differences in our world cannot be
> applied to Middle-earth. Luckily not.
It is too simple for an American to see it.
A few decades ago, to see a black person in Copenhagen, Denmark was so
rare that everybody wanted to talk with him. The same in England, at
least in rural England.
A European writing a book based on a medieval society wouldn't even
think of having blacks in such a society. They simply weren't present in
medieval Europe - and for quite obvious reasons. Their quantity of
melanine is simply too large for European latitudes! And the quantity of
melanine in whites is simply too small for whites i Equatorian
latitudes.
And on accent which another person has written about: Is it strange that
an English professor at Oxford [the world's finest university] speaks
the beautiful accent called by various names: Public school English.
Oxford English. The Queen's/King's English. BBC English. Received
Pronounciation.
Should he had spoken in the notorious accent used in the United States,
the accent that gives every well-educated and decent Brit vomit feelings
:-).
--
Per Erik Rønne
E-mail: xer...@diku.edu.dk
Homepage: http://www.diku.dk/students/xerxes
Remove '.edu' before e-mail [anti-spam]
Damir Avdic
>>Just who the hell do you think you are?
>
>I don't know, you didn't quote anyone. Or say who this is your talking to.
>But I will take it you are talking to me, check the .SIG
Humour. Wow. How many braincells did you use for this? All seven?
>>How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you?
>
>I insulted someone for insulting tolkien in alt.FAN.tolkien, which is a
flame
>by definition.
It was a well-argued point on his side. Not true, in my opinion, but still,
well argued.
>>You are intolerant
>>(and racist),
>
>I am not racist. You are intolerant of Americans. As to racism, you are
the
>one posting about Gollum obviuosly being black and such crap.
What??? You must be seriously deranged. I wrote nothing of the kind.
>>With no explanation, you flame people and are condescending;
>
>I have a perfectly good explanation, if you post <insert name here> is a
snob
>in alt.fan.<isert name here> it is an inflamatory remark.
So we like Tolkien and he must not in any way be brought even inches down
from this great crystal pedestal you've put him onto? He is God, right? And
one mustn't talk ill of gods, lest one be punished. I'm sure the Spanish
inquisition, for instance, or the British Puritans know all about this. If
you opened your mind a bit, you might not feel so threatened in your views
by every little post that disagrees with you.
> >you write
>>racist posts
>Name one, I have posted something on racial classifications but it was not
>racist in anyway, since I just quoted a study, and didn't even mention my
own
>race.
You said Russian Jews were more intelligent "by far" than South Europeans.
As a South European myself I resent this. And only Americans would get the
idea to do a study like that. It's disgusting.
>>What gives you the right???
>
>The fact this newsgroup is unmoderated and must be kept decent by the
people
>who post here.
Hah! Decent? How American of you. Always morality, right? Well, I'll give
you that much, but, if so, shouldn't you be the decent one and not flame the
trolls but, rather, tell them to shut up in a civilised manner.
>>As for your little friend, Martinez
>
>If you think I'm budding up with Mr. Martinez you obviously have not been
here
>very long.
I haven't. But in two posts you've mentioned something about it, and you
seem to me to be of very like mentality so you kind of fit together. It was
this similarity of character I was referring to, not the actual way of
things.
>
>Casey Foster
>***
>"Benson Arizona, the warm wind through your hair, my body flies the
Galaxy, my
>heart longs to be there" -Dark Star Theme Song
Have fun, ;)
Damir Avdic
>He didn't flame the original poster for disagreeing with him, but for
>posting an obvious troll message. That's a big difference. And how can
>you call someone a racist and in the next sentence admit that you have
>stereotypes for citizens of whole continents yourself? Very odd.
Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans, which kind
of gives me the right to have a stereotype (as we all do). This idiot wrote
that Jews were more intelligent than Mediterranean people.
>If they are trolls, why should they not be called trolls? Aren't you
>the one who trolled yourself in the message <6afq6a$rp8$1...@zingo.tninet.se>
>and in <6aqp8d$8lr$2...@zingo.tninet.se> (in alt.fan.robert-jordan... compare
>both messages, it is interesting how similar they are in a way).
The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no one,
except Tolkien, which I think is okay (though I don't agree) because he
shouldn't be as glorified as much as some glorify him.
The post I flamed reeked of intolerance, which I (and most everyone else) is
sick of getting from South Africa.
>Marc
Damir Avdic
>And you're not being racist?
Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
cultures and not be a racist.
>Ilweran
>*******************
>Eight words the wiccan rede fulfill,
>"And it harm none do as ye will"
Depth
Marc Greis
Damir Avdic <teh...@ebox.tninet.se> wrote:
>>He didn't flame the original poster for disagreeing with him, but for
>>posting an obvious troll message. That's a big difference. And how can
>>you call someone a racist and in the next sentence admit that you have
>>stereotypes for citizens of whole continents yourself? Very odd.
> Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans, which kind
> of gives me the right to have a stereotype (as we all do). This idiot wrote
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you don't include me when you say 'we'. I would take it as an
insult. And you said 'Americans'. America is a continent. The USA is a
country. And you can't complain about people being racist if you say
that having stereotypes is ok. What else is racism than having
stereotypes for a group of people? It's called 'prejudice'.
> that Jews were more intelligent than Mediterranean people.
You keep saying that. Perhaps you should re-read his posting that you
refer to all the time and try to actually understand it. That might
help you.
>>If they are trolls, why should they not be called trolls? Aren't you
>>the one who trolled yourself in the message <6afq6a$rp8$1...@zingo.tninet.se>
>>and in <6aqp8d$8lr$2...@zingo.tninet.se> (in alt.fan.robert-jordan... compare
>>both messages, it is interesting how similar they are in a way).
> The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no one,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You've got to be kidding.
> except Tolkien, which I think is okay (though I don't agree) because he
> shouldn't be as glorified as much as some glorify him.
Agreed. I don't glorify a person though by saying that he was not a
racist.
> The post I flamed reeked of intolerance, which I (and most everyone else) is
> sick of getting from South Africa.
Ah... another stereotype?
Mika-Petri Lauronen
Well, the discussion here has been interesting, although I read the
articles very rapidly.
You have to remember that Tolkien was born to a well-off, prestigious,
upper-class catholic family. I'd be surprised if he wasn't an upper-
class snob. After all, he was a professor in Oxford, right? You don't
get Oxford professors from the working classes, do you?
Anyway, the implication of working classes in Middle-Earth is a little
bit irrelevant, for M-E was a feodalistic world. It had kings, and
other nobility along with the common people, and, as I suspect, slaves
or at least peasants.
The matter of production or logistics don't pop up very well in the
stories, probably because Tolkien was a linquist, not a geographer.
I have often wondered where did all the food come from? I mean, Shire
was a tiny bit of the whole M-E, and it didn't only produce food.
One of its main imports was tobacco! Rohan was full of hay to feed
the horses - RIDING horses, mind you. It seems that they didn't eat
them. The elves were gatherers and hunters, and the dwarfs - who knows?
I have made some calculations (not available here, sorry) about the
food production in M-E. I have assumed that the average production was
the same as in Europe in 15th Century. I have also made some estimations
about the population in the Middle-Earth, based on the fact that during
the Middle-Ages most of the population (have to check the figures again)
lived in the countryside, on the estimates of the population in the
towns, on the arable area of the Middle-Earth and the estimates of the
amount of trade, which was very small, since there seems to be very few
ships in for example Minas Tirith and practically no caravans. It seems
that more than 80% of the food required to keep people alive is missing -
and it seems that nobody starves, but eats well!
Try to make own calculations, and we'll check the results.
--
********************************************************************
* "We have been serving men. We should have been serving mankind." *
* (Cordwainer Smith: The Queen of the Afternoon) *
********************************************************************c
Travis Bedard
(snip snip here)
Who is Tolkien to decide what is and what is not beautiful or graceful.
And let us look at what he has selected to be the epitome of graceful
language. He has selected educated middle-class R.P. english. Any
deviation from that ideal is to be associated with uncouthness and evil.
To me that seems to represent some form of bias against working-class
culture and the working-classes themselves.
(snip snip there)
Tolkien is a writer like any other who was writing "what he knows", and as a
human being he gets to decide for himself, just like you and I and every other
human being on the planet gets to, what is beautiful or graceful. Do you
disagree with his idea? Create your own world.
Did he treat the working class differently? Yup. He was an
upper-middleclass scholar all his life, and moved out of town when it got too
industrial (I'll look it up later) He was also very private. He wrote the
book(s) in the language(s) he was comfortable with (or created). As far as I
know he won't be running for public office anytime soon, so his record on
class equality should not be a major concern in your life for some time.
