Lord of the Rings labelled racist

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this. I was just browsing different sites when I came across this. I said to myself, 'What the F***!?' As I read, I became more and more furious. Oh, by the way, here's the link Lord of the Rings labelled racist (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1387552002). I kept reading and I just couldn't believe what this guy was saying. First of all, Tolkien said that his works did not represent anything, so how could LOTR represent nativism or racism (actually, nativism wasn't mentioned at all). It doesn't at all. The academic claimed: "Put simply, Tolkien’s good guys are white and the bad guys are black, slant-eyed, unattractive, inarticulate and a psychologically undeveloped horde."


I HATE it when people say f*****g stupid stuff like this (please excuse my language). It's such a shallow and underdeveloped statement. It was uncalled for and false. This person obviously cannot be very bright when it comes to Tolkien. What he said is flat out wrong.

Why do people jump to conclusions like these? Was it just as random as one on the 'jump-to-conclusions' board (if you've seen the movie Office Space, you'll know what I'm talking about)? Why did he say that? That's like saying Martin Luther King Jr. had all those speeches because he hated whites and because he was racist. It's almost as absurd as that, and it's just as stupid as that. I just hate it when someone makes a great novel or anything great, just because they want to, or for a good cause, and then someone just has to s*** all over it. Why do they do that??? Tolkien just wanted to make books for children (The Hobbit) and a mythology for England (The Lord of the Rings), and then just to develop the world he created. And now here comes Dr Shapiro, and takes something good and says it is racist. He just had to make it look bad. Why? I just can't understand. Why?

He's lucky Tolkien is dead, or he'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. I'm glad Tolkien isn't around to hear about this. I've said somethings that people do are like slapping Tolkien in the face. Well, this is like Dr Shapiro just raped Tolkien's mom. That's how I see it.

Does anyone feel like I do? I hope so. And even if you don't, tell me what you think.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Susan Delgado]

GroundsKeeper Willie, do this: Ball your hands into fists, raise them over your head, and recite in a firm, clear voice, Serenity Now!

In other words, calm down. It's not as bad as you seem to think it is. These things always happen and since there's nothing we can do about it, there's no point to getting worked up.

And watch your language; this is a family site.

edit: I just read the article you linked to, and you know what I did? I laughed at it. It was so ridiculous that laughing was all I could do as a reasonable person.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Susan Delgado ]

[Melephelwen]

I must say, that most of the statements are absolutely ridiculous. The one quoted is true, though I doubt it's ment to be so because of racism. It's more likely to make it seem realistic - I mean, honestly, a tall, blond and fair talking Orc?
And Susan's right, calm down. It's not that bad. If you disagree, then disagree, and try not freak out. This is not ment in any negative way, but when you get that mad some people would think that you thought it was true. smilies/wink.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

On the hobbits as a "lilly white enclave"....


Let me point out to this author that the Harfoot, the single largest group within the hobbits, were said to have nut-brown skin. This, however, was not something which the movie showed.

It's interesting but my daughter Gabriela, who's just ten and loves Elves and hobbits, is of Mexican-American descent and also has nut-brown skin. She immediately picked up on that fact in the book, and prides herself on 'looking like the real Sam.'

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Maikadilwen]

Now now, take a deep breath and calm down. Think about your bloodpreassure. smilies/wink.gif

I must admit I laughed when I read this article. For goodness' sake, the guy didn't even know when the book was actually written.
Some people simply just see racism everywhere today.

[Orald]

What this man is saying is not ridiculous. How he is saying it is. However, this is still a serious debate grounded by evidence. Do not dismiss his claims until you have seen the evidence and judged it yourself.

[mordor136]

I too laughed when I read that sorry excuse for something to gripe about. HE HE HE you see I'm still laughing HE HE HE

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well, the basis of "Good" and "Evil" has always been "Dark" vs. "Light", but people constantly make the mistake of thinking that it is "Black" vs. "White", which it is not. I mean, why pick on Tolkien when he could go to almost any fantasy tale and see the same patterns. It's nothing to do with skin colors.
Let the guy have his stupid fun, if people get irritated then his purpose if fufilled. It's just something to get people worked up. Just don't care about... it's his beliefs, so let it stay with him.

[engwaalphiel]

It's his opinion let him think what he likes , if we don't think the same as some people so be it. A lot of things these days are twisted in some way so people decide to write articles saying things are racist , sexist etc etc . Truth is they aren't but people have got so involved in looking for discrimination they see it everywhere.
I've seen lots of articles debating this topic so it's got kind of tired and old now
smilies/smile.gif

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Tolkien re: allegory

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference.


I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Looks like Shapiro made the same confusion. To say Tolkien intended racism is ridiculous.

[Susan Delgado]

Do not dismiss his claims until you have seen the evidence and judged it yourself
I have seen the evidence: I have read the book and seen no racism.

