LOTR and 20th Century Western European Prejudices
Newsgroup Poster
that Tolkien publicly rebuked the Nazis or that Hitler is Sauron
(Tolkien claimed not to have had in mind his WWI experiences, nor any
intentions of WWII allegory).
It's a shame the label "racist" has become such a perjorative that
honest discussion of "racist" views can't be had without appearing
melodramatic. There's "diversity" amongst racists, too, after all --
Tolkien was no genocidal racist, but he certainly had his chauvinist
side, which shouldn't be surprising given his milieu. The
protagonists are fair-skinned and the anatagonists dark and swarthy in
his trilogy. Did he "mean" any "racial comment" thereby? No. It's
"just" a reflection of his personal feelings that the good guys
"happen to look" like Northwestern Europeans and the bad guys yellow,
black, and brown hordes. It's like the old literary device of a
character that turns out to be, say, female, which occasions some
surprise precisely because of our and/or other characters' underlying
preconceived notions.
Mars...@yahoo.com (L D) wrote in message news:<ca025e05.03103...@posting.google.com>...
> There is a certain "richness" in Tolkein's writings. I was completely
> engrossed by the LOTR books and actually read the entire work,
> something I rarely have the patience to do. They are great adventure
> stories.
>
> However with their easy division of the world into good and evil they
> lack is any kind of deeper understanding, besides laden with the
> prevalent racial and other prejudices of early 20th century Europe.
> And Hitler was the peak realization of these prejudices, with his
> desire for conquering "Asiatic Russia", killing the Slavs and taking
> their lands, and killing the often dark haired, dark eyed Asiatic
> Jews. Those Jews who were Nordic in appearance (rather like Tolkien's
> elves) had a better chance of survival, there is a recorded incident
> of Himmler seeing a blonde Jew in a concentration camp and giving him
> the option of survival if he said he was not a Jew (which he refused).
>
> If you look at the plot of LOTR, it involves an attack on Eastern
> nations by people who look like Western Europeans. Of course the moral
> justification/preparation of this attack is that those from the East
> (and especially their leader) is evil, and they need to be attacked
> and destroyed for otherwise they will themselves attack. The parallels
> of Hitler's arguments that "Europe" needed to attack and destroy
> "Asiatic Bolshevism" are startling.
>
> Basically LOTR's worldview is that there are nations with good people,
> and nations with evil people. There can be no understanding between
> nations. It is moral for the good nations to wage war and destroy the
> evil nations. This is exactly the propaganda/ideological preparation
> used by Hitler on the otherwise normally normal German men before he
> sent them east to kill 25 million Soviets in 3 years. These are
> dangerous ideas for children.
>
> Of course LOTR is a great adventure story, but it does not change the
> very prevalent sub-text determined by the very prevalent prejudices of
> early 20th century colonial Western Europe. There are hordes of LOTR
> fans in the world, but the intrinsic message and prejudice is noticed
> by very few.
>
> Regards,
>
> LD
AC
> I have to agree with you, despite the nay-sayers who would point out
> that Tolkien publicly rebuked the Nazis or that Hitler is Sauron
> (Tolkien claimed not to have had in mind his WWI experiences, nor any
> intentions of WWII allegory).
>
> It's a shame the label "racist" has become such a perjorative that
> honest discussion of "racist" views can't be had without appearing
> melodramatic. There's "diversity" amongst racists, too, after all --
> Tolkien was no genocidal racist, but he certainly had his chauvinist
> side, which shouldn't be surprising given his milieu. The
> protagonists are fair-skinned and the anatagonists dark and swarthy in
> his trilogy. Did he "mean" any "racial comment" thereby? No. It's
> "just" a reflection of his personal feelings that the good guys
> "happen to look" like Northwestern Europeans and the bad guys yellow,
> black, and brown hordes. It's like the old literary device of a
> character that turns out to be, say, female, which occasions some
> surprise precisely because of our and/or other characters' underlying
> preconceived notions.
Ghan-buri-ghan wasn't a white European. Seems there is a problem with your
theory. Most of the antagonists weren't even Men, either. Even a Southron
was portrayed in an understanding light.
--
Aaron Clausen
Amanda Reckonwith
news:afff3966.03110...@posting.google.com...
> I have to agree with you, despite the nay-sayers who would point out
> that Tolkien publicly rebuked the Nazis or that Hitler is Sauron
> (Tolkien claimed not to have had in mind his WWI experiences, nor any
> intentions of WWII allegory).
>
> It's a shame the label "racist" has become such a perjorative that
> honest discussion of "racist" views can't be had without appearing
> melodramatic. There's "diversity" amongst racists, too, after all --
> Tolkien was no genocidal racist, but he certainly had his chauvinist
> side, which shouldn't be surprising given his milieu. The
> protagonists are fair-skinned and the anatagonists dark and swarthy in
> his trilogy. Did he "mean" any "racial comment" thereby? No. It's
> "just" a reflection of his personal feelings that the good guys
> "happen to look" like Northwestern Europeans and the bad guys yellow,
> black, and brown hordes. It's like the old literary device of a
> character that turns out to be, say, female, which occasions some
> surprise precisely because of our and/or other characters' underlying
> preconceived notions.
>
>
>
Finally, an intelligent and rational discussion on the mild racism
inherently apparent in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings.'
Newsgroup Poster's post above is perhaps the best-balanced post that I have
seen on this exact subject for quite some time - both rational and unbiased.
Over the years in this group discussions such as this have often quickly
degenerated into ugly shouting matches. I hope that this one can be
different.
This group used to be wonderful, before the movie sensitivities and
off-topic problems of the last year or so, which seems to have scared off
most of the nicer people. Let us use our reaction to such a sensitive topic
as the above in order to judge whether or not we can regain our former
reasonable group-attitude and thereby re-attract back to us all those which
were scared away. Then this can be a happy group once again. Or we can
ignore the changes for the worst which have occurred in this group over the
last year or two and pretend that everything is fine.
About the above post by Newsgroup Poster, I think my comments would be
almost identical to his, so I will not elaborate. But I find Mars6300's
remarks concerning parallels between Tolkien's ideas and Hitler's racism to
be most provocative, although it does seem almost impossible to be able to
have a rational discussion on such an apparently searing criticism.
One of the simplest and most evident notions contained within Nazi, Fascist,
or most extreme-right-wing propaganda is the idea that some peoples and
nations are good and some peoples and nations are evil. Basically, you have
your good guys and then there are your evil-doers. Sound familiar? Of course
it does. George W. Bush is neither the first nor the last to spout such
stuff, and as to just exactly where he should be placed on the right-wing
political spectrum I leave to your best judgment.
It is a comforting view of the world to think in absolute terms of good and
evil and to assume that we have the wisdom to correctly assign these labels
to us and them. It often reminds me of the comforting right-wing
fundamentalist religious world-view (American right-wing fundamentalist
Christians are one of the best examples, but other fundamentalists are just
as instructive in exhibiting the exemplary properties) in which it is easy
to decide who is good and who is evil. Those who are with God and of God are
good, others are evil and live in the outer darkness of the world, a place
distinctly distant and different and darker from 'The Light,' where the
chosen good people exist. Is it a wonder that right wing religion and
politics go hand in hand?
But is it not the very simplicity and comfort of this view which makes
Tolkien's Middle-earth such a comforting place with such a simple and
comforting moral structure? I know this is one of the most attractive
aspects of Tolkien's world, both for me and for many, many that I have read
or talked to. Middle-earth has all of the apparent complexity of the real
world with none of the moral ambiguities. It is as engaging and involving as
reality, yet, at its core, its fundamental moral structure is very simple
and easy to understand, unlike reality. Tolkien's writings celebrate the
triumph of good over evil, and everyone likes this, we even need it. There
is no need to discern between the subtle and confusing moral shades of
reality. There are good guys and bad guys, as in all fiction, yet *here* we
have a simple moral foundation to a complex world, unlike other works of
fiction. Perhaps this is what draws us to fantasy. Good and evil. Simple.
Comfortable. Easy to understand. Requiring No thought. Just like
fundamentalism in the real world. Requiring no thought. 'They' are bad or
evil because my preacher or my politician told me so.
A startling parallel, to be sure, when dragged out into the light and
exposed for all to see. Yet it does nothing to reduce my love of Tolkien's
world or his writings, for they are still morally simple, they are still
comfortable, and their sweetness still resides within their fantasy.
For it is the very fact that this is fantasy which makes it sweet. It is
neither a very accurate nor, in the above analysis, a very desirable
description of the moral ambiguities of the Real World. Let fantasy worlds
be morally simple! - this realization was part of Tolkien's genius. If such
fantasy worlds bear more than superficial resemblance to many right-wing
world views in the real world, what of it? Are those world-views not fantasy
as well?
Plant Life
"Amanda Reckonwith" <areck...@triccr.net> wrote in message
news:vqlci5o...@news.supernews.com...
> Finally, an intelligent and rational discussion on the mild racism
> inherently apparent in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings.'
>
> degenerated into ugly shouting matches. I hope that this one can be
> different.
>
Snipped your excellent post. I just spent 3 hours reading google. I searched
racist, racism on aft. Jesus!, what a long shouting match. I read as far
back as '98. It seems to be the same argument repeated endlessly. A newbie
or whatever say something like 'I always got the feeling that there was a
little racism in LotR' and then gets shouted down by Tolkienists.
After reading 5yrs worth of racism arguments on this newsgroup, I am now
quite convinced that there exists some degree of racism in Tolkien's LotR.
The frantic degree of energy committed to every argument by the naysayers,
especially the quickness with which they jump down the throat of each person
who suggests racism in Tolkien suggests, to me, that the subject is in need
of unbiased analysis.
I guess what is most convincing is that the subject will not go away. Every
few months someone different brings up the same observation.
AC
If you have something other than false claims that only white-skinned
Europeans are good guys or Orcs aren't fleshed out enough, then bring it on.
But if your arguments are just going to be those silly things, and your
defense against demonstrations to the contrary are nothing more than the
standard handwaving, don't bother. You're right, it's been hashed, and thus
far all that has been shown is that there are some people whose opinions of
Tolkien are based upon their own prejudices against the author and their
assumptions of what the text must be.
--
Aaron Clausen
Robert J. Kolker
Plant Life wrote:
> Snipped your excellent post. I just spent 3 hours reading google. I searched
> racist, racism on aft. Jesus!, what a long shouting match. I read as far
> back as '98. It seems to be the same argument repeated endlessly. A newbie
> or whatever say something like 'I always got the feeling that there was a
> little racism in LotR' and then gets shouted down by Tolkienists.
That is because there was a little racism in Tolkien himself. Consider.
Tolkien is English. He grew up during the time of Empire, when the Brits
controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface having overcome the
opposition of the "lesser" races and peoples. How could a Brit brought
up under these conditions NOT be racist? So the question is, is the
racism totally malignant or is it just a national characterstic with no
evil intentions. Give the Brits some credit. They were taking steps to
overcome class devisiveness (which is an economic kind of "racism"), to
deal with totally egregious and unacceptable conditions to which the
poor were subjected. A genteel kind of socialism was growing in Britain,
the Fabian variety, which did not have the hard edges of Marxist
Leninist Socialism. Britain produced Churchhill, and the Soviets
produced Stalin. There is the difference.
The Brits are, by and large, a decent folk even if we Americans living
in the late 20-th and early 21-st century find some of their attitudes
a bit much. In any case Tolkien was not an anti-semite nor was he the
kind of person that would advocate slaughter on a large scale. He put in
the mouth of Gandolph and caution to Frodo, not to be too anxious to
kill, even if it appeared to be justified. That strikes me as a very
decient outlook.
Bob Kolker
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<pl...@oldnews.net> wrote:
> "Amanda Reckonwith" <areck...@triccr.net> wrote in message
> news:vqlci5o...@news.supernews.com...
discovered the joys of sock puppetry have we?
A Tsar Is Born
> honest discussion of "racist" views can't be had without appearing
> melodramatic. There's "diversity" amongst racists, too, after all --
> Tolkien was no genocidal racist, but he certainly had his chauvinist
> side, which shouldn't be surprising given his milieu.
It would be unreasonable (but is clearly common) to expect JRRT to be quite
"up" on the political correctness demanded of world-best-selling writers
thirty years after his death. (For one thing, when writing LotR, he almost
undoubtedly never thought he'd be a world-best-selling author.)
While his elves all have white skin (doesn't that make them easier targets
in the woods in the dark?), ditto the Edain and the hobbits, and such
black-skinned persons as their are are certainly in cahoots with Sauron, he
makes a definite statement that these are men who have been corrupted and
who are capable of salvation, of conversion to right thinking. This last, of
course, was Christian dogma, especially in the world of South Africa and an
England sending out many missionaries that he grew up in. There is no reason
to believe his faith in this was perfunctory. When JRRT "pities even his
slaves" (was that Gandalf or Aragorn?), he means these corrupted types are
going to get a new deal once Sauron is gone. (The oriental models for the
"swart" and "swarthy" hordes who invade from the East are another matter,
perhaps, being related to those who betrayed the Edain in Beleriand, and
also having -- though he does not mention this -- faiths of theirown and, if
this is indeed earth, civilizations equal to Gondor's.)
So, yes, he's a bit of a racist, and so is everybody else. Some of us
disguise it better. We know the buzzwords; he didn't because they hadn't
been coined yet. He did not succumb to the popular racism of his day (cf.
John Buchan) that saw blacks and Jews as irredeemably corrupt, and I admire
him for it.
Tsar Parmathule
Hellekin
"A Tsar Is Born" <Atsarisb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jnAqb.560$y95...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> So, yes, he's a bit of a racist, and so is everybody else. Some of us
> disguise it better. We know the buzzwords; he didn't because they hadn't
> been coined yet. He did not succumb to the popular racism of his day (cf.
> John Buchan) that saw blacks and Jews as irredeemably corrupt, and I
admire
> him for it.
I agree. And because racism is such an important issue nowadays it
encourages such heated discussion. Yet "culturalism" is just as difficult an
issue to deal with but isn't as high on our agenda today yet it is heavily
related to what we conveniently label "racism". Is "culturalism" any less
reprehensible than the "racism" it so often overlaps with?
Tolkien clearly disliked French influences - especially on Anglo-Saxon
language and mythology. And arguably one of the big motivations behind his
writing was to 'repair' some of what he saw as cultural damage done to
Anglo-Saxon culture by the Normans. As for the Celts... well he wasn't
'racist' but he may be accused of being 'culturalist' towards some aspects
of Celtic culture. In his letters he states he had great affection for
Ireland and the Irish but didn't much care for their language or myths some
of which he deemed 'nonsense' - scrambled by oral traditions. But by
contrast he loved the Welsh language (and I can't help thinking that there
are some Welsh influences in the Elves).
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> Ghan-buri-ghan wasn't a white European. Seems there is a problem with your
> theory. Most of the antagonists weren't even Men, either. Even a Southron
> was portrayed in an understanding light.
Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
You can always find an exception, but that's missing the forest for
the trees.
The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus the fair heroes, the noble
whites...it all coincides rather too neatly with most racist
worldviews to be mere coincidence.
Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
AC
> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbql3cn...@namibia.tandem>...
>>
>>
>> Ghan-buri-ghan wasn't a white European. Seems there is a problem with your
>> theory. Most of the antagonists weren't even Men, either. Even a Southron
>> was portrayed in an understanding light.
>
>
> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
That's just word candy.
>
> You can always find an exception, but that's missing the forest for
> the trees.
>
> The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus the fair heroes, the noble
> whites...it all coincides rather too neatly with most racist
> worldviews to be mere coincidence.
Except many of the "whites" weren't all that noble. If you look at the
backstory, the Numenoreans committed what was likely the worst crime of all
Men, defying the lawful right of the Valar as the rulers of Arda under Eru.
They may have had greater gifts than other Men, but they became tyrants.
>
> Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
> but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
I don't see it there. What I do see is a lot of handwaving, along the lines
of word candy expressions like "the exceptions prove the rule".
--
Aaron Clausen
JXStern
wrote:
>Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
That's very white of you.
>but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
>steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
>such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
Say rather that he didn't think it offensive to draw distinctions
between groups of people and the colors of their skin for convenient
expository purposes.