Proceed with the flaming
Frawst
gordon....@which.net
Hello again
Well done in spotting my, ahem, deliberate spelling error.
GJMcManus
gordon....@which.net
Annatar Gorthaur wrote:
>
> Come on... it's a FANTASY novel. Set in a medieval, and more important,
> FANTASY world. Words like "working-class" are irrelevant to a
> fantasy-world.
>
You are quite right. It is a work of fiction. That is definately one way
of looking at it. However another way of looking at it is to see it as a
cultural product of the heavily industrial 20th century. A place where
words like working class have a great deal of importance. If this were
indeed some medievil Icelandic saga then I could agree with you. But it
is a work of this century masquerading as a medievil folk-tale. It is
none-the-less a product of our century, and I believe then that my
arguments have some weight.
GJMcManus (scuse the spellign)
>
> Simple coincidence. The Balchoth, the Wainriders, the Black (ironic :))
> Numenoreans, the Variags, the Easterlings, were not black. But then
> again, does it matter that the good guys are white? It's a fantasy novel
> in a medieval setting. The racial differences in our world cannot be
> applied to Middle-earth. Luckily not.
>
>
> --
> Annatar Gorthaur, Darkfriend Trollsbane a.k.a. Maarten de Jong
> ICQ 3836817 e-mail: maar...@lx.student.wau.nl
> "My sinful glare at nothing holds thoughts of death behind it
> Skeletons in my mind commence tearing at my sanity
> Vessels in my brain carry death until my birth
> Come and die with me forever
> Share insanity"
>
> -- Slayer - Postmortem
gordon....@which.net
Per Erik Rønne wrote:
>
> It is too simple for an American to see it.
You are quite wrong. Nothing is too simple for an American.
>
> A few decades ago, to see a black person in Copenhagen, Denmark was so
> rare that everybody wanted to talk with him. The same in England, at
> least in rural England.
>
> A European writing a book based on a medieval society wouldn't even
> think of having blacks in such a society. They simply weren't present in
> medieval Europe - and for quite obvious reasons. Their quantity of
> melanine is simply too large for European latitudes! And the quantity of
> melanine in whites is simply too small for whites i Equatorian
> latitudes.
>
> And on accent which another person has written about: Is it strange that
> an English professor at Oxford [the world's finest university]
Wrong. Glasgow Caledonian University is the worlds finest University. It
wos them wot edukated me.
speaks
> the beautiful accent called by various names: Public school English.
> Oxford English. The Queen's/King's English. BBC English. Received
> Pronounciation.
It is perhaps not a surprise but this and the fact that he selects
colloquial, heavily accented (working class) english to represent the
bulk of his bad guys I think suggests he was a snob.
>
> Should he had spoken in the notorious accent used in the United States,
> the accent that gives every well-educated and decent Brit vomit feelings
Well said that man.
Ilweran
In article <6h6o40$mhl$3...@cubacola.tninet.se>, "Damir Avdic"
<teh...@ebox.tninet.se> writes:
>>And you're not being racist?
>
>Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
>cultures and not be a racist.
>
Maybe I'm over sensitive. Being Welsh I've had to put up with various
"cultureist" remarks.
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <35362E...@which.net>, gordon....@which.net wrote:
> William wrote:
> >
> I rather think that Tolkien's Bad Places have an industrial feel because
> > he hated industrialization, not the urban working classes that
> > industrialization (in our world) created.
> Then why does he people such places with working class characters. My
> assumption that they are working class is taken from their direct
> speech.
> (Please do not go on about this being only an assumption, that is all
> any of us can make). Perhaps part of what Tolkien hated about
> industrialisation was the working masses that it created and the
> subsequent proliferation of working-class culture.
>
Wouldn't it be equally easy to conclude that what Tolkien hated
about industrialization was that it led to a lot of oppression
of the working classes? We're not talking late '90's here,
with OSHA (or the UK equivalent) enforcing health and safety
and child labor laws. Tolkien's reference would be the first
part of this century, where working in a factory wasn't
a very pleasant prospect.
Bruce Hietbrink
William
gordon....@which.net wrote:
> Per Erik Rønne wrote:
> >
>
>
> speaks
> > the beautiful accent called by various names: Public school English.
>
> > Oxford English. The Queen's/King's English. BBC English. Received
> > Pronounciation.
>
> It is perhaps not a surprise but this and the fact that he selects
> colloquial, heavily accented (working class) english to represent the
> bulk of his bad guys I think suggests he was a snob.
> >
But this simply isn't true. The baddest Bad Guys say things like,
"Stand not between the Nazgul and his prey, or he will not slay thee in
thy turn," and, "Has anyone in this rabble the authority to treat with
me, nay, the wit to understand me?" If we were to tally up characters
who speak the vernacular in the LR, we would be left with five or six
Orcs against a myriad of Hobbits, Breelanders, and such.--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
William
Marc Greis wrote:
> The Dark Lord <smd...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> If the bad guys in Tolkiens work are not clearly defined as uncouth
>
> >> working-class oiks then they usually tend to be black.
>
> > There are EVIL BLACK people in LOTR!?!! Where!?!! Really, show me
> an exact
> > quote that states that there are black people and that they are
> evil. You
>
> What would be more important to prove that Tolkien was a racist would
> be a statement where he claims that certain people are evil *because*
> they are black, since *that* would be a racist statement. Tolkien also
>
> never stated that *all* white people are good.
Thak you, Marc. McManus should reread the passage in "Of Herbs and
Stewed Rabbit" where Sam looks ad the dead (swarthy) Southron, and
wonders whether he was really evil, or what lies or threats had taken
him so far from home. (NB- the Southron is pretty plainly an
aristocrat).
William
Damir Avdic wrote:
> Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans,
> which kind
> of gives me the right to have a stereotype (as we all do).
Okay, buddy. Shoot. Describe me.
BTW, why do you cite that horrible American Madonna in your sig?
CFoster885
>Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans, which kind
>that Jews were more intelligent than Mediterranean people.
All I did was quote a college study just because it was the only one I ever new
about on races. It was an example in racial classification, it was not racist.
>The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued.
An in the wrong newsgroup I might add.
--
Casey Foster
***
Casey's quote of the Week
"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
-- Genghis Khan
CFoster885
>BTW, why do you cite that horrible American Madonna in your sig?
No kidding.
CFoster885
>Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
>cultures and not be a racist.
But you are intolerant. And you were racist against white south africans.
CFoster885
McManus wrote-
>You are quite right. It is a work of fiction. That is definately one way
>of looking at it.
And the other way of looking at it would be...........
>But it
>is a work of this century masquerading as a medievil folk-tale.
It masquerades as nothing, Tolkien himself said it wasn't symbollic.
Damir Avdic
>> Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans, which
kind
>> of gives me the right to have a stereotype (as we all do). This idiot
wrote
>I hope you don't include me when you say 'we'. I would take it as an
>insult. And you said 'Americans'. America is a continent. The USA is a
>country. And you can't complain about people being racist if you say
>that having stereotypes is ok. What else is racism than having
>stereotypes for a group of people? It's called 'prejudice'.
Oh but I do include you when I say "we". If you mean to say you have no
prejudice you're either an angel or a liar.
Show me the Canadian who wouldn't just as soon cut his wrists as admit to
being an American. And just how would you call people from the USA?
Unitedstatists? Think before you state something as foolish as this.
But we are all, as someone posted some time back, racists. Don't be so
engrossed in self-worship so as not to be able to see your faults. ;)
>> that Jews were more intelligent than Mediterranean people.
>
>You keep saying that. Perhaps you should re-read his posting that you
>refer to all the time and try to actually understand it. That might
>help you.
Ah, another racist that likes to accuse others of being racist. You aren't,
by any chance, American? Just kidding.
I do understand it, and far better than you seem to do. Foster had nothing
to say in his defense.
>> The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no
one,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You've got to be kidding.
Don't take my words out of context you idiot! You can't just cut a sentence
in two, then comment on it!
>> except Tolkien, which I think is okay (though I don't agree) because he
>> shouldn't be as glorified as much as some glorify him.
>
>Agreed. I don't glorify a person though by saying that he was not a
>racist.
People do glorify him by refusing even the remote possibility that he was
racist, and then insult those who do believe that he was.
>> The post I flamed reeked of intolerance, which I (and most everyone else)
is
>> sick of getting from South Africa.