[Belin]

You haven't seen the evidence until you've read all the arguments about it, though; they are here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000933), here, (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001753) and here. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001610)

For myself, I've decided to be very wimpy and form no opinion about this at all, but these threads are certainly interesting to read.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

We ought not to forget that Dr. Shapiro is a serious academic, and that such people are not given to publishing opinions simply in order to upset an author's fans. We should also be aware that this is a newspaper article about what he has said: it has not been written by Dr. Shapiro himself, and his arguments may have been simplified or misrepresented.

That being understood, his is a legitimate line to take: there is a lot of stress placed on the purity of bloodlines in Númenorean culture; the Orcs are dark, diminutive, harshly-spoken and brutal, the very picture of a rampaging horde of savages.

On a more detailed analysis of the work one might note that the Haradrim, allies of Sauron, have a distinctly Indian feel about them: they are dark-skinned, dressing in exotic silks and gold, and riding elephants. A large number of the immigrants to Britain in the 1950s came from India. The Dunlendings, too, fall short of the Aryan ideal that Dr. Shapiro assumes Tolkien to have been promoting, and there is even a brief reference to "...black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues" at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

The argument is therefore one that can be supported, and I understand how somebody whose academic background lies in social and cultural history could come to that conclusion on a cursory examination of the work. It is, however, an erroneous one, as Dr. Shapiro would have realised had he devoted as much attention to actually reading the book as he has to tying it in with British social history.

Firstly, a representative of the Tolkien Society is on record as saying that he hated racism, which seems to me a good reason to assume that there was no racist intent on his part when he was writing his novel. Obviously this is what we would expect the Society to say, as they have a vested interest in ensuring that Tolkien's works do not become the focus of an anti-racism campaign. It is also possible, however unlikely, that Tolkien betrayed repressed racist impulses in his works. Even these improbable possibilities can, however, be discounted.

There is, for example, the question of Sauron's dark-skinned troops. Unlike the Orcs, they are portrayed as being "bold men and grim", "strong and war-hardened". They are always described in a manner that emphasises the fact that they are human, distinct from the sub-human Orcs and Trolls, almost as though to drive home the point that Orcs are not an allegory for any human race. It is also well worth noting that the Corsairs of Umbar, not to mention the Mouth of Sauron, are portrayed as being of Númenorean descent. Then there are the Wild Men, who take common cause with Sauron's enemies: they hardly conform to any idealised Anglo-Saxon model.

As for the Orcs themselves, their speech patterns sound more like those of thugs than immigrants: they are harshly-spoken rather than inarticulate, the brutality of their speech intended to convey the viciousness of their character. If anyone ought to be offended by this portrayal it's bigoted, selfish and ignorant people who swear constantly; it certainly isn't aimed at a particular ethnic group.

Then there's the matter of the blood-lines: simply put, European sagas are infested with genealogies. When power and status are hereditary it tends to breed an obsession with tracing and recording one's antecedents, sometimes with a little embellishment. This interest in blood has nothing to do with race, but with connection with power, as evinced by the inclusion of gods in most saga genealogies. Actually, if we wanted to, we could describe Beren and Lúthien as a mixed-race couple. That could throw the racism theory a little out of kilter.

This is further achieved by the note that one of the larger themes throughout LoTR is the burgeoning friendship between Legolas and Gimli, whose races are sundered by what amounts to racial mistrust. Each comes to appreciate the culture of the other, and their friendship brings to a more personal level the increased co-operation between the two races that is required for the defeat of their mutual enemy. If one wants to look for racial themes, this seems to me to be the more obvious.

As for the assertion that Tolkien believed in some mythical pure England, this is sheer nonsense. Tolkien believed, quite correctly, that England (being a country established and named by invading Germanic tribes) had lost its mythology when the Normans invaded. He was trying to rebuild the lost legends of Anglo-Saxon England, which is scarcely a fictional entity. To suggest that he believed in some idea of racial purity is nonsensical. He was well aware of Britain's cultural history, he was merely attempting to enrich one aspect of it, in which he had a particular interest.

Essentially, then, there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of Tolkien and his work. The idea that Dwarves are idealised Scots is frankly ludicrous, and the invading threat to the village ideal is technological "progress", not immigration. Time is short, and both HarperCollins and the Tolkien Society have covered the points about timing, so it remains for me only to state that I was not attracted to the novel by racist undertones, which I hope I have debunked as thoroughly as I may. You can find in Tolkien's work whatever you want to find. If this academic wishes to find racism then that's rather sad, but he's entitled to look for it. I hope that he's made to look extremely foolish by the publication of this article.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I did go check out those threads(thanks for the links smilies/smile.gif ), and while I did appreciate the discussion it didn't take that for me to come to the conclusion Tolkien wasn't a racist. What evidence do you need other than to read Tolkien's work, read about his life, and then judge for yourself? Tolkien wasn't what you'd call politically correct, but he was never a racist.