White superiority in LOTR is limited to Gandalf's robes, and it's as
transitory as Saruman's.
J.
Hellekin
> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
This is an often misunderstood and misused phrase - in this context the word
'prove' actually means 'puts to test'.
The phrase does not mean that an exception validates the rule - but to the
contrary - that it questions the validity of the rule.
Robert J. Kolker
Newsgroup Poster wrote:
>
> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
Exceptions prove that the rule is false. The old saying should read
"exceptions -test- (i.e. prove) the rule". A good rule should have no
exceptions whatsoever.
> Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
> but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
Hell yes! He was a Brit! In Tolkien's youth, the Emprie ruled over one
quarter of the Earth's surface. Is it any wonder why Brits implicitly
assumed the superiority of anglo-saxons over "the lesser breeds".
Bob Kolker
Bruce Tucker
with your
> > theory. Most of the antagonists weren't even Men, either. Even a
Southron
> > was portrayed in an understanding light.
>
> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
So if there are no unsympathetic northwest European types or sympathetic
characters from other ethnic groups in Tolkien's works, he's a racist,
but if there *are* such characters, he's also a racist?
Lovely proof you have there.
> The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus the fair heroes, the noble
> whites...it all coincides rather too neatly with most racist
> worldviews to be mere coincidence.
It might, except that that isn't the theme of the book or even a fair
description of the military campaigns. Of course you can read anything
you like into it, and if you go looking for it with a sufficiently
biased mindset, I suppose you'll find it - just as Amanda apparently
sees a simplistic black-and-white (and racist) morality since that's
what she expects to see.
But if you look a little closer I think you'll see that, as I and
several others have pointed out, some of the worst, most ignoble deeds
in the book and in the larger mythology are committed by "whites", many
of the enemies faced by the Free Peoples are "whites", and some of the
most tragic falls into evil occur with "whites" - various examples all
of these might include Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, the Nazgul (although
whether they were "pale" before becoming wraiths is, I suppose, a matter
of speculation), the "Black Numenoreans", the whole island nation of
Numenor and Ar-Pharazon, and what I would consider the worst fall from
grace of all, the house of Feanor.
Like the Hebrew scriptures, Tolkien makes the theme abundently clear, in
fact almost beats the reader over the head with it, that what makes the
"Good" people good isn't a birthright they were born into and certainly
not any sort of racial type but the choices they continue to make, and
that if they choose to fall from the path of righteousness they will
lose any blessings they expect to receive by virtue of their ancestry.
The Numenoreans weren't great because they were tall white guys, or just
because of the deeds their ancestors had performed in the First Age;
they were great because they kept the "national" character they had
partly displayed and partly formed in those wars, and when time wore on
and that moral character waned as successive generations forgot those
lessons, their greatness waned with it and eventually fell with terrible
consequences.
Additionally, it's not to clear whether all of the human enemies are
"swarthy" or dark. The Haradrim and Southrons plainly are, and some of
the Easterlings are described that way, but IIRC some others are not
entirely unrelated to the Rohirrim, who are blond-haired and blue-eyed,
and others such as the Wainriders aren't described at all. Coming from
the north and not too far east they could really look and sound like
anything. And presumably the inhabitants of Angmar in the far north were
nordic types.
Anyway none of these nations is described as inherently or irredeemably
evil; they're just people who have fallen under Sauron's sway and must
be fought against because they're in his invading armies. The aim of
leaders such as Gandalf and Aragorn is invariably shown as freeing these
people from Sauron and making peace with them rather than conquering or
destroying them. So it's never "fair heroes vs. swarthy hordes", it's
more like "our heroes (who of course look like 'us', see below) vs. all
the multitudes of people the Enemy has tricked or enslaved into his
service, which includes both traitors and victims from our own people
and armies from foreign lands he has persuaded and/or compelled to come
here and invade us." Sauron is, I think, shown to be pretty much an
equal opportunity tempter and enslaver of wills. ;-)
> Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
Well, that's fine then, but please understand that others are making
just such a claim, and you seem to be agreeing with them.
> but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
I wouldn't say that at all. I think, rather, his writing reflects a
certain cultural bias which he put there intentionally. What you must
realize is that he set out in part to create a mythology for the
English. Of course in doing so he is going to put the viewpoint
characters in lands somewhat similar to northwest Europe, and of course
the heroes of the stories will be drawn from people who more or less
resemble the people who would be telling the stories many centuries
later.
But Tolkien didn't send his reasoning or his creative process at that
point and I don't think we should end our analysis there either; by no
means were the heroes of his stories simply established as whoever
happened to have the same skin color and language as the expected
audience, with no other (moral) qualifications. As I said above, the
"white" people in his stories are just as morally flawed as anyone else,
you just see them closer up and in greater detail because their cultures
are the viewpoint ones for the stories.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
David Johnston
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Newsgroup Poster wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
>
>Exceptions prove that the rule is false.
In fact they do not. They _test_ (which is the original meaning of
"prove") the rule but they do not prove it is false, just that it is
not absolute. Thus, teenagers are more likely to have traffic
accidents, but there are exceptions to that rule which "prove"
it. Cancer causes emphysema and cancer and junk but there
are exceptions to that rule, elderly people who have smoked
a long time without getting stuff like that. That there are
exceptions to a generalisation, does not mean the generalisation
is wrong, provided that you refrain from using words like "all"
and "none".
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>One of the simplest and most evident notions contained within Nazi, Fascist,
>or most extreme-right-wing propaganda is the idea that some peoples and
>nations are good and some peoples and nations are evil. Basically, you have
>your good guys and then there are your evil-doers. Sound familiar?
And that has what to do with Tolkien, exactly?
I don't recall any uncorruptable good guys, in what I read.
--
Want to understand why politicians do what they do? Simple: when you're
a big, gray, greasy rat, walking around on two hind legs, you have a
lot to gain by turning the world into a garbage heap.
-- Memoirs of Lucille G. Kropotkin
AC
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:42:37 -0800, Amanda Reckonwith <areck...@triccr.net> wrote:
>>
>>One of the simplest and most evident notions contained within Nazi, Fascist,
>>or most extreme-right-wing propaganda is the idea that some peoples and
>>nations are good and some peoples and nations are evil. Basically, you have
>>your good guys and then there are your evil-doers. Sound familiar?
>
> And that has what to do with Tolkien, exactly?
>
> I don't recall any uncorruptable good guys, in what I read.
You're just supposed to nod and agree. Those that claim racism in Tolkien
always seem rather surprised when you don't.
--
Aaron Clausen
FussyKatie
dwarves, hobbits) join together in spite of their differences to battle a
common enemy. It could have been meant as a metaphor for harmony between
human races.
Katie
Amanda Reckonwith
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:boehj3$1db99d$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> That is because there was a little racism in Tolkien himself. Consider.
> Tolkien is English. He grew up during the time of Empire, when the Brits
> controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface having overcome the
> opposition of the "lesser" races and peoples. How could a Brit brought
> up under these conditions NOT be racist? So the question is, is the
> racism totally malignant or is it just a national characterstic with no
> evil intentions. Give the Brits some credit. >
>
White Man's Burden, perhaps? I agree Tolkien was a racist only in terms of
being a product of his times and environment. And of course I give the Brits
credit. And I'm not sure if racism can be excused merely because their might
be 'no evil intentions.' I agree with the original poster. There exist many
shades, levels, and variants of racism, and some are less harmful, yet all
may have the power to effect others in a negative way. I'm not sure what to
say of Tolkien's racism. It always seemed innocuous enough to me, but it
seems to bother some others.
Amanda Reckonwith
"Hellekin" <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boene9$8ot$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Thanks to you both for restoring my faith in this newsgroup. I knew a
rational, nonemotional discussion of racism was possible. We have avoided
the politically correct idea that all racism is heinous. I do not know what
to really make of Tolkien's racism, or most racism, for that matter. I am
conflicted because, on the one hand I hate political correctness since it so
often flies in the face of the truth, yet, on the other hand, I tend toward
bleeding-heart liberalism in which I'd like to believe that all people are
created equal. But we are not all equal, and neither are peoples, races and
nations equal. Some are better, more advanced, more evolved, whatever.
Can we say that some more evolved groups of people are better than other
groups who are less evolved? What about the common observance among
anthropologists, historians, and those who deal with the psychology and
causes of war, who point out that the number and severity of war and the
frequency of large battles have grown since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, and that primitive societies (not all of them, though) usually
engage in less violence than industrialized societies. Not to mention the
fact that evolved Man is the only species which produces serial killers,
mass murderers, and other psychotics who cause severe disruptions in our own
society. Other animals don't do this. So much for evolution.
So, in what sense can we say that some groups of people are better than
others, if we are not allowed to plead 'Evolution' in the court of racist
judgment? If we insist that no groups are better, but simply that all groups
are different yet equal, are we not back to the politically correct untruth
of raging liberalism?Where is the way out?
ö¿ö¬ E=mc²
~
TT Arvind
I've been quite intrigued by many of the things I've read on this thread,
largely because I - as a very dark-skinned Indian - never noticed a
"racist sub-text" in the LoTR. I - and most Indians of my acquaintance -
seem to read the LoTR's commentary on races very differently from those
who do. I'm going to summarise the way I look at things here, in the
process responding to many different points made by many different people
in this thread.
Parmathule:
> such black-skinned persons as their are are certainly in cahoots with Sauron
I had a very different impression, actually. I remember thinking that
there must have been a lot of rebellions going on in the East and South
of ME at the time of the LoTR - I really wanted to read more about that,
but I didn't find it strange that the LoTR didn't talk about it. After
all, the characters of the LoTR weren't in contact with that geographical
area. So when I read of Tolkien's speculation that Alatar and Pallando
might have helped set off rebellions in the East, it didn't come as a
surprise because that was my impression anyway when I first read LoTR.
And Ghan-buri-ghan's people's help wasn't an "exception" - they just
happened to be in the place where the novel's action was set and so the
protagonists happened to be able to talk about it.
Likewise, I assumed that some of the people fighting on Sauron's side
were white. "Swarthy" can also mean the sort of complexion that southern
Europeans have, and that's what I read it as meaning in the LoTR
particularly since their geographical location put them in the right
place. The fact that you had a lot of Numenoreans who went over to
Sauron strengthened this picture, I suppose, because it's pretty obvious
that the "white-skinned" as a whole were not "good guys".
LD:
> The LOTR's worldview is that there are nations with good people,
> and nations with evil people. There can be no understanding between
> nations.
This, again, I didn't see at all in the book. Part of it, of course, is
that I was quite certain that people of all races were fighting on both
sides - a reading which still seems to me to be the natural one. But
even looking at what Tolkien expressly states in the LoTR, I had quite
the opposite impression. The Numenoreans, for example, who were the
ancestors of the heroes of the book, had quite an inglorious history.
Similarly, the Rohirrim had done some very nasty things to the wild men
who actually also had a fairly ancient and good culture. So the theme I
saw was that all nations do good and bad. And the fact that
rapproachment was made between the Rohirrim and Ghan-buri-ghan's people
seemed to show that understanding was achievable if people were only
ready to admit that they weren't perfect, and that they weren't always in
the right simply because they belonged to a particular people.
For the same reason, I found the morality in the LoTR to actually be
satisfyingly complex. No-one is perfect, everyone - even the most
learned and wise who've had the most advantaged life - can go horribly
wrong and totally miss what they're on Earth for, and the ones who
actually achieve good results are the ones who have the humility to
realise that. I'm quite intrigued to see some of you (Amanda,
for instance) describe it as being simplistic.
Parmathule:
> While his elves all have white skin (doesn't that make them easier targets
> in the woods in the dark?),
I'm curious to hear why you think this. I didn't get this impression
when reading the Silmarillion. I pictured the Vanyar as looking
Germanic-European (the "golden hair" had something to do with that), the
Noldor as looking somewhat northern Indian and southern European (from
their hair colour, and the particular emphasis on Aredhel's unusual
whiteness, I think), and the Teleri, Sindar, and Avari as having the
enitre range of skin colours that are found in India (no idea why I have
this picture, but haven't read anything in the Sil or the LoTR that
contradicts it). Is there something in HoME that says specifically that
they're racially similar to "whites"?
In any event, my point is that the way the books are written, a non-
European reading just the Hobbit, the LoTR, and the Silmarillion does not
picture all the Elves as being white which, I think, is reasonable given
that they're supposed to have been born far in the East of the world.
FWIW, most of my friends in the Tolkien Society I set up in my undergrad
days pictured the Elves somewhat like I did (admittedly, that was before
HoME, so if that says something else please correct me).
Parmathule:
> When JRRT "pities even his slaves" (was that Gandalf or Aragorn?),
> he means these corrupted types are going to get a new deal once
> Sauron is gone.
I thought he was talking about the orcs, actually. It's interesting that
some of you read it as meaning the other men - I'd never have thought of
it that way because I didn't think that the whole set of nations were
"slaves". And I never for a moment imagined the orcs to represent any
race of people. Perhaps it's because they're very similar to the non-
human demons of Indian mythology - even some of the physical descriptions
match.
Amanda:
> So, in what sense can we say that some groups of people are better
> than others, if we are not allowed to plead 'Evolution' in the
> court of racist judgment? If we insist that no groups are better,
> but simply that all groups are different yet equal, are we not back
> to the politically correct untruth of raging liberalism?Where is the way
> out?
I don't understand what you mean. Obviously no-one is *intrinsically*
better than anyone else, and no-one's culture is *intrinsically* any
better than other, and no system of morality is *intrinsically* right.
At the same time, it's utter rubbish to say that all cultures as they are
at the moment are all wonderful and are all making the world a better
place. Different cultures (my own included) succeed in some aspects and
fail in different aspects. The idea should be to accept that our
individual cultures get some things right and some things wrong, be as
self-critical as we can be, and be willing to learn from each other's
successes and mistakes. Why on earth do we have to have some sort of
half-baked Kierkegaardian notion of "all or nothing" when it comes to
judging our own and other cultures?
And on this score, too, the LoTR has something to say. If you just base
yourself on the pride and confidence you have in your culture, and don't
bother to consider the fact that you might be heading up the wrong path,
your civilisation will collapse and you will lose. The Noldor. The
Numenoreans. The Eldar with their rings. To me at least, this seems to
be screaming out that just belonging to a race doesn't mean you're any
better off than others, and if you think it is you're sealing your fate.
I am most interested to see that others read it as having the opposite
meaning.
--
You know it's going to be a bad day when your car horn goes off
accidentally and remains stuck as you follow a group of Hell's Angels on
the freeway.
Morgil
Amanda Reckonwith kirjoitti viestissä ...
Not to mention the
>fact that evolved Man is the only species which produces serial killers,
>mass murderers, and other psychotics who cause severe disruptions in our
own
>society. Other animals don't do this.
Absolute nonsense. There are plenty of animals with
similar behaviour patterns and psychic disorders.
They kill for fun, they kill their own offspring, they
torture the weaker, they kill the cubs and then rape
the mother, they practice incest, cannibalism, they
can go insane... Ever heard of rabies? How about
you watch "Cujo" or "The Ghost and the Darkness"
and then rethink your statement. ;)
Morgil
Hellekin
> So, in what sense can we say that some groups of people are better than
> others, if we are not allowed to plead 'Evolution' in the court of racist
> judgment? If we insist that no groups are better, but simply that all
groups
> are different yet equal, are we not back to the politically correct
untruth
> of raging liberalism?Where is the way out?
I don't think any group of people, or race or culture for that matter is
inherently 'better' than any other. It's a subjective matter - we don't have
an objective means of evaluating such things. Any theory that purports to do
this must be relativist. It's clearly distasteful and damaging for people to
have racial preferences - but part of my earlier point is that in by
contrast is quite acceptable to have cultural preferences. For example
liking Anglo-Saxon epic literary forms over French romance - even to the
point of claiming the superiority of one over the other. But actually I have
yet to find an example where even on this issue Tolkien goes further than
merely stating a preference for one and a dislike for the other.
Nospam...@nospamtheonering.net
Hellekin <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Newsgroup Poster" <ng_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:afff3966.0311...@posting.google.com...