>
>Ah... another stereotype?
Does your IQ reach 100? Of course it's a stereotype. Isn't everyone sick of
intolerance from SAfrica? Think about it.
>Marc
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <199804162240...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
> >Surely this is an open forum where people with an interest in Tolkiens
> >works can discuss matters that interest them.
>
> Please don't play the martyr it will get you no where. By disgussion you
> classifiy insulting the author. This isn't alt.disgussion.tolkien, it is
> alt.fan.tolkien and we don't take kindly to incorrect insults against the
> auther.
> --
>
> Casey Foster
So if the poster had instead posted to rec.arts.books.tolkien his
post would have been okay? Finally I understand why we have two
different newsgoups.
A.f.t is for the following threads:
Why I love tolkien
My favorite tolkien character
Best quote
Balrogs are cool, wings or not
R.a.b.t is for all other tolkien discussion. Now it all makes
sense.
Less sarcastically, I'm a Dodger's fan, but I scream like mad
when they choke in the post-season. Being a fan doesn't require
blindness.
Bruce Hietbrink
Areff D
>(snip snip here)
>Who is Tolkien to decide what is and what is not beautiful or graceful.
>And let us look at what he has selected to be the epitome of graceful
>language. He has selected educated middle-class R.P. english. Any
>deviation from that ideal is to be associated with uncouthness and evil.
>To me that seems to represent some form of bias against working-class
>culture and the working-classes themselves.
>(snip snip there)
Nevermind the fact that the ultimate heroes of the books are those very same
working-class, simple folk, the Hobbits. Nevermind that they are shown to be
the only ones with the common sense and goodness of heart to bear the Ring and
remain uncorrupted. Yeah, you're right, Tolkien was a snob, which is why
Boromir, the son of a ruling family, was able to resist tempta -- oh, right, he
didn't. Well, then you have Denethor, a ruling regent, who -- nope, wait,
that's not right either. Hmm, and the Nazgul all used to be kings and
princes.... Yep, lots of snobbery there.
> Proceed with the flaming
> Frawst
I know this wasn't your post, Frawst, I just couldn't find the original!:)
Richard F. Dickson
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Bruce Hietbrink
In article <6h6u9a$mt4$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>, mpla...@paju.oulu.fi
(Mika-Petri Lauronen) wrote:
> I have made some calculations (not available here, sorry) about the
> food production in M-E. I have assumed that the average production was
> the same as in Europe in 15th Century. I have also made some estimations
> about the population in the Middle-Earth, based on the fact that during
> the Middle-Ages most of the population (have to check the figures again)
> lived in the countryside, on the estimates of the population in the
> towns, on the arable area of the Middle-Earth and the estimates of the
> amount of trade, which was very small, since there seems to be very few
> ships in for example Minas Tirith and practically no caravans. It seems
> that more than 80% of the food required to keep people alive is missing -
> and it seems that nobody starves, but eats well!
>
I don't think that Minas Tirith is very representative as we only
see it in wartime. I was under the impression that the whole area
south of the White Mountains was agrarian, and that during peacetime
there would be lots of commerce back and forth. The Shire and the
area immediately around Bree seemed mostly farmland.
Elves, OTOH, don't seem to be farmers. I can't imagine an elf on
a tractor (I know, there aren't any tractors in ME, but it's an
amusing image). What the heck did the people of Nargothrond eat?
Lorien also seems like a country without farms.
Michael, do you have any thoughts?
Bruce Hietbrink
Damir Avdic
>>Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
>>cultures and not be a racist.
>
>But you are intolerant. And you were racist against white south africans.
I wasn't racist, since white South Africans aren't a "race" different from
my own.
Yes, I'm intolerant. Of intolerance. How many times must I write this for
you to understand??? I have nothing against South Africans in general. The
post I replied to was offensive, I didn't flame it because the guy was South
African.
>Casey Foster
>***
>Casey's quote of the Week
>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> -- Genghis Khan
And this is your signature? How dare you attack my Madonna verses and have
such crap in your own signature? You do affirm my stereotype with every
post. Had people like you not existed, I wouldn't be able to have
stereotypes. You create it; you perpetuate it.
Damir Avdic
>>BTW, why do you cite that horrible American Madonna in your sig?
>
>No kidding.
Oooh. Now it's sarcasm. You must really be straining your brain cells.
May I ask what the point of this post is? Am I not allowed to have my own
taste? You listen to country music, don't you? ;)
The horrible American Madonna is in many ways part of the stereotype, but
she's also EXTREMELY original. There's no way in hell, no way whatsoever one
could ever put a stereotype label on Madonna; except that of "Madonna".
the Piper
"Damir Avdic" <teh...@ebox.tninet.se> spat:
> >>Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
> >>cultures and not be a racist.
> >
> >But you are intolerant. And you were racist against white south africans.
>
> I wasn't racist, since white South Africans aren't a "race" different from
> my own.
> Yes, I'm intolerant. Of intolerance. How many times must I write this for
> you to understand??? I have nothing against South Africans in general. The
> post I replied to was offensive, I didn't flame it because the guy was South
> African.
>
> >Casey Foster
> >***
> >Casey's quote of the Week
> >"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
> >ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> > -- Genghis Khan
>
> And this is your signature? How dare you attack my Madonna verses and have
> such crap in your own signature? You do affirm my stereotype with every
> post. Had people like you not existed, I wouldn't be able to have
> stereotypes. You create it; you perpetuate it.
>
> Depth
> teh...@ebox.tninet.se
>
I think you're imagining things for the sake of starting an argument. Nobody
in here is a die-hard racist or a member of the KKK, that I know of, and
neither was JRR himself. Maybe everybody could just get along if people like
you would just stop putting fuel on the fire.
P
JWood0886
As someone who loved the LOR twenty years ago and just finished reading the
trilogy to his son, and as a history teacher, I have to agree that there are
significant racist and elitist aspects to Tolkien's work. But just I regularly
listen to Wagner, despite his anti-semitism, the art of Tolkien wins me over. I
can enjoy the fantasy.
CFoster885
>>Casey Foster
>>***
>>Casey's quote of the Week
>>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
>>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
>> -- Genghis Khan
>
>And this is your signature? How dare you attack my Madonna verses and have
>such crap in your own signature? You do affirm my stereotype with every
>post. Had people like you not existed, I wouldn't be able to have
>stereotypes. You create it; you perpetuate it.
I found my quote to be rather amusing. If more people are insulted, I will
change it to a rather clever one of Churchhill.
CFoster885
>Oh but I do include you when I say "we". If you mean to say you have no
>prejudice you're either an angel or a liar.
>Show me the Canadian who wouldn't just as soon cut his wrists as admit to
>being an American. And just how would you call people from the USA?
>Unitedstatists? Think before you state something as foolish as this.
The only one acting foolish is you, the author only pointed out you condemned
racism and showed prejudice against an entire continent in one breath.
CFoster885
>You listen to country music, don't you? ;)
Absolutly.
The problem with country is not its lack of talent. Its the over abundent of
the talent-less.
Jon Osborn
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, M.J.G./98 wrote:
>this is kind of interesting...the snob part and the racist part.
>Does anybody know if Tolkien put persons of African(excuse for using
>"labels" like this but I'm not sure of the proper way) origin(I mean black
>people) in his Middle-Earth world?
>I don't recal ever meeting one in the book...
This doesn't really answer your question, but I have always assumed
that Variags, Southrons and Haradrim were swarthy. Perhaps that makes
*me* racist. But there is no doubt that Orcs are dark-grey or
black-skinned. I feel that Tolkien was merely a, hate to say it, since
it's been said 100s of times before, "product of his time", more than
he was a conscious racist.
Tolkien, being an Anglo, probably made all his "good guys" look like
himself, and he made the "bad guys" look completely different from
himself. Lots of people probably do things like that in their minds.
the Piper
cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) writes: > >>Casey Foster
> >>***
> >>Casey's quote of the Week
> >>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
> >>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> >> -- Genghis Khan
> >
> >such crap in your own signature? You do affirm my stereotype with every
> >post. Had people like you not existed, I wouldn't be able to have
> >stereotypes. You create it; you perpetuate it.
>
>
> I found my quote to be rather amusing. If more people are insulted, I will
> change it to a rather clever one of Churchhill.
>
>
Ah, Genghis Khan, always the humanitarian.