There are always those people who are going to pick apart something popular for the purpose of advancing an agenda. Where was this Dr. Shapiro before the movies came out? His arguments look like the kind you'd see when a person starts with an idea in their head already, and then just looks for evidence to support their pre-formed conclusions.

BTW.....well said Squatter. I appreciate your even handed comments on how Shapiro may have arrived at his opinions, even if I may be skeptical. If one narrowed their view to only those things he was quoted as saying in that article, then yes I can see where he is coming from. But as Squatter pointed out, there are lots of non-racist themes in Tolkien's work, and nothing to show from his life that would indicate a racist attitude.

[Maylin Talese]

ummm... I can't get into the link (parental controls) so i can't really judge, but why would Tolkien be degrading Blacks? I mean, he was born in Africa, and must have known some of the people there, even though i don't think he lived there very long.

[Galorme]

He was a product of his times

Thats exactly it. He didn't dislike other races, he was merely patriotic. There is a difference between putting other cultures down and liking your own, and Tolkein was very Pro-English. I haven't read the Biography in a while, but i am fairly sure he lived in South Africa for a while, which would promote a rascist veiw on his party (South Africa was a fairly rascist place to be around that time I think).

Edit: Damn you MT you got there first now I look like a Shmere.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Galorme ]

[Maylin Talese]

smilies/biggrin.gif
Sorry Galorme
smilies/biggrin.gif

[Arwen Imladris]

Maylin Talese, just cause you have lived there or grown up with them, doesn't mean that you like them. Most people do not always get along with their siblings or their parents. People who are close to you can also get on your nerves very easilly. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that tolkien was intending to be racest.

For the people who do here is what I say:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all who wander are lost.

Aragorn looked really bad, the hobbits didn't trust him at first, remember, but then he turned out to be a really great guy.

[thorondil]

This is something that I have thought about before I ever came to the 'Downs, so these threads (and this article) do not suprise me.

I would just say a few things (since it will inevitably be misconstrued and misinterpreted just as Tolkien is.)

Tolkien's writings are based on Norse myth.
His mythology is a "Northern Mythology" and his intention was to write "Norse-style stories and poetry." If you read Norse myth and poetry then you will understand his characterizations, his portrayal of the role of women, and his use of the purity of bloodlines.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

ok...I'm calm now.

Susan Delgado- I edited the post. I didn't delete the swears fully, but a lot. Sorry

Good points Squatter. I do realize everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Dr. Shapiro certainly showed it. However, he said that it is, but actually, he should say that he thinks or believes, instead of 'is'. But this may be due to misquoting the Dr., as Squatter said. But I think that he shouldn't go around talking (what I think is bs) about how LotR is racist, because Tolkien did not want it to be like that, even if it may apppear like that. And if you're going to call it racist, then you have to see the good between Legolas and Gimli, as Squatter said.

He didn't dislike other races, he was merely patriotic. There is a difference between putting other cultures down and liking your own, and Tolkein was very Pro-English. I haven't read the Biography in a while, but i am fairly sure he lived in South Africa for a while, which would promote a rascist veiw on his party (South Africa was a fairly rascist place to be around that time I think).

So do you think that Tolkien was more of nativist? I don't think he is, but do you?

[Lush]

It's sometimes annoying when people take their sterilized, hyper-sensitive (and, in my opinion, somewhat boring) politically correct values and apply them to days gone by. At the same time, Shapiro is entitled to his opinion (I am also entitled to call him a dweeb with too much time on his hands, but letting emotion get in the way of a scholarly debate is usually counter-productive), and he does substantiate his claims. Personally, I don't think you can get a completely accurate impression of anyone's views until you hang around them for a while, and we can't really do that when it comes to Tolkien, though we can always speculate. By the end of the day, when you're done hunting for "subtexts", I think it's healthier to enjoy the wealth of good writing in front of you. *Yawn*

P.S. Thanks yet again for an extremely erudite post, Squatter.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Orual]

I've heard this argument before, and I can see how this idea is formed, but I think that it's held by people who haven't looked deeply enough into the book.

The physical differences between good and evil are always there in mythology, and since the Lord of the Rings was meant to be mythology for England, it's reasonable for that stark contrast to exist. I find that part of fantasy is that real, apparent line between right and wrong, as I said in the "To love, or not to love fantasy" thread. It's really easy to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys in the Lord of the Rings, just by looking at them. (And, on a more personal level, I never saw the orcs as black. I don't really know quite how I saw them, but more of a green thing going on. You can describe them all you want, use Tolkien's words, but I've got my own little movie going on in my head, and it would be vain to attempt to convince me that my image is wrong.)

Dr. Shapiro referred to the Fellowship as "uber-Aryan." That I found a little ridiculous. Aryans are stereotypically blond, blue-eyed, and fair-skinned, which does NOT apply to the entire Fellowship. Legolas, yes. Anybody else, no. Faramir (I know he wasn't in the Fellowship) had black hair.