>
>> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
>
>This is an often misunderstood and misused phrase - in this context the word
>'prove' actually means 'puts to test'.
Quickbeam's column this month in greenbooks.theonering.net discusses
Aragorn's story in terms of the dual definitions of 'prove' - he
must prove himself in the sense of putting himself to the test in
various ways; and he must prove (demonstrate) his bona fides as
the true heir of Elendil. Good column.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>I don't think any group of people, or race or culture for that matter is
>inherently 'better' than any other.
It's an evolutionary thing - cultures succeed, because they fit their
circumstances, or they don't.
If there's a single measure of the health of a culture, it's its
flexibility - its ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
--
The first and chief design of every system of government is to maintain
justice: to prevent the members of society from incroaching on one
another's property, or seizing what is not their own. The design here is
to give each one the secure and peacable possession of his own property.
- Adam Smith
AC
Perhaps you could start by actually demonstrating that he was a racist.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
You don't even need to find animals that have been infected. I recommend
that Amanda do a little reading on chimpanzees. They share a lot with us,
including murder. I believe it was Jane Goodall who saw chimps murdering
members of other tribes. Chimpanzees demonstrate many of the same violent
tendencies seen in some people.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And on this score, too, the LoTR has something to say. If you just base
> yourself on the pride and confidence you have in your culture, and don't
> bother to consider the fact that you might be heading up the wrong path,
> your civilisation will collapse and you will lose. The Noldor. The
> Numenoreans. The Eldar with their rings. To me at least, this seems to
> be screaming out that just belonging to a race doesn't mean you're any
> better off than others, and if you think it is you're sealing your fate.
> I am most interested to see that others read it as having the opposite
> meaning.
That is interesting. As a descendant of white Europeans the only group of
Elves that I ever had an overt feeling of color about was the Vanyar as
well, mainly because of the descriptions of golden hair.
The other side to this, of course, is that Tolkien was telling a tale that
essentially occured in North-western Europe. Would these people have the
same accusation of racism against a Chinese epic that didn't include
Australian aborigines or Inuit?
--
Aaron Clausen
Justin Bacon
>Say rather that he didn't think it offensive to draw distinctions
>between groups of people and the colors of their skin for convenient
>expository purposes.
Can you quote him doing that?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Trade Surplus
> <big snip>
> But is it not the very simplicity and comfort of this view which makes
> Tolkien's Middle-earth such a comforting place with such a simple and
> comforting moral structure? I know this is one of the most attractive
> aspects of Tolkien's world, both for me and for many, many that I have
read
> or talked to. Middle-earth has all of the apparent complexity of the real
> world with none of the moral ambiguities. It is as engaging and involving
as
> reality, yet, at its core, its fundamental moral structure is very simple
> and easy to understand, unlike reality. Tolkien's writings celebrate the
> triumph of good over evil, and everyone likes this, we even need it.
There
> is no need to discern between the subtle and confusing moral shades of
> reality. There are good guys and bad guys, as in all fiction, yet *here*
we
> have a simple moral foundation to a complex world, unlike other works of
> fiction. Perhaps this is what draws us to fantasy. Good and evil. Simple.
> Comfortable. Easy to understand. Requiring No thought. Just like
> fundamentalism in the real world. Requiring no thought. 'They' are bad or
> evil because my preacher or my politician told me so.
Your are correct to say that there are good guys (Aragorn, Gandalf) and bad
guys (Saruman, the Nazgul) in LotR and though you overlook the ambiguous
guys (Boromir, Gollum) you make a fair enough point that it is comforting to
see the good guys win in the end. Where you go wrong is in assuming that
goodness in LotR is based on race. Maybe a superficial reading of LotR could
lead to that belief but an author cannot be faulted for the superficiality
of his readers. Tolkien goes to great lengths to show that goodness is not a
racial characteristic but rather a personal characteristic that anyone can
acquire, or reject. This point is made even more strongly in Tolkien's other
works. LotR is in fact an explicit rejection of racism since it tells us
that race (among humans) is no predictor of morality, wisdom, spiritual
strength or any other good characteristic.
You hit closer to the mark on the religious issue. Obedience to the will of
Eru is a measure of goodness in Middle Earth but because of Tolkien's
beliefs about religion and morality, the will of Eru is to do good, i.e. no
inquisitions, crusades, forceful conversions or murder of those who don't
obey Eru. Thus even on the religious aspect of goodness, people are not good
because they adhere to a particular religion irrespective of their actions,
rather their goodness will lead to them executing Eru's will because Eru
wants good things to happen.
Trade.
Trade Surplus
> Thanks to you both for restoring my faith in this newsgroup. I knew a
> rational, nonemotional discussion of racism was possible. We have avoided
> the politically correct idea that all racism is heinous. I do not know
what
> to really make of Tolkien's racism, or most racism, for that matter. I am
> conflicted because, on the one hand I hate political correctness since it
so
> often flies in the face of the truth, yet, on the other hand, I tend
toward
> bleeding-heart liberalism in which I'd like to believe that all people are
> created equal. But we are not all equal, and neither are peoples, races
and
> nations equal. Some are better, more advanced, more evolved, whatever.
Showing your true colours eh? I suspect that any racism you see in Tolkien
is a reflection of your own belief that not all races are equal. Accepting
such a false belief as a starting point can lead quite easily to false
conclusions.
The idea that mental capacity varies among humans by race has been
comprehensively debunked. The only racial differences between humans are the
trivial ones like melanin concentration in the skin and those cannot be said
to be objectively better or worse since more melanin is better in hot
climates, less melanin is better in cold climates.
Trade.
Hellekin
news:UvPqb.20807$cH1....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> The idea that mental capacity varies among humans by race has been
> comprehensively debunked. The only racial differences between humans are
the
> trivial ones like melanin concentration in the skin and those cannot be
said
> to be objectively better or worse since more melanin is better in hot
> climates, less melanin is better in cold climates.
Exactly. No one can deny there are racial differences, but so what? They are
no more (and probably much less) significant than the differences between
individuals of the same race. In a Tolkien framework Legolas and Gimli have
a lot more in common it seems than say Boromir and Wormtongue.
AC
Scientists really don't see things in term of race any more, but rather in
terms of populations. Since, save for a very few highly isolated
populations, gene-flow has occured for tens of thousands of years, race as
it was thought of by the Victorians is just pure nonsense. It is more an
artifact of how the Europeans explored the world. If you actually look at
physical features (skin color, skull shape) and genetic traits (such as
prevalence of sickle-cell anemia), you quickly discover that human races
quickly disappear in a spectrum of types, slowly changing (as with any
population) over geographical distances. Yes, if you look at a population
in West Africa, and then jump to Saudi Arabia, and then jump to India, and
then jump to Japan, then you will see very noticeable differences. But if
you take a slower trek, from neighboring group to neighboring group, it
doesn't look that way at all.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
When I first read that there can be more genetic diversity between
neighboring populations of chimpanzees than between any member of H. sapiens
sapiens, it finally hit me that the notion of race I had grown up with was
pure bunk.
--
Aaron Clausen
Bruce Tucker
> Thanks to you both for restoring my faith in this newsgroup.
Which newsgroup would that be? You're cross-posting to four of them,
which is a bad habit.
> I do not know what to really make of Tolkien's racism,
Possibly because you have failed to support its existence in his works.
But you probably didn't see my response on that, since I posted it in
one of the groups you cross-posted to, and it's probably not the one
you're reading.
> But we are not all equal, and neither are peoples, races and
> nations equal. Some are better, more advanced, more evolved, whatever.
But the idea that some are "better" is antithetical to the theme that
runs through Tolkien's mythology and through LotR. At any given time a
nation or culture in his book may be more technologically advanced or,
as a group, acting in a more or less ethical fashion, but they are
always capable of, and often depicted as, blowing that advantage if they
choose to act in an unwise or unethical manner. What makes the "good"
people "good" isn't membership in the "good" tribe, it is the choices
they make and the ethics they observe.
The point is laid out explicitly at the council of Elrond: just because
we are the "good guys" and our enemies are evil doesn't make it
acceptable for us to win through immoral means. If we do so we will be
corrupted by the means we adopt and our victory will be no better than
being conquered by our enemies, because we will have become them. The
only thing that can justify our victory is the morality of both our
cause and our methods. Therefore we will win through moral means only or
not at all. How much clearer can it possibly be stated for you?
Now you may see racism in his choice of northern European types to be
the more complex and technologically advanced cultures who have been in
contact with the Elves and through them the Valar (spiritual powers),
but that follows from the fact that Tolkien set out to write a mythology
for the English. Of course it's going to concentrate on people who look
and sound something like the ancient English and those near to them.
Presumably the people south of Harad or east of Rhun could have their
own cultural complexities too, but they don't enter into Tolkien's
stories, because he's not writing myths for peoples who might resemble
their supposed descendants. To the characters Tolkien wrote about
they're just mysterious foreigners whom they generally meet on
battlefields when Sauron has persuaded or compelled them to invade the
western lands. This is, granted, a conscious cultural bias which has
been put into the works, but I don't think it's fair to call it racism
> Can we say that some more evolved groups of people are better than
other
> groups who are less evolved?
(snip)
All interesting questions, but they have nothing to do with Tolkien,
since he plainly made the point that neither military glory nor
technological advancement made a cultural group morally superior or
"better", and that not even the most advanced or formerly enlightened
civilization was immune from fall into decadence, wickedness, depravity,
and ultimately oblivion if it forgot that moral uprightness, and not
membership in a privileged ethnic group, was the only lasting foundation
for true greatness.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Hellekin <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Exactly. No one can deny there are racial differences, but so what?
Actually, yes, we can. In fact we can deny that there is such a thing
as "race", in a meaningful sense.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Hellekin
news:bogilp$gem$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <boggku$eo9$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> Hellekin <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Exactly. No one can deny there are racial differences, but so what?
>
> Actually, yes, we can. In fact we can deny that there is such a thing
> as "race", in a meaningful sense.
I agree that 'race' is an ambiguous and practically meaningless word. But
whatever we call it there are genetic differences in populations which lead
to minor physiological variations in human beings - different skin tones,
hair colours, eye variations, and so on. Some populations tend to have a
predominance of certain physiological variations over others. I can't really
see what practical effect this has at all on any of us though, apart from a
means by which some unsavoury individuals can attempt to categorise people.
Newsgroup Poster
> On 6 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0800,
> That's just word candy.
Now that's a word candy of a phrase. If so-called word candy are
therefore invalid, then your own pronouncement fails.
> > You can always find an exception, but that's missing the forest for
> > the trees.
> >
> > The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus the fair heroes, the noble
> > whites...it all coincides rather too neatly with most racist
> > worldviews to be mere coincidence.
>
> Except many of the "whites" weren't all that noble. If you look at the
> backstory, the Numenoreans committed what was likely the worst crime of all
> Men, defying the lawful right of the Valar as the rulers of Arda under Eru.
> They may have had greater gifts than other Men, but they became tyrants.
A few rebuttals possible here:
"Noble" doesn't mean "perfect".
"Most" doesn't mean "all".
And, of course, "exceptions prove the rule".
> > Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
> > but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> > steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> > such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
>
> I don't see it there. What I do see is a lot of handwaving, along the lines
> of word candy expressions like "the exceptions prove the rule".
LOL -- after complaining about "word candy", all you can do is return
"word candy" phrases like "handwaving".
It's clear enough you don't agree. But if you intend anything more
substantial in your rebuttal, you've got to offer actual
counter-arguments, instead of using just labels to dismiss the
opposing view.
Newsgroup Poster
> On 6 Nov 2003 16:12:20 -0800, ng_p...@yahoo.com (Newsgroup Poster)
> wrote:
> >Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
>
Don't you mean, more precisely, off-white?
> >but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> >steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> >such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
>
> Say rather that he didn't think it offensive to draw distinctions
> between groups of people and the colors of their skin for convenient
> expository purposes.
Different parsing but still within the same league, that of "racial
taxonomy".
> White superiority in LOTR is limited to Gandalf's robes, and it's as
> transitory as Saruman's.
Don't know about full-blown "white superiority [supremacy]" (and of
course, there are, as I've noted, different variations of that
ideology), but when the good guys are recognizably Northwestern
European -- indeed, it was Tolkien's declared aim to create a "British
mythology" -- and the bad guys are typically dark, swarthy, etc., I'm
not sure how one can honestly argue that Tolkien had been affected by
absolutely no notion of "racial taxonomy".
> J.
Newsgroup Poster
> "Newsgroup Poster" <ng_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:afff3966.0311...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> 'prove' actually means 'puts to test'.
>
> contrary - that it questions the validity of the rule.
Cute.
While I cannot *prove* the etymology of the phrase, I do know that the
idea afforded by the typical, colloquial reading of the verb "to
prove" IS in fact a valid one. 90% can translate as "practically
100%", depending on the exact circumstances.
For example, if 90% of "the American people" disapprove of "nudity" on
TV, then we may say in general that "the American people disapprove of
nudity on TV".
In Tolkien's trilogy, if most of the protagonists are recognizably
Northwestern European, and most of the antagonists are recognizably
"swarthy", "dark", "of the East", then it's safe to surmise a certain
level of "racial taxonomical notions" in Tolkien, conscious or not.
AC
We did provide rebuttals. You just mouthed "the exception proved the rule",
as if that was a legitimate defense of your position. In other words, you
waved your hands and tossed out a dull, tired catch phrase. That's what I
mean by word candy.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
>
> In Tolkien's trilogy, if most of the protagonists are recognizably
> Northwestern European, and most of the antagonists are recognizably
> "swarthy", "dark", "of the East", then it's safe to surmise a certain
> level of "racial taxonomical notions" in Tolkien, conscious or not.
Could this have something to do with the fact that it takes place in the Old
World, specifically northwestern Europe? Golly, imagine finding a majority
of whites there? Perhaps you should go condemn some Chinese mythology due
to the lack of Australian aborigines.
--
Aaron Clausen
Newsgroup Poster
> Newsgroup Poster wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
>
> "exceptions -test- (i.e. prove) the rule". A good rule should have no
> exceptions whatsoever.
Ah, depends on what one means by "rule".
Being an aphorism, I'd never mistaken it to mean "100% Aristotelianly
'true' for all times and places and contexts".
Seriously.
As a rule of thumb, it is true that "exceptions prove the rule", under
a colloquial reading of the word "prove".
Again -- if "90% of the American people are against nudity on TV",
then it's safe to claim that "the American people are against nudity
on TV".
Now, regardless of the original meaning intended by the phrase, the
meaning I'm applying here isn't invalid in and of itself. Hell, even
the laws of physics are believed to break down in and around a black
hole.
> > Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
> > but given his social milieu, it's not implausible at all that he was
> > steeped in a notion of white superiority (say, "White Man's Burden" or
> > such) which was unconsciously reflected to some extent in his writing.
>
> Hell yes! He was a Brit! In Tolkien's youth, the Emprie ruled over one
> quarter of the Earth's surface. Is it any wonder why Brits implicitly
> assumed the superiority of anglo-saxons over "the lesser breeds".
Q.E.D.
> Bob Kolker
Hellekin
> indeed, it was Tolkien's declared aim to create a "British
> mythology" -- and the bad guys are typically dark, swarthy, etc., I'm
> not sure how one can honestly argue that Tolkien had been affected by
> absolutely no notion of "racial taxonomy".
It was Tolkien's aim to create an *English* mythology. And since when have
the English all been white Europeans? You might find walking down a high
street in Bradford dispels your preconceptions about that society...
Taemon
> Can we say that some more evolved groups of people are better than other
> groups who are less evolved?
There is no such thing as more or less involved. There is also no such thing
as "better" when talking evolution. There is only "better adapted to the
environment". In the case of humans this is of course moot, since we are
extremely alike.
Greetings, T <who has to agree there is some slight tendency to racism in
LotR>
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> So if there are no unsympathetic northwest European types or sympathetic
> characters from other ethnic groups in Tolkien's works, he's a racist,
> but if there *are* such characters, he's also a racist?
>
> Lovely proof you have there.
What??
> It might, except that that isn't the theme of the book or even a fair
> description of the military campaigns.
Why does it have to be a theme or, even, a description of military
campagins, to be valid??