Mike Nancarrow
Jon Osborn wrote:
>
>
> This doesn't really answer your question, but I have always assumed
> that Variags, Southrons and Haradrim were swarthy. Perhaps that makes
> *me* racist. But there is no doubt that Orcs are dark-grey or
> black-skinned. I feel that Tolkien was merely a, hate to say it, since
> it's been said 100s of times before, "product of his time", more than
> he was a conscious racist.
>
> Tolkien, being an Anglo, probably made all his "good guys" look like
> himself, and he made the "bad guys" look completely different from
> himself. Lots of people probably do things like that in their minds.
The LoTR (and really moreso the greater work, the Sil) were set up as an
alternate mythic history for Northern Europe. Somewhat unsuprisingly, the
main "good" characters are Northern European. I don't think that this is
racist. If I set up an alternate mythic history for North America, the people
would be Native North Americans. I think everyone is still on board at this
point. If not, just forget the rest of this post, because you are not going
to get it, either. When this mythic Northern Europe is invaded, it is invaded
by people (including Orcs etc.) _FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE!_ These people are then
different, BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. They are presented as bad or
evil 1> because the worship Sauron !!!!! and 2> because they are opposed to
the de facto "good" guys, the base population. What is ha
--
Mike Nancarrow
"I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
WARNING: Use of the above Email address for unsolicited
commercial Email or as part of a mailing list for any
purpose, without express consent of the addressee is a
violation of US Law (see below).
Permission to use the above Email address for soliciation
purposes may be granted by the addressee for a fee of
US $500.00. Use of this address for solicitation or
other purposes constitutes agreement to these terms.
========================================================
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation."
========================================================
gordon....@which.net
Areff D wrote:
>
> Nevermind the fact that the ultimate heroes of the books are those very same
> working-class, simple folk, the Hobbits. Nevermind that they are shown to be
> the only ones with the common sense and goodness of heart to bear the Ring and
> remain uncorrupted. Yeah, you're right, Tolkien was a snob, which is why
> Boromir, the son of a ruling family, was able to resist tempta -- oh, right, he
> didn't. Well, then you have Denethor, a ruling regent, who -- nope, wait,
> that's not right either. Hmm, and the Nazgul all used to be kings and
> princes.... Yep, lots of snobbery there.
>
The Hobbits, with the exception of Sam, who appear in LOTR are clearly
all very middle-class. Sam is not portrayed as an equal but as a trusted
servant. There is a great deal of difference in status.
Marc Greis
Damir Avdic <teh...@ebox.tninet.se> wrote:
>>> Not whole continents, just the USA. I know a lot about Americans, which
> kind
>>> of gives me the right to have a stereotype (as we all do). This idiot
> wrote
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I hope you don't include me when you say 'we'. I would take it as an
>>insult. And you said 'Americans'. America is a continent. The USA is a
>>country. And you can't complain about people being racist if you say
>>that having stereotypes is ok. What else is racism than having
>>stereotypes for a group of people? It's called 'prejudice'.
> Oh but I do include you when I say "we". If you mean to say you have no
> prejudice you're either an angel or a liar.
Oh, nobody is without prejudices. But at least I know that all
prejudices are wrong, so I don't the ones that I might have in
a public forum, presenting them as the truth, using them to insult
others. Otherwise I could hardly join a thread about racism.
> Show me the Canadian who wouldn't just as soon cut his wrists as admit to
> being an American. And just how would you call people from the USA?
> Unitedstatists? Think before you state something as foolish as this.
Citizens of the USA? Thinking seems to be easier for me than for you.
> But we are all, as someone posted some time back, racists. Don't be so
> engrossed in self-worship so as not to be able to see your faults. ;)
So if we are all racists, then what is the point of a Tolkien/racism
thread anyway? In that case, saying that Tolkien was a racist would be
like saying that the horse has four legs. And none of us would be able
to point at anyone else, including Tolkien. But of course, you don't
know what racism is. Too bad.
>>> that Jews were more intelligent than Mediterranean people.
>>
>>You keep saying that. Perhaps you should re-read his posting that you
>>refer to all the time and try to actually understand it. That might
>>help you.
> Ah, another racist that likes to accuse others of being racist. You aren't,
> by any chance, American? Just kidding.
> I do understand it, and far better than you seem to do. Foster had nothing
> to say in his defense.
He doesn't have to defend himself. The people who performed the study
he quoted might have to. Have you ever attempted to find out what the
study was really about and what the results were?
>>> The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no
> one,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You've got to be kidding.
> Don't take my words out of context you idiot! You can't just cut a sentence
> in two, then comment on it!
Which words did I take out of context? And why do you use name-calling?
Because I disagree with you? I may quote you from an earlier article:
"How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you?". The words I
commented on were the words 'intelligent and well-argued' which you
used to describe the first article in this thread. And I posted the
whole sentence these words came from before I commented on it, I only
marked the words I commented on in usual Usenet fashion. Which sentence
did I cut in half before commenting on it? Do you even read what I
write?
>>> except Tolkien, which I think is okay (though I don't agree) because he
>>> shouldn't be as glorified as much as some glorify him.
>>
>>Agreed. I don't glorify a person though by saying that he was not a
>>racist.
> People do glorify him by refusing even the remote possibility that he was
> racist, and then insult those who do believe that he was.
I do assume that there is very well a possibility that he was a racist,
since I don't know him. I can't know what went on in the head of a man
who I have never met. But all posters who have so far tried to prove
that he was a racist from his writings (both his fiction and his
letters) have failed. And I will say that Tolkien was not a racist
until someone proves it. That does not mean that I glorify him, because
the arguments for him being a racist have so far been incredibly weak
and the arguments against it overwhelming.
>>> The post I flamed reeked of intolerance, which I (and most everyone else)
> is
>>> sick of getting from South Africa.
>>
>>Ah... another stereotype?
> Does your IQ reach 100? Of course it's a stereotype. Isn't everyone sick of
> intolerance from SAfrica? Think about it.
You are in no position to discuss my IQ, though I doubt that an IQ of
100 would be needed to see that what you say is pure nonsense.
South Africa is being ruled by black Africans now, by people who
suffered through Apartheid for a long time, their leader being Nelson
Mandela, a man who spent many years in jail for fighting against
intolerance. By saying that intolerance comes from South Africa in
general, you insult these people who constitute a vast majority of
South Africa's citizens. You might at least try to limit yourself to
'White South Africans', though even that would be another stereotype,
but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Of course, the
intolerant white people in South Africa who might still be left there
hardly have enough political power to make intolerance 'emanate' from
their country enough to make anyone sick of it.
Marc
--
Marc Greis gr...@informatik.uni-bonn.de
CFoster885
>The Hobbits, with the exception of Sam, who appear in LOTR are clearly
>all very middle-class. Sam is not portrayed as an equal but as a trusted
>servant. There is a great deal of difference in status.
Thats why he got to go to the uttermost West while Merry and Peppin stayed
there and died right?
Areff D
>The Hobbits, with the exception of Sam, who appear in LOTR are clearly
>all very middle-class. Sam is not portrayed as an equal but as a trusted
>servant. There is a great deal of difference in status.
Go back and read the scenes with Sam and Frodo in Mordor and try to tell me Sam
is not treated as an equal. In many respects, he is shown to be superior,
since he carries the Ring and avoids the temptation much better than Frodo did.
Damir Avdic
>this is kind of interesting...the snob part and the racist part.
>Does anybody know if Tolkien put persons of African(excuse for using
>"labels" like this but I'm not sure of the proper way) origin(I mean black
>people) in his Middle-Earth world?
>I don't recal ever meeting one in the book...
>just wondering...
>anyway...
>thanks...
>bye....
Actually, there is mention, in the LotR, and I don't remember the exact
words, of a southerner (not of the Haradrim) who was black of skin with a
scary red tongue and white teeth. He was described VERY unfavourably. But
then again, this might describe the way the Hobbits saw him rather than
Tolkien's own eventual view that black people would somehow be ugly.
"The night is my companion
And solitude my guide
Would I spend forever here
And not be satisfied"
- "Possession" - Sarah McLachlan
Damir Avdic
>Nevermind that they are shown to be the only ones with the common sense and
goodness of heart to bear the Ring and remain uncorrupted.
Oh? I do remember quite clearly that Frodo WAS corrupted, and so was Bilbo;
had the ring had a little more time... who knows? ;)
>Richard F. Dickson
>"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
Depth
Damir Avdic
>>Americans are not a race. They're a culture. One is allowed to dislike
>>cultures and not be a racist.
>
>But you are intolerant. And you were racist against white south africans.
>
>> I wasn't racist, since white South Africans aren't a "race" different
from
>> my own.