It's always possible to read almost anything you want into almost any piece of literature. Dr. Shapiro was not the first to read racism into the Lord of the Rings, and he won't be the last. It's really no use to get angry about it--people will think what they will think. It's enough for us to know that Tolkien didn't intend racism, and the majority of rational readers don't find it.

~*~Orual~*~

By the way, did anybody else notice that Faramir, in the movie, has light hair? Honestly. It wasn't like Tolkien didn't make it clear that his hair was black in the book!

[Galorme]

So do you think that Tolkien was more of nativist? I don't think he is, but do you?

Hmmm. *looks up Nativist*. Ah taking your own culture to be worth more than others? Well I believe we all are. If you believe someone else's culture is worth more than yours then your culture shouldn't be your culture, as your culture should be what you believe is best for you. Is that what you meant? In that case yes i believe he valued british culture over others.

He certainly believed that England was lessened by the many invasions and watering down of the peoples. I would say the Racism wasn't directed at people in current cultures, but it was directed at races of times past.

[Orald]

Wonderful post Squatter, exactly what I was trying to say but fell terribly short of.

[Melephelwen]

(And, on a more personal level, I never saw the orcs as black. I don't really know quite how I saw them, but more of a green thing going on. You can describe them all you want, use Tolkien's words, but I've got my own little movie going on in my head, and it would be vain to attempt to convince me that my image is wrong.)
To be honest, I couldn't imagine hobbits to look like small men before I saw the movie. They were small brown creatures without hair, no matter how hard I tried to get a better picture. Maybe dr. Shapiro had a similar thing with, I don't know, Orcs, Dunlendings, any of Tolkiens people - except he might not believe his image is incorrect or awkward.

[-Imrahil-]

I do NOT consider LotR racist. First of all, this professor did not research LotR thoroughly because if he HAD he would have discovered that there are hobbits with dark, brown SKIN! This contradicts his theory.

It's quite easy to find racism in anything, it's all quite easy to compare adventure books to religion and world wars. That is because they are often SIMILAR because of linked themes in all of them. These themes do NOT mean the author wanted the book to be an allegory for world war.

One person I know said this:

Oh, Lord of the Rings is very religious.
Mystified, I then asked him how.
He replied that the ancient struggle between good and evil, light and dark is religious.


To me this does not make a book religoius if their is a struggle between good and evil. World wars are, to each seperate side, the struggle between good (themselves) and evil (the opposing army)

Now I could understand if my friend had said the Narnia books are religious, they are blatantly so, and they were meant to be.

Why can't people just accept it and not make these foolish attacks that are merely meant to provoke others.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: -Imrahil- ]

[lindil]

I do not know if it is so much an attempt to anger other as it is an attempt to destroy other peoples sources of higher aspirations and replace it with a thought of 'how clever the writer who discovered JRRT's dark subconcious, now I can dismiss all that he wrote'.

He wants everyone to live in his dry and pedantic wasteland also.

[Pookabunny]

I totally agree - Tolkien was NOT a racist. I know I'm echoing a lot of people here and I'm glad that many people keep these in mind. Tolkien was a learned man, not an ignorant racist who voices his opiniones at old people's birthday parties smilies/evil.gif

if I may point to a specific quote: Why can't people just accept it and not make these foolish attacks that are merely meant to provoke others.

Well stated! People LIVE for drama! That's why there's so much controversy over Frodo and Sam's relationship (because people can't grasp the concept of pure friendship). That's why people claim tones of racism. People love to classify!

I agree! People need to accept this is a story with good guys and bad guys. That doesn't mean that all the good guys are angels and the bad guys backstreet boys smilies/evil.gif

[Orual]

Pookabunny, I think you hit the gold in comparing Dr. Shapiro's conclusion to the confusion over Sam and Frodo's relationship. It's all in the intent, I guess, though I find Tolkien's intent in both cases fairly obvious. If anything, I find a huge amount of tolerance in the Lord of the Rings. People dismiss Gimli and Legolas' friendship (don't mention that, it contradicts our point and makes our arguments obsolete!), and choose instead to concentrate on what geographical area of Middle-earth Sauron's human allies happen to be from. The Fellowship was the ultimate in inter-racial friendship; four of the major races of Middle-earth (okay, you try to get an Ent to go on the Quest!) were chosen. People concentrate on the details, and ignore the big picture. And even some of the details. They pick and choose those facts which coincide with their theories, and pretend that none of the other facts exist. I find this a dishonorable way to argue, and it really distresses me that Dr. Shapiro would do this, simply to try and bring down Tolkien's works of genius.

~*~Orual~*~

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Orual ]

[davem]

My response to Dr Shapiro would be to quote Gimli's words to Eomer-
'You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, & only little wit can excuse you!'