> Of course you can read anything
> you like into it, and if you go looking for it with a sufficiently
> biased mindset, I suppose you'll find it - just as Amanda apparently
> sees a simplistic black-and-white (and racist) morality since that's
> what she expects to see.
You know, I do think you are reacting to, as I'd already cautioned
against in my initial remarks, the word "racist". Apparently,
"racist" is a "bad" label for you, and Tolkien, being "good" (good
author, good -- great -- imagination, whatever), cannot therefore be
linked to such a notion.
For me, "racist" means "of racial taxonomy"...Tolkien very clearly
deals with the racial taxonomies of his fanciful world. The
conjecture here is simply that his imagined racial taxonomy is
informed to some degree by the racial taxonomy he'd grown up with as a
subject of the Crown during those times.
> But if you look a little closer I think you'll see that, as I and
> several others have pointed out, some of the worst, most ignoble deeds
> in the book and in the larger mythology are committed by "whites",
Again:
"Noble" doesn't mean "perfect".
"Most" doesn't mean "all".
"Exceptions prove [in the sense of "demonstrate", not "test"] the
rule".
> many
> of the enemies faced by the Free Peoples are "whites",
"Most" is not "all".
> and some of the
> most tragic falls into evil occur with "whites" - various examples all
> of these might include Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, the Nazgul (although
> whether they were "pale" before becoming wraiths is, I suppose, a matter
> of speculation), the "Black Numenoreans", the whole island nation of
> Numenor and Ar-Pharazon, and what I would consider the worst fall from
> grace of all, the house of Feanor.
Good grief -- ever heard of a "wog"? Ever heard of "going native"??
Ever heard of one's life experiences and social milieu influencing
one's work???
> Like the Hebrew scriptures, Tolkien makes the theme abundently clear, in
> fact almost beats the reader over the head with it, that what makes the
> "Good" people good isn't a birthright they were born into and certainly
> not any sort of racial type but the choices they continue to make, and
> that if they choose to fall from the path of righteousness they will
> lose any blessings they expect to receive by virtue of their ancestry.
Yes, I agree, but that fact doesn't dispute the idea that Tolkien's
fantastical racial taxonomy may well have been informed to some
degree, conscious or not, by the racial taxonomoy of his times.
(Interesting that you mention the Hebrews, actually, because notions
of "blood" [that is, "race"] are very much in evidence in their early
-- and presumably "pure" -- years of the Covenant...I'd advise you
against the analogy in any future rebuttal.)
> The Numenoreans weren't great because they were tall white guys, or just
> because of the deeds their ancestors had performed in the First Age;
> they were great because they kept the "national" character they had
> partly displayed and partly formed in those wars, and when time wore on
> and that moral character waned as successive generations forgot those
> lessons, their greatness waned with it and eventually fell with terrible
> consequences.
"National character"?? Wow, you really don't get it, do you -- such
that in making a case for a "race-neutral reading" (for lack of a more
accurate term at the mo') of Tolkien, you'd employ the very language
of "racism" or "racialism" (the distinction being, according to some,
that the former is more extreme than the latter)???
As with your "Hebrew defense" above, I'd advise you against it in
future.
> Additionally, it's not to clear whether all of the human enemies are
> "swarthy" or dark. The Haradrim and Southrons plainly are, and some of
> the Easterlings are described that way, but IIRC some others are not
> entirely unrelated to the Rohirrim, who are blond-haired and blue-eyed,
> and others such as the Wainriders aren't described at all. Coming from
> the north and not too far east they could really look and sound like
> anything. And presumably the inhabitants of Angmar in the far north were
> nordic types.
"Most" is not "all".
"Good" is not "perfect".
"Exceptions prove the rule".
You keep talking PAST all three points.
> Anyway none of these nations is described as inherently or irredeemably
> evil; they're just people who have fallen under Sauron's sway and must
> be fought against because they're in his invading armies. The aim of
> leaders such as Gandalf and Aragorn is invariably shown as freeing these
> people from Sauron and making peace with them rather than conquering or
> destroying them.
Can you say, "White Man's Burden" or "Manifest Destiny"?
> So it's never "fair heroes vs. swarthy hordes", it's
> more like "our heroes (who of course look like 'us', see below) vs. all
> the multitudes of people the Enemy has tricked or enslaved into his
> service, which includes both traitors and victims from our own people
> and armies from foreign lands he has persuaded and/or compelled to come
> here and invade us."
It's the old "Us vs. Them" dichotomy...do you not see how racism is
founded on that notion?
Again -- Tolkien was NOT attempting his own "Mein Kampf" here, and
that's NOT what I am arguing. His racial taxonomy, however, coincides
rather too neatly with those of the times to be mere coincidence.
> Sauron is, I think, shown to be pretty much an
> equal opportunity tempter and enslaver of wills. ;-)
Yes, but that doesn't speak at all to my remarks, it honestly doesn't.
That's like saying Hitler (and please spare us that "Godwin's Rule of
Debate" conceit about losing the discussion as soon as "Hitler" or
"Nazi" is mentioned) was "an equal opportunity tempter and enslaver"
because, after all, "whites" and "Aryans" -- fellow Nazis like SA head
Ernst Rhoem -- had been among his victims, too.
Really, you have too simplistic a notion of "racism" and "racial
taxonomy", such that my subtlty is bewildering you. If you can stop
thinking in terms of black and white, racist/non-racist, good and
evil, then you'll see what I mean.
> Well, that's fine then, but please understand that others are making
> just such a claim, and you seem to be agreeing with them.
Do you recognize the difference between Socialists and Communists, or
are all leftists anathema to you? ;->
> I wouldn't say that at all.
Yes, so I gather, but I still am unsatisfied by your reasons, because
they do not address my reasons.
> I think, rather, his writing reflects a
> certain cultural bias which he put there intentionally.
Uh, erm...THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG -- except that I
concede ignorance as to whether it had been his intent.
> What you must
> realize is that he set out in part to create a mythology for the
> English. Of course in doing so he is going to put the viewpoint
> characters in lands somewhat similar to northwest Europe, and of course
> the heroes of the stories will be drawn from people who more or less
> resemble the people who would be telling the stories many centuries
> later.
But that's PRECISELY what I say!
No wonder I get the feeling you're talking PAST my points -- for, as
I've also noted, you're reacting to the word "racist" more than
anything else!
> But Tolkien didn't send his reasoning or his creative process at that
> point and I don't think we should end our analysis there either; by no
> means were the heroes of his stories simply established as whoever
> happened to have the same skin color and language as the expected
> audience, with no other (moral) qualifications.
I certainly haven't argued that.
> As I said above, the
> "white" people in his stories are just as morally flawed as anyone else,
> you just see them closer up and in greater detail because their cultures
> are the viewpoint ones for the stories.
Yes, BUT that doesn't discount the FACT -- FACT -- that Tolkien's
Middle Earth reflects a racial taxonomy mirroring that of British
Imperialism. Seeing how he was consciously creating a very British
mythology, why do people continue to overlook the synchronicity of
worldviews?
Unless it's as I've already wryly opined: it's really too bad that the
word "racist" is regarded as a pejorative these days.
David Johnston
<trades...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>goodness in LotR is based on race. Maybe a superficial reading of LotR could
>lead to that belief but an author cannot be faulted for the superficiality
>of his readers. Tolkien goes to great lengths to show that goodness is not a
>racial characteristic but rather a personal characteristic that anyone can
>acquire, or reject.
Any good orcs out there?
Newsgroup Poster
> > Finally, an intelligent and rational discussion on the mild racism
> > inherently apparent in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings.'
> >
> > Over the years in this group discussions such as this have often quickly
> > degenerated into ugly shouting matches. I hope that this one can be
> > different.
> >
>
> Snipped your excellent post. I just spent 3 hours reading google. I searched
> racist, racism on aft. Jesus!, what a long shouting match. I read as far
> back as '98. It seems to be the same argument repeated endlessly. A newbie
> or whatever say something like 'I always got the feeling that there was a
> little racism in LotR' and then gets shouted down by Tolkienists.
>
> After reading 5yrs worth of racism arguments on this newsgroup, I am now
> quite convinced that there exists some degree of racism in Tolkien's LotR.
> The frantic degree of energy committed to every argument by the naysayers,
> especially the quickness with which they jump down the throat of each person
> who suggests racism in Tolkien suggests, to me, that the subject is in need
> of unbiased analysis.
>
> I guess what is most convincing is that the subject will not go away. Every
> few months someone different brings up the same observation.
I remember being attracted to Tolkien as a kid of 12 precisely because
of its "pure", "lost", "Gold Age" ethos (atmosphere), where "men were
men", "women were women", and good and evil was pretty clear-cut.
It's fantasy for many reasons, not the least of which is that its
"bipolar" worldview is infantile (despite its many other merits --
indeed, being a work of fantasy, I do not judge it at all by "real
world" standards of nuance and subtlty).
I was never quite able to put my finger on it all until a few years
ago (independent, BTW, of these NGs): in creating a British mythology
drawing upon Celtic and generally Indo-European roots, Tolkien also
worked in certain cultural prejudices, intentional or not, which many
recognize as a certain "racial taxonomy".
Hell, this is the same complaint of many an astute observer of the
"Star Trek" series, where different "races" (of aliens) exhibited
predominant personality traits, and mixed-breeds like Spock or Data
are caught in the curious position of being reliably unreliable as to
when one set of traits would predominate over the other.
Aris Katsaris
>
> For example, if 90% of "the American people" disapprove of "nudity" on
> TV, then we may say in general that "the American people disapprove of
> nudity on TV".
>
> In Tolkien's trilogy, if most of the protagonists are recognizably
> Northwestern European,
Since the story takes place in northwestern Europe...
> and most of the antagonists are recognizably
> "swarthy", "dark", "of the East",
Not most of the antagonists actually, only those antagonists that come
from the East are described of coming from the East. Those antagonists
that come from the North are described as coming from the North,
those antagonists that come from the West are described as coming
from the West, and those antagonists that come from under the
mountains are described as coming from under the mountains.
With skin-variations to match.
> then it's safe to surmise a certain
> level of "racial taxonomical notions" in Tolkien, conscious or not.
You mean that he was geographically accurate in portraying invading
southerns as darker in color that his description of the lighter-skinned
invading northerners?
Dunlendings in TT were white-skinned. Why do you think
them any less important to mention than the darker-skinned
Southrons of ROTK? They take atleast as much space in
the books - probably more. (They even have a huge role in the
appendices and Tolkien in the HoME volumes describes as
closely related to the Dunedain, descending from the House
of Haleth)
Is it because it's *you* who's trying to impose a "racial taxonomy"
on the books, rather than just trying to figure out whether it existed
or not in the books?
Aris Katsaris
Hellekin
> I was never quite able to put my finger on it all until a few years
> ago (independent, BTW, of these NGs): in creating a British mythology
> drawing upon Celtic and generally Indo-European roots, Tolkien also
> worked in certain cultural prejudices, intentional or not, which many
> recognize as a certain "racial taxonomy".
*English* not British - and Anglo-Saxon / Germanic not Celtic.
I agree to a certain extent about the possibility of cultural prejudices
though (see my earlier post)
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> That is because there was a little racism in Tolkien himself. Consider.
> Tolkien is English. He grew up during the time of Empire, when the Brits
> controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface having overcome the
> opposition of the "lesser" races and peoples. How could a Brit brought
> up under these conditions NOT be racist? So the question is, is the
> racism totally malignant or is it just a national characterstic with no
> overcome class devisiveness (which is an economic kind of "racism"), to
> deal with totally egregious and unacceptable conditions to which the
> poor were subjected.
Well, hurrah, whatever name one wants to apply, Tolkien definitely had
a certain kind of human taxonomy in mind.
> A genteel kind of socialism was growing in Britain,
> the Fabian variety, which did not have the hard edges of Marxist
> Leninist Socialism. Britain produced Churchhill, and the Soviets
> produced Stalin. There is the difference.
I have no doubt that Churchill would have degenerated into a Stalin
had the opportunity presented itself to be the lion's claw as well as
its roar. "Power corrupts", and it wasn't modesty of ambition which
kept Churchill in line, you understand.
And of course, let's not forget that many communists and socialists
don't regard Stalin or even Lenin to be "real" communists or
socialists, the way many Christians don't regard the Crusaders as
necessarily Christian.
> The Brits are, by and large, a decent folk
Great Scot -- it's just these kind of generalizations which perpetuate
the practice of "racial" or "national" taxonomies! =)
> even if we Americans living
> in the late 20-th and early 21-st century find some of their attitudes
> a bit much.
"We Americans"??? Are you entirely sure that GW Bush et al. aren't so
close to those sentiments?
> In any case Tolkien was not an anti-semite nor was he the
> kind of person that would advocate slaughter on a large scale.
Yes, he very clearly replied to his admirers in the Nazi elite that he
considered *them* agents of darkness (forget the exact phrase he used
in his letter, but it wasn't very oblique).
> He put in
> the mouth of Gandolph and caution to Frodo, not to be too anxious to
> kill, even if it appeared to be justified. That strikes me as a very
> decient outlook.
Surely. It's fascinating how everyone (oops, "everyone") accepts the
magnanimity of mercy -- whether ancient Sparta or modern-day welfare
state, every culture has regarded mercy as a good.
> Bob Kolker
Aris Katsaris
> > transitory as Saruman's.
>
> Don't know about full-blown "white superiority [supremacy]" (and of
> course, there are, as I've noted, different variations of that
> ideology), but when the good guys are recognizably Northwestern
> European
Which they are not. There are "swarthy men" defending Gondor in
the battle for Minas Tirith.
>and the bad guys are typically dark, swarthy, etc.
Which they are not, most of them are white, whether you talk
about individual characters (Saruman, Wormtongue, Bill Ferny,
Lotho, Mouth of Sauron, the Nazgul -- all of them white) or
people (The white Dunlendings having greater prominance as
antagonists IMO than the darker-skinned Southrons).
> I'm
> not sure how one can honestly argue that Tolkien had been affected by
> absolutely no notion of "racial taxonomy".
Indeed one couldn't honestly argue that, *if* your facts had
been accurate. But they are not, not by a mile.
Aris Katsaris
Jeffrey C. Dege
>In article <boggku$eo9$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>Hellekin <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Exactly. No one can deny there are racial differences, but so what?
>
>Actually, yes, we can. In fact we can deny that there is such a thing
>as "race", in a meaningful sense.
There are three basic genetic groupings among humans: the pigmies,
the han-san, and everybody else.
--
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages
for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire
from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that
has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the
carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be
supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred
laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the
less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity,
and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so
dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent
persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such
laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They
ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes,
produced by the impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful
consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments 87-88
Hellekin
news:afff3966.03110...@posting.google.com...
> I have no doubt that Churchill would have degenerated into a Stalin
> had the opportunity presented itself to be the lion's claw as well as
> its roar. "Power corrupts", and it wasn't modesty of ambition which
> kept Churchill in line, you understand.
That's ridiculous. Churchill as a potential Stalin? How? Why? When??
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Don't know about full-blown "white superiority [supremacy]" (and of
>course, there are, as I've noted, different variations of that
>ideology), but when the good guys are recognizably Northwestern
>European -- indeed, it was Tolkien's declared aim to create a "British
>mythology" -- and the bad guys are typically dark, swarthy, etc., I'm
>not sure how one can honestly argue that Tolkien had been affected by
>absolutely no notion of "racial taxonomy".
That point-of-view is possible only by ignoring or forgetting the contrary
examples, in Tolkien.
Do we want to start listing the "white" villains, in the story?
We'll start with Saruman, Wormtongue, the Mouth of Sauron, etc.
--
Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary
Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security.
- Benjamin Franklin
Aris Katsaris
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3fabdbdc...@news.telusplanet.net...
Orcs aren't humans, nor they symbolize any race of humans. If they symbolize
anything, then it's the sum of all that's ugly in humanity's psyche.
Some quotes from Tolkien:
"There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating
systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper
course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes,
and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the
writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and
Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans:
in other words, no right, whatever they have done."