>> Yes, I'm intolerant. Of intolerance. How many times must I write this for
>> you to understand??? I have nothing against South Africans in general.
The
>> post I replied to was offensive, I didn't flame it because the guy was
South
>> African.
>>
>***
>Casey's quote of the Week
>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> -- Genghis Khan
>> And this is your signature? How dare you attack my Madonna verses and
have
>> such crap in your own signature? You do affirm my stereotype with every
>> post. Had people like you not existed, I wouldn't be able to have
>> stereotypes. You create it; you perpetuate it.
>>
>> Depth
>> teh...@ebox.tninet.se
>
>I think you're imagining things for the sake of starting an argument.
Nobody
>in here is a die-hard racist or a member of the KKK, that I know of, and
>neither was JRR himself. Maybe everybody could just get along if people
like
>you would just stop putting fuel on the fire.
Hmmm.... I don't get it. What did I imagine? That he was racist? I got mad,
since he accused me of being racist while mentioning something far more
racist than any of my posts did. That's why I flamed him. It seemed to me he
was the one imagining things for the sake of flame. :)
I agree that no one here is a die-hard racist, and that Tolkien wasn't
either. See, I'm getting along. <-- (that last sentence was mumbled through
clenched teeth ;))
I'll review my conduct, and try not to be so inflamatory.
Sorry, ;)
"The night is my companion
And solitude my guide
Would I spend forever here
And not be satisfied"
- "Possession" - Sarah McLachlan
PS See, I even changed the artist in my signature. Hope no one hates Sarah
McLachlan. :)
Damir Avdic
>>Oh but I do include you when I say "we". If you mean to say you have no
>>prejudice you're either an angel or a liar.
>>being an American. And just how would you call people from the USA?
>>Unitedstatists? Think before you state something as foolish as this.
>
condemned
>racism and showed prejudice against an entire continent in one breath.
I repeat, o blind one, I DID NOT SHOW PREJUDICE AGAINST AN ENTIRE CONTINENT!
I was saying stuff about the Americans, which (to most normal people) equals
"people from the US". I NEVER refer to the US as America, that would be a
disgusting theft of the name of the continent from the rest of the countries
there (I'm quite certain most Americans call themselves Americans and refer
to the US as America - part of what makes up my STEREOTYPE, which says they
believe themselves to be the greatest and foremost in the world ;)).
Have you understood??? Because most of our arguments tend to revolve about
you, on your own initiative, giving my words a different meaning than the
one I meant them to have. Quite unnecessarily, too, since I tend to explain
myself pretty well when replying to FLAMES.
>Casey Foster
>***
>Casey's quote of the Week
>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> -- Genghis Khan
Have a great life,
CFoster885
Madonna Boy wrote-
>
>I repeat, o blind one, I DID NOT SHOW PREJUDICE AGAINST AN ENTIRE CONTINENT!
>I was saying stuff about the Americans,
Obviously you have never been to South America (come to think of it, I haven't
either but know several who have) and if you go there the people in places like
Brazil consider themselves Americans too.
>which (to most normal people) equals
>"people from the US"
Well if normal people are too dense to know the difference I'm glad I'm not
"normal"
>I NEVER refer to the US as America, that would be a
>disgusting theft of the name of the continent from the rest of the countries
But the word American wouldn't? What a difference an "N" makes.
>Have you understood??? Because most of our arguments tend to revolve about
>you, on your own initiative, giving my words a different meaning than the
>one I meant them to have.
Actually my point is you giving your words a different meaning than the one
found in the dictionary. (i.e. Americans ONLY referring to United States
citizens.)
Per Erik Rønne
Areff D <are...@aol.com> wrote:
> Go back and read the scenes with Sam and Frodo in Mordor and try to tell
> me Sam is not treated as an equal. In many respects, he is shown to be
> superior, since he carries the Ring and avoids the temptation much better
> than Frodo did.
Also Sam becomes Mayor of the Shire for several decades. Samwise
Gardner's family is suddenly no more servants - they are aristocracy.
--
Per Erik Rønne
E-mail: xer...@diku.edu.dk
Homepage: http://www.diku.dk/students/xerxes
Remove '.edu' before e-mail [anti-spam]
jdavidson
That's what I thought too. So there is a democracy in ME! (Pretty good one
too)
Per Erik Rønne <xer...@diku.edu.dk> wrote in article
<1d7pcpp.1ne...@ppp100.alb.tele.dk>...
Jon Osborn
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
>In article <199804162240...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
>> >Surely this is an open forum where people with an interest in Tolkiens
>> >works can discuss matters that interest them.
>> Please don't play the martyr it will get you no where. By disgussion you
>> classifiy insulting the author. This isn't alt.disgussion.tolkien, it is
>> alt.fan.tolkien and we don't take kindly to incorrect insults against the
>> auther.
>> Casey Foster
>So if the poster had instead posted to rec.arts.books.tolkien his
>post would have been okay? Finally I understand why we have two
>different newsgoups.
>A.f.t is for the following threads:
>Why I love tolkien
>My favorite tolkien character
>Best quote
>Balrogs are cool, wings or not
>R.a.b.t is for all other tolkien discussion. Now it all makes
>sense.
Don't forget to add "COME VISIT MY COOL WEB SITE!!!"
>Less sarcastically, I'm a Dodger's fan, but I scream like mad
>when they choke in the post-season. Being a fan doesn't require
>blindness.
I live in San Diego, so I will *never* mention the Padres' sweep of
the Dodgers at the end of '96, was it?. *Never*. *Ever*.
I promise. ;-)
Actually, I would agree that any insults in alt.fan.<xyz> that are
directed against <xyz> are by definition trolling. If you post
"Tolkien was a snob" in this NG, you're a troll. This NG seems to me
to be primarily for *fans* of Tolkien and his works, not his
detractors. A non-troll thread title would have been, IMO, something
along the lines of: "Was Tolkien a snob?" or "Did Tolkien suffer from
a cultural elitism far exceeding that which would be normally expected
in a person of his social stature during the period of time in which
he spent his formative and professional years" (well, maybe not the
second one.)
I'm not saying people should not post articles that are controversial,
(I *may* have even posted one or two like that myself, possibly ;-),
but I think the NG title indicates that a certain amount of decorum is
called for when touching upon the actual person, place or thing with
whose fandom the NG is concerned.
IMO, "Tolkien was a snob" differs only in degree from "Tolkien was a
silly old fart who wrote crappy children's stories ", and does not
differ in its basic nature.
Yes, indeed, swept them 3 games in a row.
In L.A., no less. ;-)
Marc Greis
>>So if the poster had instead posted to rec.arts.books.tolkien his
>>post would have been okay? Finally I understand why we have two
>>different newsgoups.
>>A.f.t is for the following threads:
>>Why I love tolkien
>>My favorite tolkien character
>>Best quote
>>Balrogs are cool, wings or not
>>R.a.b.t is for all other tolkien discussion. Now it all makes
>>sense.
[..]
> Actually, I would agree that any insults in alt.fan.<xyz> that are
> directed against <xyz> are by definition trolling. If you post
> "Tolkien was a snob" in this NG, you're a troll. This NG seems to me
> to be primarily for *fans* of Tolkien and his works, not his
> detractors. A non-troll thread title would have been, IMO, something
> along the lines of: "Was Tolkien a snob?" or "Did Tolkien suffer from
> a cultural elitism far exceeding that which would be normally expected
> in a person of his social stature during the period of time in which
> he spent his formative and professional years" (well, maybe not the
> second one.)
Yea, I think that puts it in the right perspective. I always hear the
suggestion that people should try to interact on Usenet like they would
if they were sitting at the same table in real life, since that would
help to avoid 'hot' flamewars (it's much harder to call someone an
idiot when you have to look at him than when you're typing it... at
least for most people, I guess). So I always try to imagine Usenet
newsgroups as rooms where people discuss certain topics. And
alt.fan.tolkien is a room with a sign on the door which says something
like, "A place for Tolkien fans to gather and discuss his works". Now I
doubt that anyone would just jump in there and yell, "Tolkien was a
racist!" or "Tolkien was a snob!" (especially not without the proper
lurking time). And if they do it in the nicer way that Jon Osborn
described, like "I would like to discuss the topic of possible racism in
the LotR.", then they'd better be prepared well with good arguments for
even bringing it up.
> I'm not saying people should not post articles that are controversial,
> (I *may* have even posted one or two like that myself, possibly ;-),
> but I think the NG title indicates that a certain amount of decorum is
> called for when touching upon the actual person, place or thing with
> whose fandom the NG is concerned.