[Pookabunny]

I LOVED this:
(as said by Orual):
The Fellowship was the ultimate in inter-racial friendship; four of the major races of Middle-earth

RIGHT ON! If anything, why can't the people who call LOTR racist look at this? Because they're ig'nant and stoooopid. Probably politicians smilies/evil.gif

At any rate, it's the drama that people love. And it's because of drama that we have great converstations, warning labels and dumb jokes smilies/biggrin.gif

And that's cool because the rest of us have TOLKIEN!

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pookabunny ]

[zacattack]

This Dr probably hasn't even read the books just seen the movie.I mean do you expect to have hero's looking like they've just finished having a join.You need tall,attractive heros
Imagine this

*Everybody puts on Imaginitive Hats*

It is the "Last Alliance of Elves and Men"

Elendil,Gil-Galad and a few other majors come into view.The are dark,swarthy and unnatracitve

*Takes off Imaginitive Hat*

I mean what kind of hero's or saviours are they.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, the basis of "Good" and "Evil" has always been "Dark" vs. "Light", but people constantly make the mistake of thinking that it is "Black" vs. "White"

Just thinking about that completely true statement, I wonder if he is black?

[Arwen_Evenstar]

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD BE THAT THICK! How can someone think of LotR as racist? Almost every portrayal of good and evil in stories is- evil: black colours, good: White colours. So how can someone now just turn it into racism? You might as well call every author of a good vs evil literature in the last thousand years racist! It is total and utter rubbish and I cant believe that that site would even publish such an immiture peice of writing!!!! smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif smilies/mad.gif

[Voronwe]

Upon opening the Sunday Times this morning I noticed an article with the eye-catching title 'Did Tolkien have a racist message?'. At first I thought, 'Not again', but it turned out that the article was a clear and balanced investigation of the subject, unlike the article mentioned at the start of this thread. The author (a self-confessed 'Tolkienist') argues convincingly against racism in The Lord of the Rings, but he does not fail to give the various arguments which have been used to try and brand the work as racist. All in all, the author seems to know his stuff, and it might be worth checking out.

The article should be available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ , or of course in the newspaper itself.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I couldn't find it. It just took me to the main webpage but nowhere can I find the article. Could you give some directions?

[Willow]

The December 2 copy of TIME magazine (the one with TTT on the cover) had a companion article to the LOTR article on why America craves fantasy. In it, the author writes:
"...but the Fellowship is still as much a boys' club as Augusta National. And whiter too. Don't let all the heartwarming Elf-Dwarf bonding between Legolas and Gimli fool you. The only people with dark skin in Middle-earth are the Orcs."
In ancient mythology, light/white is usually portrayed as good. This is an element of amny religions, also. Maybe it goes back to a fear of the night or something. Anyway, it's been ingrained in our minds to accept white as pure and good. I'm not referring to skin color, I mean general images: ie, wedding dresses are typically white to represent virginity. So Tolkien's imagery was a common theme in life. AND, he portrayed Saruman as evil while he was still white. In fact, of Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White, Gandalf was undoubtedly the "gooder". (Yes, you could argue that Gandalf becomes Gandalf the White, but my point is Tolkien did not use white/light selectively to portray good. Wasn't the livery of Gondor black?)
I read an essay on this topic once. It said something about how traditionally in European mythology, which were the inspiration for Tolkien's works, evil armies came from the south and east. (The Huns, the Mongols) It's a basic fact of geography that if the earth is round (and judging from the fact that Middle-earth had night and day, it must have been), then the places closer to the Equator will receive more sunlight. This means the inhabitants skin color will probably be darker. I think Tolkien might have been reflecting the evil armies from the south theme in his work, and to call that racist would be kind of skewed.
Whew! I guess my point is, Tolkien seems to have used white sometimes to reflect good, but not all the time, so you couldn't call that racist.
P.S. Another point. In LOTR, Mordor was portrayed as the wellspring of all evil. It was also a volcanic land. Volcanic rock (I think) is frequently black, and so is volcanic ash. Also it was said to be dark there. So if you equate Mordor=darkness, and Mordor=evil, you might have the old theme darkness=evil. So it follows that the armies of Mordor would have black shields and stuff.
P.P.S. Couldn't you just as easily call Tolkien a misogynist as racist? There are only 9 (I think) females in the LOTR not counting the appendices: Lobelia, Rose, Elanor, Eowyn, Arwen, Galadriel, Ioreth, Goldberry, Shelob.
But what's the point? He wasn't trying to make his work PC.

[Orual]

Mae govannen, Willow! Bravo on your post; quite comprehensive and convincing. (I mean, if I wasn't on your side already.)

In Willow's TIME quote, this was said:

Don't let all the heartwarming Elf-Dwarf bonding between Legolas and Gimli fool you.