--September, 1944
Or when a German publisher asked in 1938 if Tolkien was of "arisch"
ancestry:
"I regret that I am not clear as to
what you intend by *arisch*. I am not of *Aryan* extraction: that is
Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani,
Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if am to understand that you
are enquiring whether I am of *Jewish* origin, I can only reply that I
regret that I appear to have *no* ancestors of that gifted people. My
great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from
Germany; the main part of my descent is therefore purely English ... I have
been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and
continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in
which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment
that if impertinent and irrelevant inquries of this sort are to become the
rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a
German name will no longer be a source of pride."
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
news:<boehj3$1db99d$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> >
> > That is because there was a little racism in Tolkien himself. Consider.
> > Tolkien is English. He grew up during the time of Empire, when the Brits
> > controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface having overcome the
> > opposition of the "lesser" races and peoples. How could a Brit brought
> > up under these conditions NOT be racist? So the question is, is the
> > racism totally malignant or is it just a national characterstic with no
> > evil intentions. Give the Brits some credit. They were taking steps to
> > overcome class devisiveness (which is an economic kind of "racism"), to
> > deal with totally egregious and unacceptable conditions to which the
> > poor were subjected.
>
> Well, hurrah, whatever name one wants to apply, Tolkien definitely had
> a certain kind of human taxonomy in mind.
If "taxonomy" means dividing people into discrete races and colors then
you are wrong there. His characters come in all kind of color-variations
and there's never any real indication if "swarthy" means
subsaharan-African swarthy, Arab-swarthy, or Mediterranean-swarthy
- a distinction that surely any real "racial taxonomist" would have made,
right?
E.g. we never learn if the "swarthy" Gondorians which Pippin notices
are any "swarthier" than e.g. the Haradrim attacking the city. Wouldn't
a "taxonomist" have provided us with that detail? :-)
Aris Katsaris
Jette Goldie
*NOW*.
80 years ago - even 50 years ago - the scene in that street
in Bradford would have looked quite different.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Jette Goldie
Weellll - since you asked - look up the history of the George Square
riots in Glasgow where Churchill caused the death of men, women
and children in peacetime.
My Grandfather would spit whenever he heard Churchill's name
- and Grandad had fought in WWII (his regiment were among the
liberators of Brussels in Belgium)
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
>
>
> One of the simplest and most evident notions contained within Nazi, Fascist,
> or most extreme-right-wing propaganda is the idea that some peoples and
> nations are good and some peoples and nations are evil. Basically, you have
> your good guys and then there are your evil-doers. Sound familiar? Of course
> it does. George W. Bush is neither the first nor the last to spout such
> stuff, and as to just exactly where he should be placed on the right-wing
> political spectrum I leave to your best judgment.
Tolkien's trilogy is a morality play, but of the sort with layers and
nuances someone like GW Bush might miss.
> It is a comforting view of the world to think in absolute terms of good and
> evil and to assume that we have the wisdom to correctly assign these labels
> to us and them. It often reminds me of the comforting right-wing
> fundamentalist religious world-view (American right-wing fundamentalist
> Christians are one of the best examples, but other fundamentalists are just
> as instructive in exhibiting the exemplary properties) in which it is easy
> to decide who is good and who is evil. Those who are with God and of God are
> good, others are evil and live in the outer darkness of the world, a place
> distinctly distant and different and darker from 'The Light,' where the
> chosen good people exist. Is it a wonder that right wing religion and
> politics go hand in hand?
Not at all -- but then, sometimes, I do wonder if leftists have really
helped a lot, too, all on their own (French Revolution, anyone?). I'm
coming round to that Eastern, Asian, appreciation for balance...we
need our "orcs" as much as "elves" and "hobbits" and men and
women...it's Tolkien's dilemma of power....
> But is it not the very simplicity and comfort of this view which makes
> Tolkien's Middle-earth such a comforting place with such a simple and
> comforting moral structure? I know this is one of the most attractive
> aspects of Tolkien's world, both for me and for many, many that I have read
> or talked to. Middle-earth has all of the apparent complexity of the real
> world with none of the moral ambiguities.
Save, again, the very real one of power -- suddenly, here's this
amazing "technology" (the Master Ring) which *could* transform all the
world for the best! Reminds me of that myth about the Buddha's
warrior-king father who tried to determine whether his son would be
either the greatest king the world's ever seen or its greatest
teacher, and the father reasoned that as the greatest king he could
promote enlightenment among other things, whereas as the greatest
teacher there would still be the other things unaccounted for....
> It is as engaging and involving as
> reality, yet, at its core, its fundamental moral structure is very simple
> and easy to understand, unlike reality. Tolkien's writings celebrate the
> triumph of good over evil, and everyone likes this, we even need it. There
> is no need to discern between the subtle and confusing moral shades of
> reality. There are good guys and bad guys, as in all fiction, yet *here* we
> have a simple moral foundation to a complex world, unlike other works of
> fiction. Perhaps this is what draws us to fantasy. Good and evil. Simple.
> Comfortable. Easy to understand. Requiring No thought. Just like
> fundamentalism in the real world. Requiring no thought. 'They' are bad or
> evil because my preacher or my politician told me so.
I agree with all the above, but I must note this: its core genius is
the very complex -- though, paradoxically, easy enough to comprehend
in some sense -- matter of power and how to handle it. In the story
it's Absolute Power (trademark), though thematically one may take it
to mean power in general: not just physical, but even moral power --
what happens when you could really have whatever you desire?
As children we were introduced to King Midas, as adults we are
reacquainted with the philosophical problem in Tolkien. Very
real-world stuff here.
> A startling parallel, to be sure, when dragged out into the light and
> exposed for all to see. Yet it does nothing to reduce my love of Tolkien's
> world or his writings, for they are still morally simple, they are still
> comfortable, and their sweetness still resides within their fantasy.
Ditto. I am glad that Tolkien "scholarship" can be both nuanced and
appreciative.
> For it is the very fact that this is fantasy which makes it sweet. It is
> neither a very accurate nor, in the above analysis, a very desirable
> description of the moral ambiguities of the Real World. Let fantasy worlds
> be morally simple! - this realization was part of Tolkien's genius. If such
> fantasy worlds bear more than superficial resemblance to many right-wing
> world views in the real world, what of it? Are those world-views not fantasy
> as well?
Indeed! It's always been fascinating to me that many readers of
"speculative fiction" are usually among the most liberal, open-minded,
tolerant people around, despite their hobbies of "simple",
primary-colored worlds! Of course, the very best in the genre bring
us back through the circle of the quest to the very real-world
concerns we had perhaps meant to escape originally -- in Tolkien, we
have the great problem of power, the dilemma being that its
achievement is necessary to positively effect our lives, but its
increased store leads to corruption, both moral and physical....
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> It would be unreasonable (but is clearly common) to expect JRRT to be quite
> "up" on the political correctness demanded of world-best-selling writers
> thirty years after his death. (For one thing, when writing LotR, he almost
> undoubtedly never thought he'd be a world-best-selling author.)
No, to observe Tolkien's "racism" or "racist chauvinism" (or is that
mere double-speak?) isn't to necessarily further prescribe or
proscribe it.
> While his elves all have white skin (doesn't that make them easier targets
> in the woods in the dark?), ditto the Edain and the hobbits, and such
> black-skinned persons as their are are certainly in cahoots with Sauron, he
> makes a definite statement that these are men who have been corrupted and
> who are capable of salvation, of conversion to right thinking.
Oh, yeah, he wasn't a genocidal "racist", but a "benign" one. It's
the difference between early Old Testament fire-and-brimstone wrath
and most of the New Testament's gentle reminders.
> This last, of
> course, was Christian dogma, especially in the world of South Africa and an
> England sending out many missionaries that he grew up in. There is no reason
> to believe his faith in this was perfunctory. When JRRT "pities even his
> slaves" (was that Gandalf or Aragorn?), he means these corrupted types are
> going to get a new deal once Sauron is gone.
Yes, well, White Man's Burden by any other name....
> (The oriental models for the
> "swart" and "swarthy" hordes who invade from the East are another matter,
> perhaps, being related to those who betrayed the Edain in Beleriand, and
> also having -- though he does not mention this -- faiths of theirown and, if
> this is indeed earth, civilizations equal to Gondor's.)
Surely not "equal" to Gondor's -- would seem to then go against the
very premise of the Middle Earth mythology.
> So, yes, he's a bit of a racist, and so is everybody else. Some of us
> disguise it better.
Oh, certainly, to observe racism in another seems to require a
knowledge of racism in oneself. A facial expression may puzzle us
until we try it out ourselves, by which act we come to feel precisely
the thoughts which first animated such a contortion in another.
> We know the buzzwords; he didn't because they hadn't
> been coined yet. He did not succumb to the popular racism of his day (cf.
> John Buchan) that saw blacks and Jews as irredeemably corrupt, and I admire
> him for it.
Ah, well, I'm not entirely certain if there's anything "admirable"
about it, really -- he subscribed to one set of notions over another,
and I don't know whether there had been much soul-searching involved
(in which case one wonders how he didn't conclude to jettison such
divisive ways of approaching the world and its people altogether), but
your distinction echoes my own, and I am glad for this consensus.
> Tsar Parmathule
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> I agree. And because racism is such an important issue nowadays it
> encourages such heated discussion. Yet "culturalism" is just as difficult an
> issue to deal with but isn't as high on our agenda today yet it is heavily
> related to what we conveniently label "racism". Is "culturalism" any less
> reprehensible than the "racism" it so often overlaps with?
Can anyone say "Clash of Civilization"? (BTW, it's an interesting
book, if vaguely flawed in the same way Tolkien's Middle Earth
taxonomy is.)
> Tolkien clearly disliked French influences - especially on Anglo-Saxon
> language and mythology. And arguably one of the big motivations behind his
> writing was to 'repair' some of what he saw as cultural damage done to
> Anglo-Saxon culture by the Normans.
Who, let's recall, were Norsemen, Germanic, originally.
This matter of "culture" is quite a hoot, isn't it!
> As for the Celts... well he wasn't
> 'racist' but he may be accused of being 'culturalist' towards some aspects
> of Celtic culture. In his letters he states he had great affection for
> Ireland and the Irish but didn't much care for their language or myths some
> of which he deemed 'nonsense' - scrambled by oral traditions. But by
> contrast he loved the Welsh language (and I can't help thinking that there
> are some Welsh influences in the Elves).
Moreover, in his day, the British Army had as an official
classification five *RACES* of Britain: Norman, Welsh, Scot, Irish,
and English. I am not kidding.
Hellekin
news:ZFSqb.924$yw6.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Hellekin" <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bognfc$dre$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Newsgroup Poster" <ng_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:afff3966.03110...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > indeed, it was Tolkien's declared aim to create a "British
> > > mythology" -- and the bad guys are typically dark, swarthy, etc., I'm
> > > not sure how one can honestly argue that Tolkien had been affected by
> > > absolutely no notion of "racial taxonomy".
> >
> > It was Tolkien's aim to create an *English* mythology. And since when
have
> > the English all been white Europeans? You might find walking down a high
> > street in Bradford dispels your preconceptions about that society...
> >
> >
>
> *NOW*.
>
> 80 years ago - even 50 years ago - the scene in that street
> in Bradford would have looked quite different.
There have been ethic groups in the UK since Roman times - and larger cities
have had black and asian populations for hundreds of years. Tolkien was
brought up in the heyday of the British Empire - one of the most
multi-cultural and multi-racial agglomerations in human history.
Newsgroup Poster
>
>
> Thanks to you both for restoring my faith in this newsgroup. I knew a
> rational, nonemotional discussion of racism was possible. We have avoided
> the politically correct idea that all racism is heinous. I do not know what
> to really make of Tolkien's racism, or most racism, for that matter. I am
> conflicted because, on the one hand I hate political correctness since it so
> often flies in the face of the truth, yet, on the other hand, I tend toward
> bleeding-heart liberalism in which I'd like to believe that all people are
> created equal. But we are not all equal, and neither are peoples, races and
> nations equal. Some are better, more advanced, more evolved, whatever.
Depends on what you mean by "equal"..."equality" isn't the same as
"identity" oftentimes...and words like "better" and "advanced"
presuppose a scale or measure which may not be applicable....
But I do share your concerns over so-called "political correctness"
(which, ironically, was a leftist term originally).
> Can we say that some more evolved groups of people are better than other
> groups who are less evolved? What about the common observance among
> anthropologists, historians, and those who deal with the psychology and
> causes of war, who point out that the number and severity of war and the
> frequency of large battles have grown since the beginning of the industrial
> revolution, and that primitive societies (not all of them, though) usually
> engage in less violence than industrialized societies. Not to mention the
> fact that evolved Man is the only species which produces serial killers,
Orc + Hobbit
> mass murderers, and other psychotics who cause severe disruptions in our own
> society. Other animals don't do this. So much for evolution.
Orc + Human
> So, in what sense can we say that some groups of people are better than
> others, if we are not allowed to plead 'Evolution' in the court of racist
> judgment?
In what sense? It depends on the context.
A street urchin is likely more adapted to life in the urban jungle
than is a prep-schooled scion of moneyed pedigree, but that urchin is
obviously unfit for life in high society without further education.
> If we insist that no groups are better, but simply that all groups
> are different yet equal, are we not back to the politically correct untruth
> of raging liberalism?
What is the context?
Biological? Kenyans seem to excel at the marathon, Sherpas at
mountaineering Everest, men at mathematics, women at reading faces.
Educational? Asians do better at standardized tests than whites and
blacks and hispanics. Women attend college much more than men in the
US. Those in the sciences tend to achieve the most while young,
whereas those in the humanities get better with age.
Or political? Unless we subscribe to a notion of "might is right" in
its crudest sense (I do, actually, just in a different sense), all
nations may be "equal" politically....
It all quite depends on what we mean, exactly....
>Where is the way out?
By first defining your terms -- semantics is the number one issue,
particularly where emotionally-charged discussions are involved.
> ö¿ö¬ E=mc²
> ~
Tuil
news:<vqmjmpi...@news.supernews.com>...
> >
since it so
> > often flies in the face of the truth, yet, on the other hand, I tend
toward
> > bleeding-heart liberalism in which I'd like to believe that all people
are
> > created equal.
Just a note, 'bleeding-heart liberalism' is not the same thing as what
you're thinking of. Locke and his brand of liberalism is where Jefferson
got his famous words, rather than the modern from of liberalism, which
relies on such ideas as class and status in order to operate such things as
'affirmative action' and 'wealth redistribution'.
Bruce Tucker
> "Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote
> > It might, except that that isn't the theme of the book or even a
fair
> > description of the military campaigns.
>
> Why does it have to be a theme or, even, a description of military
> campagins, to be valid??
The description you gave - "The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus
the
fair heroes, the noble whites" - isn't what's going on on the books. It
is not
a valid description of Tolkien's work. It may be a valid desciption of
racist attitudes,
but you're simply reading it into Tolkien.
> You know, I do think you are reacting to, as I'd already cautioned
> against in my initial remarks, the word "racist". Apparently,
> "racist" is a "bad" label for you, and Tolkien, being "good" (good
> author, good -- great -- imagination, whatever), cannot therefore be
> linked to such a notion.
No, I am reacting to an incorrect description of what happens in his
fiction. Whether it is good or bad is beside the point. See below.
> For me, "racist" means "of racial taxonomy"...
"Racist" implies that one can make judgments about a person's character
based on membership in an ethnic group. This point of view is explicitly
rejected in Tolkien's works, as I have illustrated several times with
examples from the books.
> Tolkien very clearly
> deals with the racial taxonomies of his fanciful world.
No, he doesn't. He offers physical descriptions of some of the national
groups who figure prominantly in the stories. That is not the same as
offering "racial taxonomies". Telling us that the Vanyar usually have
blonde hair and so did the Haladin, but that the house of Beor generally
had dark hair and so did the Noldor says nothing about "racial
taxonomies", he is just offering physical descriptions not much
different than telling us that hobbits are waist-high or the guards in
Minas Tirith wear silver and black. You simply won't find the sort of
speculation on the role of "race" or ethnicity in forming character in
Tolkien that you find in the works of, say, Robert E. Howard or H.P.
Lovecraft, two writers whose works I greatly enjoy but will freely admit
are racist through and through.