Exactly. It's fun for a while to read positive threads like, "Which is
your favorite passage from the LotR?", but even a fan newsgroup needs
controversial topics. There are many newsgroups for bands or TV shows
where people complain about the music the band has been making lately,
or the things that have been happening on the TV show in the last few
months. That is certainly normal, but from time to time trolls show up
in every newsgroup.
> IMO, "Tolkien was a snob" differs only in degree from "Tolkien was a
> silly old fart who wrote crappy children's stories ", and does not
> differ in its basic nature.
In fact I wonder sometimes why people who firmly believe that Tolkien
is a racist, a snob or whatever even 'enter' a newsgroup called
alt.fan.tolkien in the first place. I doubt that they can be Tolkien
fans themselves, because if I believe that an author is a racist and
that this racism is obvious in his books, then I can hardly like his
books. It would be less of a problem if the author had been a racist
in his private life without leaving a single trace of his opinions in
his books. In that case I *might* be able to like the books, though I
would not like the author. But the people who think he is a racist
derive this opinion from his writings. But perhaps I'm the only one
who thinks that this is weird. ;)
Per Erik Rønne
Marc Greis
>> LotR
> And what _does_ that acronym mean?
Lord of the Rings. Sorry. :)
Chisoncar
Marc Greis
>In fact I wonder sometimes why people who firmly believe that Tolkien
>is a racist, a snob or whatever even 'enter' a newsgroup called
>alt.fan.tolkien in the first place. I doubt that they can be Tolkien
>fans themselves, because if I believe that an author is a racist and
>that this racism is obvious in his books, then I can hardly like his
>books. It would be less of a problem if the author had been a racist
>in his private life without leaving a single trace of his opinions in
>his books. In that case I *might* be able to like the books, though I
>would not like the author. But the people who think he is a racist
>derive this opinion from his writings. But perhaps I'm the only one
>who thinks that this is weird. ;)
>
>
Your are not the only one.
joe
Michael Martinez
In article <bnh-170498...@ppc-cam.chem.ucla.edu>, b...@chem.ucla.edu (Bruce Hietbrink) wrote:
>I don't think that Minas Tirith is very representative as we only
>see it in wartime. I was under the impression that the whole area
>south of the White Mountains was agrarian, and that during peacetime
>there would be lots of commerce back and forth. The Shire and the
>area immediately around Bree seemed mostly farmland.
>
>Elves, OTOH, don't seem to be farmers. I can't imagine an elf on
>a tractor (I know, there aren't any tractors in ME, but it's an
>amusing image). What the heck did the people of Nargothrond eat?
>Lorien also seems like a country without farms.
>
>Michael, do you have any thoughts?
There are two traditions for where Men got their knowledge of agriculture:
from the Ent-wives and from the Elves. Of course, both could be "true" as
different groups of Men could have learned the skill from different sources.
You may recall a discussion some months ago in which evidences of Elvish
cultivation of plants was inferred from things that they ate and made (such as
the fact they are all clothed, they bake breads, etc.).
Something I don't think we discussed before was just how much food the Elves
would need to grow. They apparently required nourishment but not as much as
Men, so I would expect them to have fewer and/or smaller farms. But Galadriel
certainly had a garden.
And Gildor's folk had apples the likes of which Sam had never seen.
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web
\\// Mic...@xenite.org
//\\ Martinez <http://www.xenite.org/index.htm>
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Damir Avdic
>Madonna Boy wrote-
Oh yeah, a good one. ;) You barbarian-worshipping American. Just kidding. ;)
>>
>>I repeat, o blind one, I DID NOT SHOW PREJUDICE AGAINST AN ENTIRE
CONTINENT!
>>I was saying stuff about the Americans,
>
>Obviously you have never been to South America (come to think of it, I
haven't
>either but know several who have) and if you go there the people in places
like
>Brazil consider themselves Americans too.
I know. However, in any western country, when you say "American" you mean
Unitedstatists. Unless stated otherwise. You see, there is no way to call
Unitedstatists other than "Americans" so that name is reserved for them. Not
to mention that they themselves steal the name of the continent extremely
often.
So, since you're so smart, how am I supposed to refer to Unitedstatists?
"People from the US"? Oh no, waaaay to inconvenient.
>>which (to most normal people) equals
>>"people from the US"
>
>Well if normal people are too dense to know the difference I'm glad I'm not
>"normal"
LOL. When I wrote normal I meant "according to the norm", the usual, that
is. As I've explained, that's really the only way to name Unitedstatists.
Which means you can't use it for other peoples. I do know the difference,
btw.
>>I NEVER refer to the US as America, that would be a
>>disgusting theft of the name of the continent from the rest of the
countries
>
>But the word American wouldn't? What a difference an "N" makes.
Again, there is no way to refer to an Unitedstatist other than American. One
can, however, say "the US" instead of "America", which provides for a
convenient solution.
>>Have you understood??? Because most of our arguments tend to revolve about
>>you, on your own initiative, giving my words a different meaning than the
>>one I meant them to have.
>
>Actually my point is you giving your words a different meaning than the one
>found in the dictionary. (i.e. Americans ONLY referring to United States
>citizens.)
It doesn't have to, but, unless stated otherwise, it unfortunately does.
Simple facts.
>Casey Foster
>***
>Casey's quote of the Week
>"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches,
>ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women."
> -- Genghis Khan
Depth
Damir Avdic
>> Oh but I do include you when I say "we". If you mean to say you have no
>> prejudice you're either an angel or a liar.
>
>Oh, nobody is without prejudices. But at least I know that all
>prejudices are wrong, so I don't the ones that I might have in
>a public forum, presenting them as the truth, using them to insult
>others. Otherwise I could hardly join a thread about racism.
I do not present my prejudice as the truth. And I use it to insult others
only very seldom.
It's an idelist and futile statement that "all prejudice is wrong" since
everyone has prejudice and is always going to have prejudice. It's an
instinct resident in all beings. Most animals know that stripes mean danger.
Stripes often do, but not always. It's the same with people. Most Europeans
know that South African means racism. It often does, though not always.
>Citizens of the USA? Thinking seems to be easier for me than for you.
Too long and inconvenient. Thanks for the remark, btw, which I in no way
deserved. Suggesting you should think before posting something like this I
suggested you know better, which would be quite the opposite of stating that
you're stupid.
>So if we are all racists, then what is the point of a Tolkien/racism
>thread anyway? In that case, saying that Tolkien was a racist would be
>like saying that the horse has four legs. And none of us would be able
>to point at anyone else, including Tolkien. But of course, you don't
>know what racism is. Too bad.
The point is long since lost in the mists of time. Now I'm just trying to
defend from the flames.
I do know what racism is; in part, it's the assumption on the part of an
individual that one "race" is somehow "better" than another. Which Tolkien
is guilty of, as I see it.
>He doesn't have to defend himself. The people who performed the study
>he quoted might have to. Have you ever attempted to find out what the
>study was really about and what the results were?
Actually, he does. He never wrote that information himself, which he should
have done in quoting the study. The listeners aren't the ones who must
inquire about where information comes from. In a discussion, that must be
provided by the one talking, or his arguments and sources are wothless.
>Which words did I take out of context? And why do you use name-calling?
>Because I disagree with you? I may quote you from an earlier article:
>"How dare you insult someone for disagreeing with you?". The words I
>commented on were the words 'intelligent and well-argued' which you
>used to describe the first article in this thread. And I posted the
>whole sentence these words came from before I commented on it, I only
>marked the words I commented on in usual Usenet fashion. Which sentence
>did I cut in half before commenting on it? Do you even read what I
>write?
Sorry about the name, that just seemed to me to be an idiotic analysis of my
statement
"The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no one,
except Tolkien..." is what I wrote. Now, if you take the first part up to
the comma, you have a stupid statement. If, however, you read the whole
sentence, it's somewhat all right. Wouldn't you agree? It was inflammatory
of you to cut my sentence in half to make it look stupid, then comment.
BTW, who was insulted? Who? Why would any intelligent person be insulted
themselves if I insulted their favourite writer??? So you see, your cutting
of the sentence in half was rather unintelligent.
>I do assume that there is very well a possibility that he was a racist,
>since I don't know him. I can't know what went on in the head of a man
>who I have never met. But all posters who have so far tried to prove
>that he was a racist from his writings (both his fiction and his
>letters) have failed. And I will say that Tolkien was not a racist
>until someone proves it. That does not mean that I glorify him, because
>the arguments for him being a racist have so far been incredibly weak
>and the arguments against it overwhelming.