Fool us indeed! Why is that fooling us? Honestly. Just because it disproves their argument? And if they'd READ the Lord of the Rings, they'd know that the Orcs weren't the only dark-skinned people. (I won't go into my vision of Orcs again. You can just scroll up.)

As for misogyny, picture this: Elrond chooses a woman to go to Mordor with the Fellowship. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would ensue? (And being a girl myself, don't you think about calling any of this sexist.) I know that I need to bathe more frequently than I'm sure the Fellowship did. We won't discuss any potential hormonal difficulties that would arise. smilies/evil.gif

My dears, a girl in the Fellowship would quite frankly be a mistake. I don't care what the femenists say (says the self-proclaimed femenist), it's right and good that the Fellowship was a boy's club. The only thing that irks me when it comes to lack of women is Helm's Deep. If, as movie Eowyn said, women of Rohan learned that those who could not wield a sword could still die on one, why didn't they have the young, able women fighting at Helm's Deep anyway, when they had the six-year-old boys fighting, and the seventy-year-old men? I found that a little weird. But, I didn't write it. (Which is just as well.)

~*~Orual~*~

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I think that if Tolkien included women at Helms Deep, then it would be very possible that Eowyn would have been there too. I think one of the reasons Theoden did not let Eowyn join the battle is because Eowyn was a woman. Although he never said it directly, to me it seemed he hinted at it. Besides, if he did come out and say it directly, how furious do ouy think Eowyn would be? If women were allowed to fight at Helms Deep, then Eowyn would be there. There would probably be some official or somewhat high ranking captain looking over the villagers who weren't fighting. And if you look at the time period that Tolkien, I don't think women were allowed to fight. Throughout history, there have been few cases where women fought, if not then none.

And being a girl myself, don't you think about calling any of this sexist

Good point Orual, but I don't think that anybody could call it sexist even if a man said it. I'm glad you are not one of those feminists who calls anything they can find sexist. And I am glad to see a feminist who agrees the fellowship should be made of men. But hey, I'm not going to get into that. It's already done and we can't change it. But here's why it's mainly men and why they don't have many women with active roles.

First of all throughout history, the warrior was usually a male. In LotR, you have the rare case of a woman warrior, Eowyn. In history, one would be Joan of Arc. And in LotR, the views about women are almost the same as throughout history. It is just the way it is, so don't call Orual or her post sexist, and for that matter don't call LotR sexist either. Because if you were to do that, you would be doing just what Dr. shapiro did. And I am a man but that doesn't mean you can call my post sexist either. I'm not saying it shouldn't be women, I'm just saying why it isn't.

And it is the same throughout history for the racist issue. LotR is not racist. It's just throughout history, it's been light vs dark or good vs bad. And as Tigerlily said, they confuse those with white vs black. But I don't really think that they confused it. I think that know its not like that, but they just have to go out of their way to make it look like that. It soiunds kind of wierd and confusing, huh? But I really am confusing myself and getting lost in my own thoughts.

I'll close this by saying good posts all of you. Sorry if this post is confusing, I'm sure it is. Please don't jump all over me for it. If you disagree with something, go ahead and I'll try to explain that individually. Sorry again.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Sorry for double-posting but I just thought of something. Southern people are darker skinned than than people from the north. And if you say that it doesn't apply to the orcs of the Misty Mts., then it supports the dark vs light issue because those orcs lived underground or in the mountain. So by making them live in the dark, it portrays them as bad. And Orcs hate the light so its kind of like they hate good. Just a thought I had.

[Orual]

'In Defense of Theoden'

Well, I rather thought that Theoden left Eowyn behind because somebody who the people trusted had to stay behind to take care of those who couldn't fight--that is, mothers with children, the disabled, the elderly. Eowyn was the niece of the king, and therefore the people knew her and would listen to her when she told them what to do. Now, that's not to say that I don't think that Theoden was also thinking of Eowyn's welfare and protecting her as she would not have wanted, but I think that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his intentions, at least for the most part, were honorable. An official or high-ranking soldier wouldn't be as easily recognized as Eowyn, since she was a member of the ruling family. Just my two cents.

Heh, no need to worry about me getting girl-power on anybody's butt, Willie. I try to be fair. Not to say I always am, but I try to be. smilies/evil.gif

~*~Orual~*~

PS: Sorry if this is off-topic, but I felt compelled to leap to Theoden's aid. smilies/biggrin.gif

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It occurs to me that in one of his letters to Christopher Tolkien, JRRT criticises the racism that was prevalent in South Africa in the 1940s. His comments may be found in a letter dated 18th April, 1944 (Letters #61), and read as follows.

As for what you say or hint of 'local' conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort. not many retain that generous sentiment for long.

I find this contrast between the apparent superiority of the Numenoreans, which looks like a eugenic argument, and this privately expressed sentiment very interesting. However, the 'lesser men' with whom the people of Gondor mingled their blood included the ancestors of the Rohirrim, and the racism proponents hold them up as examples of aryan protagonists (Tolkien would not, since to him Aryan was a linguistic term referring to the Indo-Iranian languages).