> > But if you look a little closer I think you'll see that, as I and
> > several others have pointed out, some of the worst, most ignoble
deeds
> > in the book and in the larger mythology are committed by "whites",
>
> Again:
>
> "Noble" doesn't mean "perfect".
>
> "Most" doesn't mean "all".
>
> "Exceptions prove [in the sense of "demonstrate", not "test"] the
> rule".
You're babbling. The point is that there is no group in Tolkien whose
members are depicted as being inherently good or bad based on ethnic
membership, aside from nonhuman and fantastical creatures such as
dragons, balrogs, and orcs (goblins). Humans and elves are universally
depicted as being capable of individual good or evil based on their own
choices, regardless of ethnicity or ancestry.
> > many
> > of the enemies faced by the Free Peoples are "whites",
>
> "Most" is not "all".
So let me get this straight - Tolkien's work is racist, because it
depicts the noble white guys against the swarthy dark enemies, and that
is true even if the good guys aren't all white, and even if most of the
bad guys aren't even swarthy or dark people?
Now see, this makes intelligent discussion impossible. You've just
created this theory out of air, and are determined to stick to it even
the evidence contradicts it, because contrary evidence just "proves the
rule". I suppose if apples fell up that would just "prove the rule" of
gravity for you.
Instead of insisting that evidence which contradicts your rule proves
it, why not try to come up with any evidence that demonstrates its
truth?
> > and some of the
> > most tragic falls into evil occur with "whites" - various examples
all
> > of these might include Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, the Nazgul
(although
> > whether they were "pale" before becoming wraiths is, I suppose, a ma
tter
> > of speculation), the "Black Numenoreans", the whole island nation of
> > Numenor and Ar-Pharazon, and what I would consider the worst fall
from
> > grace of all, the house of Feanor.
>
> Good grief -- ever heard of a "wog"? Ever heard of "going native"??
Ever read a word Tolkien wrote? Or are you just being silly?
Ar-Pharazon and Feanor didn't "go native" or become or consort with
"wogs". If you're not familiar with their stories, please go look them
up before continuing with this discussion. Their downfalls had nothing
to do with race or racial overtones. The point is that in Tolkien's
worldview, moral character is not formed (or "informed") by race or
ancestry, it is an individual trait formed by individual choices, and in
Ar-Pharazon's case in particular that there is deadly peril in thinking
that favored ancestry or membership in a privileged group buys one
immunity from the same moral standards any other human is expected to
follow.
What did you think they were, anyway, Tolkien's version of Sir Richard
Burton?
> Ever heard of one's life experiences and social milieu influencing
> one's work???
Whether I've heard of this happening doesn't relate to whether it
occurred in this particular way with this particular author.
> > Like the Hebrew scriptures, Tolkien makes the theme abundently
clear, in
> > fact almost beats the reader over the head with it, that what makes
the
> > "Good" people good isn't a birthright they were born into and
certainly
> > not any sort of racial type but the choices they continue to make,
and
> > that if they choose to fall from the path of righteousness they will
> > lose any blessings they expect to receive by virtue of their
ancestry.
>
> Yes, I agree, but that fact doesn't dispute the idea that Tolkien's
> fantastical racial taxonomy may well have been informed to some
> degree, conscious or not, by the racial taxonomoy of his times.
Yes, it does. It shows that Tolkien's view on character was that it was
a matter of individual choice, not something formed by ethnic
membership. Now you have speculated that *sometimes* *some* authors have
different ideas about characters based on racism. I don't dispute that
this is *sometimes* the case, but you have yet to offer any evidence
other than speculation that this is the case here.
> (Interesting that you mention the Hebrews, actually,
Don't take it too far - Tolkien wasn't writing a Biblical allegory.
There are some parallels in the moral lessons he wanted to draw, but
trying to draw anything else unrelated that you see in the Bible out and
pin it on Tolkien would be silly and pointless.
> > The Numenoreans weren't great because they were tall white guys, or
just
> > because of the deeds their ancestors had performed in the First Age;
> > they were great because they kept the "national" character they had
> > partly displayed and partly formed in those wars, and when time wore
on
> > and that moral character waned as successive generations forgot
those
> > lessons, their greatness waned with it and eventually fell with
terrible
> > consequences.
>
> "National character"?? Wow, you really don't get it, do you -- such
> that in making a case for a "race-neutral reading" (for lack of a more
> accurate term at the mo') of Tolkien, you'd employ the very language
> of "racism" or "racialism" (the distinction being, according to some,
> that the former is more extreme than the latter)???
I think *you* don't get it. "Race" and "nationality" are not the same
concept at all. Of course it is possible for individuals to act
collectively to some degree, and to impose or receive some measure of
merit or guilt as a political or cultural group - to say otherwise
would, I think, be folly. Germany and Japan have both issued national
apologies for actions during WW2. It is still debated whether the US, as
a *nation*, was right or wrong in using atomic weapons in that war. On
the other hand, many here feel (whether rightly or wrongly) that Europe
should feel a debt of gratitude towards the US for its collective role
in defeating Naziism. But no one would say any of this has anything to
do with racial traits - it's just a collective guilt or merit earned by
a people acting through collective means.
Likewise, Tolkien showed the three houses of the Edain acting together
in the First Age and coming together at its end to form the people of
the Numenoreans, and forming a collective national character which
included both a moral character and material and technological blessings
bestowed as rewards for their service. This national character has
nothing to do with their "race"; it is not because they are white or
have grey eyes or are tall or otherwise have a superior genetic heritage
or good breeding that they are blessed, it is a collective reward for
collective ethical behavior, and if it passed to their children, it is
passed only if and when the parents teach them to continue acting in an
ethical fashion. And, as I've made clear several times over, the point
is made that this national character is still nothing more than the sum
of all the individual characters which make it up, and that if those
individuals choose to forsake ethical behavior, their heritage will do
them no good at all and won't preserve them from the consequences of
anyone who behaves in an unethical manner.
Whether such language of a national or collective character is abused by
others is, I think, beside the point. I'm not using it as code for
racial superiority, and neither was Tolkien. Why that is is plain from
his work, I've already explained.
> "Most" is not "all".
>
> "Good" is not "perfect".
>
> "Exceptions prove the rule".
>
> You keep talking PAST all three points.
And you keep babbling a lot to no purpose.
The exceptions have long since swallowed any rule you had.
> > Anyway none of these nations is described as inherently or
irredeemably
> > evil; they're just people who have fallen under Sauron's sway and
must
> > be fought against because they're in his invading armies. The aim of
> > leaders such as Gandalf and Aragorn is invariably shown as freeing
these
> > people from Sauron and making peace with them rather than conquering
or
> > destroying them.
>
> Can you say, "White Man's Burden" or "Manifest Destiny"?
Can you say, "Concepts which you've pulled out of contexts entirely
unrelated to anything involved in this discussion"? I mean, it's nice
that you can read history books and quote a nice turn of phrase or two,
but simply spouting off thiose phrases is not an argument. Now try to
link "Manifest Destiny" to, say, any evidence that any of the so-called
Free Peoples in Tolkien's work followed a policy of territorial
expansionism linked to the idea that they had a national destiny
involving domination of a continent and subjugation of its other
inhabitants. And bring examples from the books.
> > So it's never "fair heroes vs. swarthy hordes", it's
> > more like "our heroes (who of course look like 'us', see below) vs.
all
> > the multitudes of people the Enemy has tricked or enslaved into his
> > service, which includes both traitors and victims from our own
people
> > and armies from foreign lands he has persuaded and/or compelled to
come
> > here and invade us."
>
> It's the old "Us vs. Them" dichotomy...
No, it isn't. You're just insisting on seeing it that way. It is a
dichotomy, but it is not "the old" one.
> do you not see how racism is founded on that notion?
No, it isn't. Racism is founded on a particular way of defining who goes
in the "us" category and who goes in the "them" category, namely, race.
If you define "us" as "people who are not currently engaged in a
genocidal war against the Smallgarians" and "them" as "people who *are*
currently engaged in a genocidal war against the Smallgarians", that is
an "us/them" dichotomy, but it neither a racist dichotomy nor a
dichotomy related in any way related to the sort of thinking process
that leads to racism. It is a proper moral dichotomy, between moral
behvior and immoral behavior.
Just because racism is based on a form of dichotomy doesn't mean that
every dichotomy is the foundation of racism. Bad logic, no treat for
you!
> > Sauron is, I think, shown to be pretty much an
> > equal opportunity tempter and enslaver of wills. ;-)
>
> Yes, but that doesn't speak at all to my remarks, it honestly doesn't.
Yes, it does, it honestly does. It shows that in Tolkien's work, "good"
and "bad" have absolutely NOTHING to do with, as you would have it,
whether one is a member of the "pure, white people" or the "dark or
swarthy hordes" and everything to do with which side one chooses in a
struggle between competing moralities, one based on freedom and the
other based on conquest, treachery, and enslavement.
> That's like saying Hitler (and please spare us that "Godwin's Rule of
> Debate" conceit about losing the discussion as soon as "Hitler" or
> "Nazi" is mentioned) was "an equal opportunity tempter and enslaver"
> because, after all, "whites" and "Aryans" -- fellow Nazis like SA head
> Ernst Rhoem -- had been among his victims, too.
Hardly. In any case, Hitler wasn't a work of fiction, so I think the
parallel is a bad one - one can't really debate whether the "author" of
his story was racist. The point isn't whether Sauron as a character was
a racist (hence the wink), but whether the fact that people of all races
and cultures are shown to be equally prone to evil in Tolkien's world is
evidence that the author's moral worldview was not one significantly
influenced by racist ideas.
In Tolkien's fiction, you canNOT make any meaningful judgments about any
(human or elvish) character's moral standing knowing only his race -
the way you can, for instance, know in any R.E. Howard book that a
short, swarthy, shifty-eyed "mongrel" is always treacherous and
cowardly, that a tall, muscular, steely-eyed barbarian is always brave
and forthright, and that a dusky-skinned, black-haired, coal-eyed,
voluptuous wench is always a murderous and perverse nymphomaniac.
Tolkien's characters are not reduced to racial stereotypes like this.
The characters from the "good" people who "go bad" do not "revert" to
some sort of "wog" stereotype, turning into perverse heathen savages out
of a Victorian's nightmare.
> > I think, rather, his writing reflects a
> > certain cultural bias which he put there intentionally.
>
> Uh, erm...THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG -- except that I
> concede ignorance as to whether it had been his intent.
I think you fail to grasp the difference between racism and a cultural
bias. He is not trying to show any group as morally superior or superior
in character, or really inherently superior in any way; they've just
managed to avoid being ensnared by Sauron and thus are the ones leading
the resistance against him. The Rohirrim, who are the closest
linguistically to his own Anglo-Saxon ancestors, aren't even
particularly advanced technologically or militarily.
> > What you must
> > realize is that he set out in part to create a mythology for the
> > English. Of course in doing so he is going to put the viewpoint
> > characters in lands somewhat similar to northwest Europe, and of
course
> > the heroes of the stories will be drawn from people who more or less
> > resemble the people who would be telling the stories many centuries
> > later.
>
> But that's PRECISELY what I say!
No, you're saying that he's taking a further step, and depicting a world
where these cultures are shown as inherently more heroic or better than
any others. He's not. They are shown as deeply flawed, as being just as
prone to villainy as to heroism. But we see more of both up close in
these particular cultures, because they are the point of view for the
stories.
> > As I said above, the
> > "white" people in his stories are just as morally flawed as anyone
else,
> > you just see them closer up and in greater detail because their
cultures
> > are the viewpoint ones for the stories.
>
> Yes, BUT that doesn't discount the FACT -- FACT -- that Tolkien's
> Middle Earth reflects a racial taxonomy mirroring that of British
> Imperialism.
That's not a FACT -- FACT-- FACT, it's an assertion you've made without
any evidence beyond a few vague hints about swarthy dark hordes. If you
could please be mopre specific about the particular aspects of British
Imperial racial taxonomy you see mirrored in Tolkien's works, backed
with specific examples from the books, it might make it easier to
establish what you're talking about.
> Seeing how he was consciously creating a very British
> mythology, why do people continue to overlook the synchronicity of
> worldviews?
I can only speak for my own view, but I think it's because the ENGLISH
(not British) mythology he was attempting to create was one which
reflected something of the viewpoint of Anglo-Saxon England prior to the
Norman conquest (he did, after all, make his reputation as a translator
and interpreter of _Beowulf_) and something of the viewpoint of the
rural England of the previous century. I don't imagine the views of the
sort of people who went out and built the Empire were anything that
greatly concerned him or that had much influence on his work. Look at
the sort of people who inhabit the Shire and tell me what sort of
Englishmen he had in mind - not exactly the sort who sat in posh
officers' clubs in Cairo or Calcutta and complained about the beastly
heat or the "bloody wogs".
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Robert J. Kolker
Hellekin wrote:
> There have been ethic groups in the UK since Roman times - and larger cities
> have had black and asian populations for hundreds of years. Tolkien was
> brought up in the heyday of the British Empire - one of the most
> multi-cultural and multi-racial agglomerations in human history.
Multi ethnic and multi racial but far from equal. For those to whom the
Empire was all, many of the folks in this mixture were of "the lesser
breeds". Building an Empire, mostly by force, was a great deal of
violence and plunder gave patriotic Brits a higher opinion of themselves
than honesty and objectivisty would dictate.
A white upper class or middle class person growing up in England during
the time of the Empire would almost HAVE to be racist to some degree.
Bob Kolker
MasterDebater
"Bruce Tucker" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:boeurq$kes$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...
> > Again, I don't say Tolkien was a "racist" in the genocidal sense --
>
> just such a claim, and you seem to be agreeing with them.
>
> Bruce Tucker
>
Isn't this the root of the problem?
I have noticed that, when this 'Tolkien was a racist' thread rears its
(usually) ugly head every other month, that this idea is the one that
creates the most confusion.
Call someone a racist, and everyone else immediately assumes that this is
something very bad, due to our modern sensitivities to the very word
'racist,' The word 'racist' can no longer be used in an intelligent
discussion without inviting irrational responses. Unfortunately, I know of
no adequate substitute for this word. We could try and use another word
which conveys the same meaning, but that will inevitably invite further
confusion. I believe we are, at present, stuck with this word and all of its
negative connotations.
Therefore, it is necessary, in all discussions of this type to proceed
with two important things in mind:
1. Do not get upset.
2. Define everything very carefully.
After reading these 'Tolkien racist' threads here in this group for the last
two years, I conclude the following (others have pointed out most of this
recently):
1. This discussion continually reappears because many different people who
read 'The Lord Of The Rings' get the (often slight) impression that Tolkien
may have embedded some racist ideas in the stories, either consciously due
Tolkien's overt racism or unconsciously due to his engrained environmental
racism acquired from his surroundings. Some of these people find their way
into this newsgroup, present these ideas, and are met with the usual
hostile, negative response.
I think it is clear that the mere fact that many different people
continually see these (admittedly mild) racist themes in LotR is, to me,
perhaps the strongest evidence that an unbiased examination of the text
needs to be done. Since the racist argument cannot be forced away through
constant attack or defense, since the argument displays such a resilient
degree of persistence, and since it shows no signs of disappearing any time
soon, I suggest we change our tactics.
2. The usual counterargument involves pointed out the many places in LotR
and other Tolkien writings in which, to oversimplify, whites are shown to
be, on occasion, demonstrably bad and blacks (or others) are demonstrably
good, thus supplying a more balanced situation to the racism perceived by
the plaintiff. But I have never been very convinced by this counterargument,
since, by its very nature of finding exceptions, it cannot counter an
argument based on a statistically large population, which the racism
arguments are usually based upon. So let us forget about constantly pointing
out the exceptions. Forget about the facts that Saruman and Feanor were
white and bad, or that Ghan-buri-ghan was non-white but good. Forget that
Sam had nice thoughts about a dead Southron or that not all of the enemies
attacked from the east. I believe that these exception are nothing more than
a red hearing, that they distract us from the true argument, and that they
increase the possibility of heated fighting and hostile arguing due to their
(apparent) correctness from the point of view of the 'Tolkien is no racist'
crowd and their (apparent) irrelevance from the point of view of the
'Tolkien is a racist' crowd.