Read the LotR. There's proof enough. You do, however, have the right to
refuse this proof and have an opinion different from mine.
You appear to have a different view of what the word "racist" entails, if
you think the evidence for it has been incredibly weak and the arguments
against it overwhelming. I myself am certain he was never consciously a
racist, but definitely like every other European of his era in thinking
black people were worth less than whites. He may not have disliked blacks
for this reason, but it certainly makes him a racist.
>You are in no position to discuss my IQ, though I doubt that an IQ of
>100 would be needed to see that what you say is pure nonsense.
>South Africa is being ruled by black Africans now, by people who
>suffered through Apartheid for a long time, their leader being Nelson
>Mandela, a man who spent many years in jail for fighting against
>intolerance. By saying that intolerance comes from South Africa in
>general, you insult these people who constitute a vast majority of
>South Africa's citizens. You might at least try to limit yourself to
>'White South Africans', though even that would be another stereotype,
>but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Of course, the
>intolerant white people in South Africa who might still be left there
>hardly have enough political power to make intolerance 'emanate' from
>their country enough to make anyone sick of it.
An IQ of about 90, I think. Intolerance does come from South Africa in
general. This is simple facts. You say blacks have suffered apartheid for a
long time. And then you presume they adore the white people of the country.
Hah! Dig your own hole, why don't you. Blacks dislike whites because whites
oppressed them. I am beyond certain that most black people of South Africa
dislike the whites.
Would everyone just stop these stereotype flames already? You have
stereotypes too, you know. I'm just not hypocritic enough to hide them
behind a false mantle of morality.
>Marc Greis gr...@informatik.uni-bonn.de
CFoster885
Michael Martinez wrote-
>Something I don't think we discussed before was just how much food the Elves
>would need to grow. They apparently required nourishment but not as much as
>Men,
I don't think they need food to survive, look at the story of one of the sons
of Feanor (can't remember which) that was chained to a sheer cliff wall by one
arm. I don't think he was fed. My opinion is that lack of food won't kill
elves, but it might make them very week.
Casey Foster
***
Casey's quote of the Week
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Churchill
Michael Martinez
In article <199804191751...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, cfost...@aol.com (CFoster885) wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote-
>>Something I don't think we discussed before was just how much food the Elves
>>would need to grow. They apparently required nourishment but not as much as
>>Men,
>
>I don't think they need food to survive, look at the story of one of the sons
>of Feanor (can't remember which) that was chained to a sheer cliff wall by one
>arm. I don't think he was fed. My opinion is that lack of food won't kill
>elves, but it might make them very week.
Tolkien wrote that the Elves could die of starvation, and in fact required
sustenance. The case of Maedhros may, however, be similar to that of Hurin,
who was sustained by the power of Morgoth. It would require some research
which I don't have time for to see if Tolkien addressed the question of how
Maedhros survived so long.
Michael Martinez
In article <6hdd1r$iir$2...@cubacola.tninet.se>, "Damir Avdic" <teh...@ebox.tninet.se> wrote:
>I know. However, in any western country, when you say "American" you mean
>Unitedstatists. Unless stated otherwise. You see, there is no way to call
>Unitedstatists other than "Americans" so that name is reserved for them.
Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people from
other countries (who don't realize what an insult that is to someone born and
raised in the southern USA).
But if someone calls me "Yank", I have an idea they are from another country
and are simply referring to my nation of origin.
Marcus Wendel
Per Erik Rønne wrote in message
<1d7qic9.ojt...@ppp168.alb.tele.dk>...
Lord of the Rings.
/W
----
Terra Incognita at http://www.grs.se/marcus/index-uk.htm
"It is only petty men who seem normal."
Umberto Eco "The name of the rose"
Jon Osborn
On 19 Apr 1998, Marc Greis wrote:
<snip>
>... because if I believe that an author is a racist and
>books. It would be less of a problem if the author had been a racist
>in his private life without leaving a single trace of his opinions in
>his books. In that case I *might* be able to like the books, though I
>would not like the author. But the people who think he is a racist
>derive this opinion from his writings. But perhaps I'm the only one
>who thinks that this is weird. ;)
I have read some of John Norman's "Gor" books. I have no idea if John
Norman himself is a misogynist, but his books are chock-full of
misogyny. I do not consider myself a misogynist, yet I still have
enjoyed the "Gor" books I have read.
I am not fundamentally disagreeing with Marc (indeed, I do not
disagree with his post at all). This point is just something I wanted
to throw out to see who else might wish to chime in as I am curious
for myself how others view the (what seems to be to me) rather
important issue Marc raises: Is it possible to be a fan of someone if
his/her personal mores and values and/or creative efforts are judged
to be disagreeable?
gordon....@which.net
Michael Martinez wrote:
> Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people from (are you sure you have not mis-heard them Michael)
> other countries (who don't realize what an insult that is to someone born and
> raised in the southern USA).
>
> and are simply referring to my nation of origin.
Michael Martinez
In article <353ADB...@which.net>, gordon....@which.net wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people from
> (are you sure you have not mis-heard them Michael)
That was SO clever.
CFoster885
>So, since you're so smart, how am I supposed to refer to Unitedstatists?
>"People from the US"? Oh no, waaaay to inconvenient.
Actualy, it would be a good idea.
CFoster885
>Tolkien wrote that the Elves could die of starvation, and in fact required
>sustenance. The case of Maedhros may, however, be similar to that of Hurin,
>who was sustained by the power of Morgoth. It would require some research
>which I don't have time for to see if Tolkien addressed the question of how
>Maedhros survived so long.
>
>
Well it would be easy to feed Hurin, he was sitting in a rock armchair, maybe
the eagles fed Maedhros?
CFoster885
Michael Martinez wrote-
>Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people from
>
>raised in the southern USA).
Oh man that pisses me off too. I never use the word in dailey conversation but
to me it always obviously referred to someone from the north. However, it
would probably be better to be reffered to by that name than by having someone
say insulting Americans and pissing off Canadians.
jdavidson
What do you find so bad about Yankees?
gordon....@which.net wrote in article <353ADB...@which.net>...
| Michael Martinez wrote:
| > Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people
from (are you sure you have not mis-heard them Michael)
| > other countries (who don't realize what an insult that is to someone
born and
| > raised in the southern USA).
| >
CFoster885
>Actually, he does. He never wrote that information himself, which he should
>have done in quoting the study.
I'm sorry you doubt my honesty. I truly am. Here, to get ready for the study
first go to the Standford Electronic Humanities Reviews' "Cultural and
Technological Incubations of Facism" it is at
http://shr.stanford.edu/shreview/5-Sup/text/toc.html.
Also, here is some information from the US census I dug up.
Proportions of Americans who have completed college by self-identified
ancestries (2)
French-Canadian 16.7 percent
Dutch 18.5
Italian 21.0
Irish 21.2
German 22.0
Finnish 24.2
Norwegian 26.0
Danish 27.4
Swedish 27.4
Scotch-Irish 28.2
English 28.4
Welsh 31.8
Scottish 33.6
Russian 49.0
Notice that this doesn't mention Russian Jews, and it isn't an IQ test, but
hold on.
Also, there is a very well written NYU statement on race IQ testing, and flaws
in the system as well as enviormental effects at
http://www.nyu.edu:81/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html
I hope that holds you over, since I don't have time to look for more. I think
these cites show that what I said wasn't horse shit I made up.
On a related note, I was unable to find the original study which I mentioned.
So if someone could find a paper called "Something (either commentary or
problem) of the Gene Pool in America" by some italian professor, I will be
grateful to say the least.
Please rember the context of my original post. I was merely stating how one
goes about racial classification, and used that as an example. (i.e. A study
was done that listed the averedge IQ of a race, which they chose people of as
close to pure racial descent as possible (like people who didn't have a french
father and a arab grandmother) and it listed the IQs, the averedge IQ of
Russian Jews was SLIGHTLY higher than that of medit. peoples.
I did not mean to sound racist, and I do not consider myself so. I was merely
making a point about how people classify races. Perhaps I should have said
Asians have a higher averedge IQ than Austrailian aborigines. (also true) and I
am sorry if I offened anyone. I am not a racist more than the averege person,
nor am I Jewish, Italian, Asian or an Aborigine.
I was just trying to make a point, an obviously some person here doubted my
honesty, still looking back on me researching this I don't see why I should
have had to answer to Damir Avdic.
>The point is long since lost in the mists of time. Now I'm just trying to
>defend from the flames.