Clearly the Numenoreans are 'high men' in terms of being closely associated with the Elves and more aware of Eru and the Valar. Their longevity appears not to be entirely genetic; rather it seems to rely on the moral stance that death is the gift of the One to Men. The moral and cultural fall of the Numenoreans in Akallabeth, which is bound up with a growing intolerant pride in their own culture, implies to me that Tolkien was a long way from propounding the sort of supremacist thinking that Dr. Shapiro sees in his work (that which assumes moral superiority on ethnic grounds), but the existence of a sub-division of humanity that are practically supermen does put him on dangerous ground in today's intellectual climate. The article that provoked this thread is symptomatic of the contemporary cultural scene. However, it seems more interesting to me that when Tolkien says 'race' he means 'species': Elves are a race, Dwarves are a race and Men are a race; and throughout LotR Men are just Men: be that men of Harad, men of Gondor, Southrons or Easterlings. Of course that would tend to fuel the sister-claim of sexism, but that's a different issue.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before LOTR is found to be all the things that University Researchers, Academics, Feminists, Homosexuals and Muslims or indeed almost any other minority group dislike : -

- anti-Vegetarian for encouraging meat eating .
- anti-Feminist for leaving Rosie Cotton in the Shire during the War .
- Islamophobe for not observing Friday prayers .
- Homophobe for encouraging heterosexual relationships .
- Racist for mentioning " Orcs and swarthy men in the White Tower " .
- anti-Republican for encouraging Monarchy .
- anti-Democratic because of no elections ( except Will Whitfoot ) .
- anti-Semitic because no record of circumcisions in the book .

You could go on for ever . It's all crap and the book is brilliant - end of story .

[ninja91]

Lets also hope that there is no criticism concerning the Haradrim and their faith and appearance with Arabic Muslims.
Also, going back to the very first post, not all of the enemies are ugly. I mean, look at the Mouth of Sauron! What a chick-magnet :cool: .

(not you, mouth of sauron the BD'er) :p :D

[Aiwendil]

Mouth of Sauron wrote:
You could go on for ever . It's all crap and the book is brilliant - end of story .

I agree that LotR is not racist. But I think that your summary dismissal of all such criticisms is unfair.

Certainly, the examples like "anti-semitism because circumcision isn't mentioned" are absurd. But criticisms such as the anti-republican point deserve serious consideration.

I think that the correct way to argue against racism in LotR is not to say "that's stupid". There are after all different races in the book, with different natures, and some are presented as 'good' and others as 'evil'.

Rather, the correct way to argue against racism is to provide positive counter-arguments. In fact, on the whole, LotR has always struck me as being quite anti-racist in showing beings from many different cultures (Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Dunedain, Rohirrim) working together as allies for the common good. One could go further and provide more positive arguments - for example the excellent passage where Sam sees a dead Easterling (or is it a Southron?) in Ithilien and feels sympathy for him.

[davem]

Mouth of Sauron wrote:


I agree that LotR is not racist. But I think that your summary dismissal of all such criticisms is unfair.

Certainly, the examples like "anti-semitism because circumcision isn't mentioned" are absurd. But criticisms such as the anti-republican point deserve serious consideration.



But if its 'just a story' then such analyses are unneccessary. We only need to analyses it if we feel there was more going on - in the author's mind at least - than the production of a mere 'entertainment'. Is Tolkien saying anything at all in the book?

[The Saucepan Man]

Here's another relevant thread, which includes my considered view (for what it's worth) plus links to additional material provided by Squatter (inclusing, I think, a link back to this thread).

Racism and Tolkien (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=414)

But if its 'just a story' then such analyses are unneccessary. We only need to analyses it if we feel there was more going on - in the author's mind at least - than the production of a mere 'entertainment'. Is Tolkien saying anything at all in the book?Well I would agree that that Tolkien was not intending to make any statement about race, racism or racial superiority in terms of the real world. So no such analysis is required when one is considering either the story qua story or authorial intention.

However, where the likes of Dr. Shapiro and Jonathan Hari seek to criticise LotR as a racist work or, worse still, where racist groups seek to use it to justify their warped creed (as some do), is it not legitimate to counter those points as Aiwendil has suggested? Particularly since, as Squatter points out, there is material there (Numenorean superiority, for example) which does provide them with some kind of a basis for making the argument (albeit a facile one, in my view).

[Lalwendë]

I often wonder myself about modern values and how these are represented in Tolkien, such as race relations, class, gender etc. But what I find when I dig down is that Tolkien seems to have put in so many examples which fully support our modern viewpoints. So for example we do have the Numenorean 'master race', but to counter them we also have the Druedain, an ancient, primitive (in terms of contemporary Third Age society) people, who have been cruelly treated by the Rohirrim but prove themselves to be above mere vengeance and demonstrate to these same people that in many ways they are better than them, by helping them instead of sticking them full of poisoned arrows. Vengeance might be what the reader might expect, but Tolkien turns this on its head and shows us a marginalised race rising above the treatment they've received - and makes a point in the process about so-called 'civilised' people.