3. Let us concentrate, instead, on the idea that Tolkien was no more racist
than his times, and that, as has been repeatedly observed, his racism is no
more than a product of his environment, and having, therefore, only as much
meaning as the accuser wants to see. Do not deny the perceived racism in
LotR, for the perception and those who perceive it will never go away. Do
not argue endlessly with those who do perceive it since the relevance of
their observations are borne out by its own persistence.
Embrace these constant racist accusations, but temper them with an
explanation of their origin and meaning. They are merely a product of the
man's environment, and mean only so much as the plaintiff wants to assign
them. It is the person bringing the accusation of racism which sees the
(possibly) negatively implied meaning in the text. For example, many years
ago I also perceived the same slightly racist attitude in LotR that others
do, but I passed it off as having little meaning because I assumed it was
nothing more than a (probably) unconscious manifestation of the author's
environment.
But others will not quickly and easily pass it off or easily ignore the
racism which they perceive in the text and they will assign it a (much)
larger degree of meaning than I did. This is the problem. Many perceive all
racism as ugly racism and so they assign that ugliness to the perceived
racism in LotR.
4. But we cannot attack these people as having incorrect or exaggerated
impressions or perceptions of the text or the racism inherent in the text,
since this avenue simply invites further hostility and leads to no
consensus. Keep this in mind: just because some people see more racism
(perhaps everywhere) than you do doesn't mean that all of the racism that
they see is wrong or nonexistent. A great deal of tolerance, leniency, and
acceptance are needed.
Concentrate instead upon the relevant fact, not the exceptions nor the
attacker, and observe that Tolkien was a white man in a mostly white
environment writing stories (largely) derived from English/Teutonic stories,
myths and legends. It is not surprising that he writes of white good guys
fighting non-white bad guys.
Many in the 'Tolkien is no racist' camp fear to delve too deeply into
this line of defense as it is often perceived to strengthen the racist
argument. Far from it. It only helps to explain and cast light on the
reality of the situation, which leads to the truth. Tolkien is allowed to
pick out who his good guys will be and who his bad guys will be and if those
choices, when examined in the light of modern racist proclivities, tend to
lead some to conclude that, from a modern racism point of view, Tolkien was
at least a mild racist, then this says NOTHING about the intentions or
motivations which Tolkien may have had when he wrote those stories.
A story in which white good guys battle non-white bad guys is not racist
simply because it is written, but it may be PERCEIVED as racist simply
because it is written in a real world in which whites have done many bad
things to non-whites. If a non-white person wrote a story about a fantasy
world based, not in North-western Europe, but rather in North America, about
non-white good guys battling white bad guys, such a story might *also* be
perceived as racist, but the outcry would undoubtedly, be far less or
nonexistent, because the perceived insult would not occur, due to the fact
that, in the real world, non-whites in North America have not done nearly as
many bad things to whites as whites have done to them.
It is the perception of insult which is everything.
Robert J. Kolker
FussyKatie wrote:
> I see LOTR in a different light. The different species (elves, humans,
> dwarves, hobbits) join together in spite of their differences to battle a
> common enemy. It could have been meant as a metaphor for harmony between
> human races.
It was the children of light against the children of darkness. Good
versus evil. There were kins and kinds on either side of the conflict.
Even the demi-god Sauron is tainted by evil.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote:
> In article <boggku$eo9$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> Hellekin <hellek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Exactly. No one can deny there are racial differences, but so what?
>
>
> Actually, yes, we can. In fact we can deny that there is such a thing
> as "race", in a meaningful sense.
That are heritable traits found in many of the kins of mankind, but the
main differences between groups of humans are cultural. Race is nothing,
culture is everything.
Bob Kolker
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
Newsgroup Poster wrote:
>
> Yes, BUT that doesn't discount the FACT -- FACT -- that Tolkien's
> Middle Earth reflects a racial taxonomy mirroring that of British
> Imperialism. Seeing how he was consciously creating a very British
> mythology, why do people continue to overlook the synchronicity of
> worldviews?
I think it is a moral universe mirroring religious literature, black and
white, and not British imperialism.
The diplomatic politics of LOTR, with many nations coming together, is
sort of like a lot of things--Greeks uniting to defeat the 500 BC
Persian invasion, Europeans uniting to defeat Naziism and Communism
(sort of).
Nobody would care if this was just another book about goblin wars. But
the moral dimension put into the book, with one side so completely evil
is a bit taken out of a religious christian eschatology, and that is a
new thing. That makes the whole question of goblin wars worth revisiting.
Hasan
JXStern
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>A white upper class or middle class person growing up in England during
>the time of the Empire would almost HAVE to be racist to some degree.
Two points. No, three.
One, that this racist assumption needs to be relativized - IF (big IF)
it is in any way true, it is rather a different thing when it is the
standard social model, and it can be rather passively indulged without
ever necessarily either agreeing or arguing with it. Only once it is
called into question does it becomes an issue, that is, if you want to
be reasonable or fair about it.
Two, that it does not follow that an Englishman in the time of empire
had to be racist. Even Kipling found Gunga Din to be praiseworthy!
The Enlightenment fantasy of the Noble Savage, to the degree that is
wasn't just hypocrisy from day one, shows the direction of an
alternative. And there have been strong believers in the brotherhood
of man (to use yet another sexist term!) throughout history, in spite
of their cultural milieu.
Third, Tolkien's world is some indefinite time in the past, with the
geographic immobility of either the middle ages or the pre-roman
times, so that there would be little enough knowledge of foreign
lands. Hobbits, elves, ents, and men lived in relative proximity
without knowing each other as much more than rumor, how much less
could they know about people in further territories?
So, if the Dunlendings and Southrons really knew more about Saruman
and Sauron and Gondor, maybe they would have switched sides. If
Gondor had started a Radio Free Orc to just *explain* things, maybe
there would never need have been a war.
What silliness these discussions of racism require!
J.
Bruce Tucker
> Call someone a racist, and everyone else immediately assumes that
this is
> something very bad,
Not so much automatically very bad, but irrational in a specific way.
Racism implies making moral judgments on other than ethical criteria,
and since so much of Tolkien's work deals with questions of moral
judgments, this, along with Amanda's charge that his world is one of
simplistic cut-and-dried, black-and-white morality, is a very serious
charge.
> The word 'racist' can no longer be used in an intelligent
> discussion without inviting irrational responses.
Certainly it can. You just have to, as you say, define what you mean
instead of simp,y tossing the word around. So far it doesn't appear that
anyone has made an effort to define *exactly* what they mean by it and
*exactly* where they see racism in Tolkien's works other than throwing
out vague generalizations like "Oh, you know, it's the old 'us vs. them'
mentality, the pure white guys vs. the swarthy dark hordes" - the
problem being that this is *not* an example taken from Tolkien's books,
much less a quoted passage, it's simply someone's badly stated synopsis
of a theme they claim to see running through the whole body of work.
Where the intelligent discussion has broken down is in attempting to get
most of the folks making these assertions to come up with examples
*from the books* rather than simply making these gross general
characterizations.
Now as it happens, I just finished a reply to Stephen, a regular on
r.a.b.t., in which he did ask a specific question about whether a
specific character's viewpoint, taken from specific passages in the
text, reflected a racist attitude. I'm not sure it does, but I had to
admit it's a much closer call, and that a person in this day and age who
had such attidues would certainly be considered racist - the question is
how much one can relate attitudes across the fantasy/reality boundary
when concepts like orcs, elvish ancestry, (objectively seen) divine
intervention, etc. leave the picture That is the sort of discussion I
think we'd need to have for the broader topic to become a reasoned and
intelligent discussion of the issue.
> Therefore, it is necessary, in all discussions of this type to
proceed
> with two important things in mind:
> 1. Do not get upset.
> 2. Define everything very carefully.
Agreed.
> After reading these 'Tolkien racist' threads here in this group for
the last
> two years, I conclude the following (others have pointed out most of
this
> recently):
> 1. This discussion continually reappears because many different people
who
> read 'The Lord Of The Rings' get the (often slight) impression that
Tolkien
> may have embedded some racist ideas in the stories, either consciously
due
> Tolkien's overt racism or unconsciously due to his engrained
environmental
> racism acquired from his surroundings. Some of these people find their
way
> into this newsgroup, present these ideas, and are met with the usual
> hostile, negative response.
That is one way to look at it.
> I think it is clear that the mere fact that many different people
> continually see these (admittedly mild) racist themes in LotR is, to
me,
> perhaps the strongest evidence that an unbiased examination of the
text
> needs to be done.
Do you think this newsgroup is necessarily the best place to do that?
Are there not, for example, fora devoted specifically to discussions of
racism and its influence on literature for persons obsessed with this
topic to bring individual books to be hauled before the tribunal and
sliced and diced?
> Since the racist argument cannot be forced away through
> constant attack or defense, since the argument displays such a
resilient
> degree of persistence, and since it shows no signs of disappearing any
time
> soon, I suggest we change our tactics.
You seem to assume that because the argument keeps reappearing, there
must be something in the text that makes people see it. I disagree
wholeheartedly. I see this as another species of the age-old "Frodo and
Sam are repressed homosexuals" debate. There are movements in academia
to find overt and covert racism in every text ever produced in English
literature, and to find sexism and repressed homosexuality in every text
ever produced period. That is more than enough to provide endless new
blood for endless new debates on the subject. The fact that there *are*
some other texts which contain blatant racist assumptions of which the
author may not be aware, or even that there may be some language or even
hints of some obsolete pseudoscience in Tolkien which was also misused
by racist theorists in his day or later, doesn't mean that his ideas
were in any way significantly impacted by racism - nor does it mean that
continual flogging of this dead horse serves any purpose.
> 2. The usual counterargument involves pointed out the many places in
LotR
> and other Tolkien writings in which, to oversimplify, whites are shown
to
> be, on occasion, demonstrably bad and blacks (or others) are
demonstrably
> good, thus supplying a more balanced situation to the racism perceived
by
> the plaintiff.
That is a gross misstatement of the counterargument and of Tolkien's
works.
I think one of the reasons for the hostility shown is that it is plain
from the level of knowledge shown by most of those who start up these
debates that they are not Tolkien fans who want to come into a Tolkien
n.g. and discuss this aspect of his works, they are amateur social
scientists looking to stir up a debate on racism and Tolkien is merely
the battleground they have chosen - and thus of little consequence.
People in the Tolkien newsgroups aren't here to debate racism in
society, we're here to discuss Tolkien's works, and if people aren't
familiar enough with the professor's works to discuss them
intelligently, they shouldn't try to argue about them.
The reason that it I say it is a gross misstatement of Tolkien's works
is that ist badly misstates the nature of evil as he presents it. Evil
in Tolkien is not "fighting for the bad side". Evil is not a side you
pick, it's not who you are, it's what you do. The "evil white guys" are
not the rare exceptions. Just about *all* of the evil characters in
Tolkien are from the same racial or ethnic groups as the good
characters. Race simply does not enter into it. *No one* in Tolkien,
aside from nonhuman fantasy creatures, is depicted as being evil by
virtue of birth.
> But I have never been very convinced by this counterargument,
> since, by its very nature of finding exceptions, it cannot counter an
> argument based on a statistically large population, which the racism
> arguments are usually based upon. So let us forget about constantly
pointing
> out the exceptions. Forget about the facts that Saruman and Feanor
were
> white and bad, or that Ghan-buri-ghan was non-white but good.
But that's idiotic. You cannot say that Tolkien's racism is proven by
the fact that his story is one of white heroes fighting off nonwhite
evil hordes, and then say it's irrelevant to point out that most of the
enemy armies and just about every one of the major villains are of the
same or similar racial types as the "good guys" (except Sauron, who
isn't human and who never appears "in the flesh" anyway).
> 3. Let us concentrate, instead, on the idea that Tolkien was no more
racist
> than his times, and that, as has been repeatedly observed, his racism
is no
> more than a product of his environment,
But it has not been established that he was racist at all, or that if he
was, his books reflect it. Let's instead concentrate on demonstrating
that from the text rather than assuming it away and then trying to
appear magnanimous by saying "Oh, but we won't *blame* the poor fellow,
after all, he can't help being born in an ignorant time."
> Do not deny the perceived racism in
> LotR, for the perception and those who perceive it will never go away.
I do not deny that people read into any text what they insist on reading
into it.
> Do
> not argue endlessly with those who do perceive it since the relevance
of
> their observations are borne out by its own persistence.
"Relevance" is not truth. I think you've had too much social science fed
to you. Anyway, people have seen a lot of thinks that weren't there -
UFO's, Satan-worshipping daycare center ritual murder cults, Elvis
working in convenience stores - but I don't believe in them either.
But as you say, define your terms. Maybe you're using a different
definition of "racist" than I am. I've already given mine, and why I
think it's not applicable. When you say you see racism present, what is
it you're seeing? What does the word "racism" mean in this context to
you? All you've said so far is the same simplistic formula we've seen
over and over - "LotR is racist because it just shows good white guys
battling bad nonwhite guys." This is just so ridiculous an
oversimplication of the book on so many levels, it's almost impossible
to discuss meaningfully.
> 4. But we cannot attack these people as having incorrect or
exaggerated
> impressions or perceptions of the text or the racism inherent in the
text,
I would say "challenge" rather than "attack". But sure we can. Why the
hell not? Are you saying some viewpoints are privileged? If someone
cries racism, that person is allowed to express that view, but it is
improper for anyone else to disagree in public, because their ittle
bitty feewings might get hurt?
> since this avenue simply invites further hostility and leads to no
> consensus.
Now wait - why does taking one side in debate lead to hostility and no
consensus, but taking the other side not lead to hostility and no
consensus?
I mean, you're saying if everyone just agreed with you, we'd all be
friends and have consensus, right?
Well, I have a better idea. How about you all agree with *me* and stop
trying to say anything that disagrees with *me* - Al Franken - (sorry,
couldn't resist) and then we'll STILL have consensus and no hostility?
Sorry, didn't work. So I guess we all are free to say what we want, or
to just not listen if we can't stand to see other people disagreeing, or
if we regard disagreement as an attack.
> Keep this in mind: just because some people see more racism
> (perhaps everywhere) than you do doesn't mean that all of the racism
that
> they see is wrong or nonexistent.
I think you need to see the reverse: just because a little boy cries
"Wolf!" doesn't mean there is one. And just because a thousand students
well-schooled to see racism, sexism, and repressed homosexuality in
every closet cry "racism!" doesn't mean there is any. Doesn't mean there
isn't, doesn't mean there is. You need to look at the text and find out
the hard way, by applying reason. But what you want to do is shortcut
that process and say "You can't say there's no racism, there MUST be if
people claim to see it because (a) so many people claim to and (b)
you'll hurt their feelings and cause a ruckus if you deny it and (c)
because I SAY so" and (d) because if you just admit it we can move on to
forgiving Tolkien for only being as ignorant and racist as his times.
Well, I don't see any of those arguments as particularly convincing,
sorry.
> Concentrate instead upon the relevant fact, not the exceptions nor
the
> attacker, and observe that Tolkien was a white man in a mostly white
> environment writing stories (largely) derived from English/Teutonic
stories,
> myths and legends. It is not surprising that he writes of white good
guys
> fighting non-white bad guys.
You're fine up to the last four words. Up until Wagner decided to start
retroactively writing antisemitism into Germanic mythology in the late
19th century (and Tolkien despised Wagner's work, partly because of the
blatant antisemitism), how many nonwhite bad guys do you think there
were in the old legends? The Huns in the Nibelungenlied, I guess, but
they aren't even the villains of that story. The old myths are pretty
much nordic types fighting other nordic types or supernatural creatures,
not nordic types fighting swarthy Southrons - you'd need to go to
something like the Song of Roland for that, and that's way out of scope
for Tolkien's sources.
> Many in the 'Tolkien is no racist' camp fear to delve too deeply
into
> this line of defense as it is often perceived to strengthen the racist
> argument.