>I do know what racism is; in part, it's the assumption on the part of an
>individual that one "race" is somehow "better" than another. Which Tolkien
>is guilty of, as I see it.
Since I had to defend my position with cites, I suggest you defend yours with
any evidence that Tolkien was racist.
>In a discussion, that must be
>provided by the one talking, or his arguments and sources are wothless.
>
Since the information itself was never part of the discussion, then my
arguments weren't worthless. And if they were, they arn't now.
>"The post Foster flamed was intelligent and well-argued. It insulted no one,
>except Tolkien..." is what I wrote. Now, if you take the first part up to
>the comma, you have a stupid statement. If, however, you read the whole
>sentence, it's somewhat all right. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I still think (and I'm sure some will agree with me, it is an stupid
statement (not that I called you stupid)
> It was inflammatory
>of you to cut my sentence in half to make it look stupid, then comment.
>BTW, who was insulted?
Since you provide no evidence, I will have to go with my memory that says that
the what he did was totaly normal and not inflammatory.
>Why would any intelligent person be insulted
>themselves if I insulted their favourite writer???
I feel no one was insulted, but it doesn't make it any less of a flame by
definition.
>Read the LotR. There's proof enough
You can find proof of anything if you make as many asumptions as you do.
>I myself am certain he was never consciously a
>racist, but definitely like every other European of his era in thinking
>black people were worth less than whites.
You said every other European thought blacks were of less worth than whites.
You better hope you are right because if we can find one person in all of
Europe (including a black european) who thinks either blacks are better or they
are equal, than your entire posisiton is wrong. (which it is)
>Would everyone just stop these stereotype flames already?
Would you stop flaming and making generalizations about ALL europeans or ALL
americans (regardless of their country of origin)
And so ends my most COMPLETE post ever.
jdavidson
Do you really think all Americans (citizens of the US) fit your
stereotypes?
If you do, then you are wrong, but if you believe that some or most
Americans are stupid, then you are probably right.
(for everyone's info. I am a New England born Yankee)
But you must count Great Brittain in with us.
It is the US and Great Brittain's fault for the existance
and popularity of the (shudder) Spice Girls.
--
Joel magec...@hotmail.com
"One to be born from a dragon
hoisting both the light and the dark." -- Final Fantasy 2
"When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality,
and today the millions cry, we eat and
drink while tomorrow they die."-- U2
CFoster885
GJ McManus wrote-
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>> Piffle. I've been called "Yank" and "Yankee" often enough by people from
>(are you sure you have not mis-heard them Michael)
>> other countries (who don't realize what an insult that is to someone born
>and
>> raised in the southern USA).
>>
>> But if someone calls me "Yank", I have an idea they are from another
>country (have you spelled "Yank" correctly Michael)
>> and are simply referring to my nation of origin.
>> GJMcManus
Where did you learn to quote?
Michael Martinez
In article <01bd6be8$575031a0$d30620ce@hal-9000>, "jdavidson" <jdav...@conknet.com> wrote:
>What do you find so bad about Yankees?
My mother is a Yankee. It's not that anything is "bad" about Yankees. You
just grow up being told that Yankees invaded the South, sent carpet-baggers
and scalawags south after the war, are the worst-possible drivers in the world
(although IMO New Mexicans have earned that title, but then, they sided with
the Union IIRC), and so forth.
It's just something that permeates Southern culture.
You just don't call people "Yankees" in the south. It's rude.
But I guess that's a "white Southern culture" thing. Certainly the
African-Americans don't share all the same cultural heritage that the white
southerners do (although there isn't a great deal of homogeneity among whites,
either).
Anyway, the first time someone from outside the US called me a "Yankee", I had
to remind myself they didn't know what that word meant to me. And it was
annoying because they used it repeatedly in the space of several minutes. I
was in London and my supervisor, who was from the North, couldn't help but
smile because she KNEW what was going through my mind.
David A. Lind
jdavidson wrote:
>
> Do you really think all Americans (citizens of the US) fit your
> stereotypes?
> If you do, then you are wrong, but if you believe that some or most
> Americans are stupid, then you are probably right.
> (for everyone's info. I am a New England born Yankee)
> But you must count Great Brittain in with us.
> It is the US and Great Brittain's fault for the existance
> and popularity of the (shudder) Spice Girls.
Don't include me in that sweeping statement. The Spice Girls are on my Top
Ten Worst Bands, right up there with Milli Vinilli.
Dave
cuteboy UK
Damir wrote:
>I do not present my prejudice as the truth. And I use it to insult others
>only very seldom.
<snip some good points, and some silly ones>
>I myself am certain he was never consciously a
>racist, but definitely like every other European of his era in thinking
>black people were worth less than whites.
Could you please reconcile the above statements for me?
Or at least prove the second one.
Thank you.
Lee
the Piper
And New Kids on the Block.
P
CFoster885
>> Don't include me in that sweeping statement. The Spice Girls are on my Top
>> Ten Worst Bands, right up there with Milli Vinilli.
>>
>
>And New Kids on the Block.
>
>
Stop it your going to give me nightmares.
Ilweran
In article <353c6235.13309439@news>, jon.o...@eudoramail.com (Jon Osborn)
writes:
> Is it possible to be a fan of someone if
>his/her personal mores and values and/or creative efforts are judged
>to be disagreeable?
>
I could be a fan of their work but not them. Though maybe it's easier to be a
fan of someone if whatever their prejudice is, it's something that is not
likely to directly affect you, eg homophobia if you're heterosexual.
Ilweran
*******************
Eight words the wiccan rede fulfill,
"And it harm none do as ye will"
William
> In article <6h6u9a$mt4$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>, mpla...@paju.oulu.fi
> (Mika-Petri Lauronen) wrote:
>
> > I have made some calculations (not available here, sorry) about the
> > food production in M-E. I have assumed that the average production
> was
> > the same as in Europe in 15th Century. I have also made some
> estimations
> > about the population in the Middle-Earth, based on the fact that
> during
> > the Middle-Ages most of the population (have to check the figures
> again)
> > lived in the countryside, on the estimates of the population in the
> > towns, on the arable area of the Middle-Earth and the estimates of
> the
> > amount of trade, which was very small, since there seems to be very
> few
> > ships in for example Minas Tirith and practically no caravans. It
> seems
> > that more than 80% of the food required to keep people alive is
> missing -
> > and it seems that nobody starves, but eats well!
> >
>
Well, I don't know what the basis of your analysis is; but Tolkien
believed (reasonably or not) that he was covered:
"I am not incapable or unaware of economic thought; and I think that as
far as the 'mortals' go, Men, Hobbits, and Dwarfs, that the situations
are so devised that economic likelihood is there and could be worked
out: Gondor has sufficient 'townlands' and fiefs with good water and
road approach to provide for its population; and clearly has many
industries though these are hardly alluded to."
Letter no. 154.
--
_________________________________________________
William Cloud Hicklin "And he named him craven,
soli...@gamewood.net and lord of slaves"
_________________________________________________
William
Jon Osborn wrote:
> On 19 Apr 1998, Marc Greis wrote:
> <snip>
> >... because if I believe that an author is a racist and
> >that this racism is obvious in his books, then I can hardly like his
> >books. It would be less of a problem if the author had been a racist
> >in his private life without leaving a single trace of his opinions in
>
> >his books. In that case I *might* be able to like the books, though I
>
> >would not like the author. But the people who think he is a racist
> >derive this opinion from his writings. But perhaps I'm the only one
> >who thinks that this is weird. ;)
>
> I have read some of John Norman's "Gor" books. I have no idea if John
> Norman himself is a misogynist, but his books are chock-full of
> misogyny. I do not consider myself a misogynist, yet I still have
> enjoyed the "Gor" books I have read.
>
> I am not fundamentally disagreeing with Marc (indeed, I do not
> disagree with his post at all). This point is just something I wanted
> to throw out to see who else might wish to chime in as I am curious
> for myself how others view the (what seems to be to me) rather
> important issue Marc raises: Is it possible to be a fan of someone if
> his/her personal mores and values and/or creative efforts are judged
> to be disagreeable?
Sure. An example: I (and many others) are fans of Wagner's music.
And this despite the fact that Richard Wagner was in his personal life a
toatal sleaze. He was a rabid antisemite, a philanderer, a swindler, a
misogynist, and doubtless many other bad and nasty things. But it is
possible to mentally divorce the art from the artist.
Assuming that we most of us disapprove of alcoholism, should we then
avoid the writings of drunks? Our reading lists would be short indeed!