You're delving into the psychology of people who are not asking you to
speak for them and whose arguments you do not grasp and are summarizing
very badly. This "not a racist" partisan does not "fear to delve" into
that argument, I reject it because it does not characterize Tolkien's
attitude towards evil. His good and bad guys are not "pure white guys"
fighting "swarthy dark hordes", not entirely and not even for the most
part. It's not a matter of a few exceptions "proving the rule", it's a
matter of understanding WHAT distinguishes a "good guy" from a "bad guy"
in Tolkien's view, and it is NOT any sort of racial stereotyping.
> A story in which white good guys battle non-white bad guys is not
racist
> simply because it is written, but it may be PERCEIVED as racist simply
> because it is written in a real world in which whites have done many
bad
> things to non-whites.
Maybe, whatever. But that is NOT the story that Tolkien wrote. The book
isn't really about battles to begin with. The point is made numerous
times that simply being on "our side and fighting against "their side"
doesn't put one in the right - that morality is not a matter of being on
the "good guy" side. The battles that occur don't follow the racial
makeup you descibe - it's not a matter of "exceptions proving the rule",
as many have tried to point out, the incidence of nonwhite humans among
the "bad guys" is low enough to make *them* the exceptions. You simply
haven't been reading.
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Count Menelvagor
> I see LOTR in a different light. The different species (elves, humans,
> dwarves, hobbits) join together in spite of their differences to battle a
> common enemy. It could have been meant as a metaphor for harmony between
> human races.
My favorite instance of that is the episode with Gimli and Galadriel.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message news:<slrnbql3cn...@namibia.tandem>...
>>
>>
>> Ghan-buri-ghan wasn't a white European. Seems there is a problem with your
>> theory. Most of the antagonists weren't even Men, either. Even a Southron
>> was portrayed in an understanding light.
>
>
>Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
Yeah, in a relatively abandoned meaning which basically means "test"
the rule.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Flame of the West
> It's a shame the label "racist" has become such a perjorative that
> honest discussion of "racist" views can't be had without appearing
> melodramatic. There's "diversity" amongst racists, too, after all --
> Tolkien was no genocidal racist, but he certainly had his chauvinist
> side, which shouldn't be surprising given his milieu. The
> protagonists are fair-skinned and the anatagonists dark and swarthy in
> his trilogy. Did he "mean" any "racial comment" thereby? No. It's
> "just" a reflection of his personal feelings that the good guys
> "happen to look" like Northwestern Europeans and the bad guys yellow,
> black, and brown hordes.
Now how would you know what his personal feelings were?
Is it possible that you're jumping to conclusions?
-- FotW
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
-- Bill Gates
Flame of the West
> Finally, an intelligent and rational discussion on the mild racism
> inherently apparent in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings.'
On the contrary, it's based on unprovable assumptions about
what Tolkien was thinking.
> Newsgroup Poster's post above is perhaps the best-balanced post that I have
> seen on this exact subject for quite some time - both rational and unbiased.
In other words, it agrees with your viewpoint? ;-)
Look, racism is never "mild." It's disgusting. Accusing Tolkien
of racism is a very serious charge, and should be carefully
documented.
> Over the years in this group discussions such as this have often quickly
> degenerated into ugly shouting matches. I hope that this one can be
> different.
Well, we'll see. One thing that would have to happen is for the
Tolkien-is-a-racist crowd actually to address the objections
rather than just reiterating their charge over and over again.
> This group used to be wonderful, before the movie sensitivities and
> off-topic problems of the last year or so, which seems to have scared off
> most of the nicer people. Let us use our reaction to such a sensitive topic
> as the above in order to judge whether or not we can regain our former
> reasonable group-attitude and thereby re-attract back to us all those which
> were scared away. Then this can be a happy group once again. Or we can
> ignore the changes for the worst which have occurred in this group over the
> last year or two and pretend that everything is fine.
Friend, there was never a time that I know of when the
Tolkien-is-a-racist charge failed to cause a firestorm here.
> About the above post by Newsgroup Poster, I think my comments would be
> almost identical to his, so I will not elaborate. But I find Mars6300's
> remarks concerning parallels between Tolkien's ideas and Hitler's racism to
> be most provocative, although it does seem almost impossible to be able to
> have a rational discussion on such an apparently searing criticism.
>
> One of the simplest and most evident notions contained within Nazi, Fascist,
> or most extreme-right-wing propaganda is the idea that some peoples and
> nations are good and some peoples and nations are evil. Basically, you have
> your good guys and then there are your evil-doers. Sound familiar? Of course
> it does. George W. Bush is neither the first nor the last to spout such
> stuff, and as to just exactly where he should be placed on the right-wing
> political spectrum I leave to your best judgment.
You want a rational and calm discussion yet immediately drag
George W. Bush into the picture?
> It is a comforting view of the world to think in absolute terms of good and
> evil and to assume that we have the wisdom to correctly assign these labels
> to us and them. It often reminds me of the comforting right-wing
> fundamentalist religious world-view (American right-wing fundamentalist
> Christians are one of the best examples, but other fundamentalists are just
> as instructive in exhibiting the exemplary properties) in which it is easy
> to decide who is good and who is evil. Those who are with God and of God are
> good, others are evil and live in the outer darkness of the world, a place
> distinctly distant and different and darker from 'The Light,' where the
> chosen good people exist. Is it a wonder that right wing religion and
> politics go hand in hand?
This is provocative. You can't really want a calm discussion while
slandering entire religious and political groups.
> But is it not the very simplicity and comfort of this view which makes
> Tolkien's Middle-earth such a comforting place with such a simple and
> comforting moral structure? I know this is one of the most attractive
> aspects of Tolkien's world, both for me and for many, many that I have read
> or talked to. Middle-earth has all of the apparent complexity of the real
> world with none of the moral ambiguities. It is as engaging and involving as
> reality, yet, at its core, its fundamental moral structure is very simple
> and easy to understand, unlike reality.
Could you elaborate on how notions like good and evil are
too simple for "reality"?
> Tolkien's writings celebrate the
> triumph of good over evil, and everyone likes this, we even need it. There
> is no need to discern between the subtle and confusing moral shades of
> reality. There are good guys and bad guys, as in all fiction, yet *here* we
> have a simple moral foundation to a complex world, unlike other works of
> fiction. Perhaps this is what draws us to fantasy. Good and evil. Simple.
> Comfortable. Easy to understand. Requiring No thought. Just like
> fundamentalism in the real world. Requiring no thought. 'They' are bad or
> evil because my preacher or my politician told me so.
This is insulting. I can't believe you want a calm discussion
while slinging this kind of stuff around.
> A startling parallel, to be sure, when dragged out into the light and
> exposed for all to see. Yet it does nothing to reduce my love of Tolkien's
> world or his writings, for they are still morally simple, they are still
> comfortable, and their sweetness still resides within their fantasy.
>
> For it is the very fact that this is fantasy which makes it sweet. It is
> neither a very accurate nor, in the above analysis, a very desirable
> description of the moral ambiguities of the Real World. Let fantasy worlds
> be morally simple! - this realization was part of Tolkien's genius. If such
> fantasy worlds bear more than superficial resemblance to many right-wing
> world views in the real world, what of it? Are those world-views not fantasy
> as well?
You know, you have a pretty oversimplified world-view yourself.
-- FotW
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates
Flame of the West
> I guess what is most convincing is that the subject will not go away. Every
> few months someone different brings up the same observation.
Tolkien is *dead*. There is a finite number of subjects you can
discuss about him. They all will not go away.
Flame of the West
> Tolkien is English. He grew up during the time of Empire, when the Brits
> controlled a quarter of the Earth's surface having overcome the
> opposition of the "lesser" races and peoples. How could a Brit brought
> up under these conditions NOT be racist?
I'm sure there were plenty of British at the time who were
proud of their country but did not believe that their
accomplishments were due to some kind of genetic
superiority. There's no evidence that Tolkien wasn't
among them.
> The Brits are, by and large, a decent folk even if we Americans living
> in the late 20-th and early 21-st century find some of their attitudes
> a bit much.
Mighty decent of you to be so understanding of the Brits...
Flame of the West
> Very well said, Amanda!
>
>
> Francis A. Miniter
Snip, sock puppet.
Flame of the West
> Thanks to you both for restoring my faith in this newsgroup.
Sock puppets have a way of doing that.
> We have avoided
> the politically correct idea that all racism is heinous. I do not know what
> to really make of Tolkien's racism, or most racism, for that matter. I am
> conflicted because, on the one hand I hate political correctness since it so
> often flies in the face of the truth, yet, on the other hand, I tend toward
> bleeding-heart liberalism in which I'd like to believe that all people are
> created equal. But we are not all equal, and neither are peoples, races and
> nations equal. Some are better, more advanced, more evolved, whatever.
Your viewpoint is rather shallow. The point isn't whether
some countries are more developed than others; the issue
is whether these differences are cultural or genetic. The
latter is racism. Give a single example where Tolkien
ascribes the differences between the nations of Middle-earth
to genetic differences.
Flame of the West
> Actually, exceptions PROVE the rule.
>
> You can always find an exception, but that's missing the forest for
> the trees.
I assert that anyone who thinks Tolkien was guilty of
even a little racism is himself a repressed child molestor.
And please don't give me any counterexamples, because
exceptions PROVE the rule, and that would be missing
the forest for the trees.
Flame of the West
> Hell yes! He was a Brit! In Tolkien's youth, the Emprie ruled over one
> quarter of the Earth's surface. Is it any wonder why Brits implicitly
> assumed the superiority of anglo-saxons over "the lesser breeds".
Then why were they so enthusiastic to fight alongside
the French against their fellow Saxons in WW1?
Flame of the West
> The swarthy men, the dark hordes, versus the fair heroes, the noble
> whites...it all coincides rather too neatly with most racist
> worldviews to be mere coincidence.
Except for all those exceptions that actually prove the rule, right?
In other words, it all fits neatly once you drop all the exceptions.
Douglas Clark
times onward, particularly in India, a definite racist slant emerged.
--
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
Lynx: Poetry from Bath ......
... http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx.html
Taemon
> > I see LOTR in a different light. The different species (elves, humans,
> > dwarves, hobbits) join together in spite of their differences to battle
a
> > common enemy. It could have been meant as a metaphor for harmony
between
> > human races.
> My favorite instance of that is the episode with Gimli and Galadriel.
That wasn't exactly harmonious, in my eyes. Gimli fell in love (And how
could a dwarf consider her beautiful?) and she merely indulges him.
Greetings, T.
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
Douglas Clark wrote:
> The early British Empire was not particularly racist but from Victorian
> times onward, particularly in India, a definite racist slant emerged.
>
>
Perhaps because before Queen Victoria, India was controlled by a private
corporation--the east India company. After 1857 it was taken over by
the crown directly, and she became Empress of India, and all the
vainglorious strutting that follows with titles of that sort.
The East India company men lived in India, had Indian wives (mistresses)
and generally knew the powerbrokers. Afterwards ... I have read that
the men who ruled India were military men of narrow thinking, who
thought the way to rule was to stamp out dissent and with violence.
Hasan
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
Flame of the West wrote:
> Plant Life wrote:
>
>> I guess what is most convincing is that the subject will not go away.
>> Every
>> few months someone different brings up the same observation.
>
>
> Tolkien is *dead*. There is a finite number of subjects you can
> discuss about him. They all will not go away.
>
>
It took Buddha years of meditation to get to that idea.
Awake, what can one do?
Hasan
Robert J. Kolker
Flame of the West wrote:
>
> Look, racism is never "mild." It's disgusting. Accusing Tolkien
> of racism is a very serious charge, and should be carefully
> documented.
It is not racism. It is elitism. Do you believe in your heart that all
people are equally nobel and good? I would guess that you don't. If so
you believe that some people are better than others. That makes you an
elitist, not a racist. A belief in groups of people who are more nobel
than most goes back long before people know about inheritable
characterstics.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
Flame of the West wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>> Hell yes! He was a Brit! In Tolkien's youth, the Emprie ruled over one
>> quarter of the Earth's surface. Is it any wonder why Brits implicitly
>> assumed the superiority of anglo-saxons over "the lesser breeds".
>
>
> Then why were they so enthusiastic to fight alongside
> the French against their fellow Saxons in WW1?
Churchill answered that. It was a battle between civilization and
barbarism. Between Light and a Long Night. In a battle like that, making
common cause with the French, who are generally disgusting, was a better
choice than the alternative.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Flame of the West wrote:
>
> Your viewpoint is rather shallow. The point isn't whether
> some countries are more developed than others; the issue
> is whether these differences are cultural or genetic
Without a doubt, cultural. Any two human beings of opposite gender can
interbreed, but they don't necessarily speak the same language. Race is
little or nothing. Culture is everything. Every human being alive is the
descendent of one woman (check your mitochondrial DNA). Every human
being alive is the child of survivors. In that sense, we are all Kings
of the Monkey House.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Douglas Clark wrote:
> The early British Empire was not particularly racist but from Victorian
> times onward, particularly in India, a definite racist slant emerged.
The Wog begins at Marsaillles.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Hasdrubal Hamilcar wrote:
> The East India company men lived in India, had Indian wives (mistresses)
> and generally knew the powerbrokers. Afterwards ... I have read that
> the men who ruled India were military men of narrow thinking, who
> thought the way to rule was to stamp out dissent and with violence.
It was guys like Clive and Rhodes who made the British Empire what it
was. Listen to the words of "Soldiers of the Queen" sometime.
Bob Kolker
Hellekin
news:boi6fr$r46$6...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Give a single example where Tolkien
> ascribes the differences between the nations of Middle-earth
> to genetic differences.
I thought this statement by T is interesting:
Letter 230 to Rhona Beare:
'...but in any case I imagine that Numenoreans, before their knowledge
dwindled, knew more about heredity than other people. To this of course they
refer by the common symbol of blood. They recognise the fact that in spite
of intermarriages, some characteristics would appear in pure form in later
generations. Aragorn's own longevity was a case in point. Gandalf I think
refers to the curious fact that even in the much less well preserved house
of the stewards Denethor had come out as almost purely Numenorean.'
Actually moving away from this I personally don't think Tolkien was a racist
(and the above passage doesn't alter my view because awareness of genetics
doesn't make anyone a racist). As I've said before though I think it's
possible to make a decent case for him being a bit elitist and certainly
'culturalist'.
Yuk Tang
news:boina6$918$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> Actually moving away from this I personally don't think Tolkien
> was a racist (and the above passage doesn't alter my view because
> awareness of genetics doesn't make anyone a racist). As I've said
> before though I think it's possible to make a decent case for him
> being a bit elitist and certainly 'culturalist'.
Tolkien was unconsciously racist, but consciously liberal. His racism
reflected the mores of his time. But one of the positive aspects of
British conservatism/elitism is that they feel secure enough to allow
other cultures their due. So where he was conscious of racist aspects
of his work, he reacted against it; hence the exceptions cited by many.
But the bulk of his stuff should certainly not be taken as a model for
modern society; someone in rabt said that while Europeans 'thought'
they were superior to others, Numenoreans 'actually' were superior to
Middle-Earthers. Disturbing, if literary logic thus leaks into moral
logic.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
Een Wilde Ier
> "A Tsar Is Born" <Atsarisb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jnAqb.560$y95...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
<snip>
> As for the Celts... well he wasn't
> 'racist' but he may be accused of being 'culturalist' towards some aspects
> of Celtic culture. In his letters he states he had great affection for
> Ireland and the Irish but didn't much care for their language or myths some
> of which he deemed 'nonsense' - scrambled by oral traditions.
Not scrambled by the professional bearers of the oral traditions in
Gaelic society, the filíocht who underwent years of hard training, but
rather by Christianisation (of both the people and the mythology).
Finally done for (there was a pagan 'messiah' myth still alive as
recently as the 16th century) by the collapse of this society throughout
the 17th century in the face of a few key catastrophic military
reverses against the English.
Een Wilde Ier
<snip>
> Britain produced Churchhill, and the Soviets
> produced Stalin. There is the difference.
*Churchill* wanted to poison-gas the east coast of Ireland if the
Germans mounted an invasion here. (He had to be constantly talked back
from invading Éire by wiser heads, too)
Robert J. Kolker
And Harry Truman was ready to gas the japs if the A-bomb failed. War is
war. One fights it by any means necessary to victory. Wm. Tecumsah
Sherman said it truly: War us all Hell.
Bob Kolker