[The Saucepan Man]

But what I find when I dig down is that Tolkien seems to have put in so many examples which fully support our modern viewpoints. So for example we do have the Numenorean 'master race', but to counter them we also have the Druedain, an ancient, primitive (in terms of contemporary Third Age society) people, who have been cruelly treated by the Rohirrim but prove themselves to be above mere vengeance and demonstrate to these same people that in many ways they are better than them, by helping them instead of sticking them full of poisoned arrows.A fair point. Although, to reiterate the point that I made on one of the threads linked to above about Tolkien being a "product of his time" (or, in this case, of his shared history), this might be ascribed to the concept of the noble savage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage).

[davem]

Well I would agree that that Tolkien was not intending to make any statement about race, racism or racial superiority in terms of the real world. So no such analysis is required when one is considering either the story qua story or authorial intention.

However, where the likes of Dr. Shapiro and Jonathan Hari seek to criticise LotR as a racist work or, worse still, where racist groups seek to use it to justify their warped creed (as some do), is it not legitimate to counter those points as Aiwendil has suggested? Particularly since, as Squatter points out, there is material there (Numenorean superiority, for example) which does provide them with some kind of a basis for making the argument (albeit a facile one, in my view).

The issue, I think, is whether Tolkien 'intended' the work to have any meaning or relevance to the primary world, or to be any kind of commentary on it. If not, if it was merely an 'entertainment' & the reader supplies the 'meaning' then the work cannot be labelled 'racist', 'sexist' or anything else - because if examples of those things are found in there the reader has himself supplied them, imposed them on the text.

The work itself can only be labelled 'racist' or 'sexist' (or anything else) if we accept that the story was intended to be that by the author. We can't say 'Its just a story' & then argue that it is, or is not, objectively this or that.

As to the Numenorean example, one could note that this particular 'Master Race' brought about its own downfall as a direct result of its Master Race philosophy. If Tolkien was commenting on 'Master Races' through the Akalllabeth he was presenting them in a very negative way.

[The Saucepan Man]

The work itself can only be labelled 'racist' or 'sexist' (or anything else) if we accept that the story was intended to be that by the author.The likes of Dr Shapiro and Jonathan Hari, as I understand their position, do assert that Tolkien intended LotR to be a racist work, or at least a work which supported his presumed (by them) racist worldview.

Morevover, a work can be labelled as promoting undesirable actions or ideologies irrespective of authorial intention. I doubt that the creators of Tom & Jerry ever intended it to promote smoking, yet it was deemed to have that effect and so the "offending" scenes were duly excised.

[davem]

The likes of Dr Shapiro and Jonathan Hari, as I understand their position, do assert that Tolkien intended LotR to be a racist work, or at least a work which supported his presumed (by them) racist worldview.

I know - but its hardly an original or unusual statement. My point is that we can either dismiss their statements out of hand by saying the book has no inner meaning & leave it at that, or we have to argue on their terms & state what it does mean - in which case we have to determine what it actually means, what Tolkien actually is saying in the book.

Morevover, a work can be labelled as promoting undesirable actions or ideologies irrespective of authorial intention. I doubt that the creators of Tom & Jerry ever intended it to promote smoking, yet it was deemed to have that effect and so the "offending" scenes were duly excised.

Of course - even the words an author uses change meaning over time (Tolkien's use of 'gay' & 'queer' now have to be mentally 'translated' by the reader into their older sense). Where Tolkien uses the word 'queer' in the book it also has negative connotations, having the sense of eerie, supernatural. If a gay reader percieves a homophobic sub text (intended by Tolkien or otherwise) how should we respond?

[The Saucepan Man]

My point is that we can either dismiss their statements out of hand by saying the book has no inner meaning & leave it at that, or we have to argue on their terms & state what it does mean - in which case we have to determine what it actually means, what Tolkien actually is saying in the book.I disagree.

There is ample material on this and the linked threads to support a very strong (overwhelming, in my view) case to the effect that Tolkien was not a racist, that he did not intend LotR to support a racist agenda and that (irresepective of his intention) it does not in fact support such an agenda. It is not necessary to formulate any particular view on what Tolkien was trying to say in order to put that case.

[davem]

I disagree.

There is ample material on this and the linked threads to support a very strong (overwhelming, in my view) case to the effect that Tolkien was not a racist, that he did not intend LotR to support a racist agenda and that (irresepective of his intention) it does not in fact support such an agenda. It is not necessary to formulate any particular view on what Tolkien was trying to say in order to put that case.

But then, we're not arguing on the same terms as them. Arguing the book is racist, or contains 'racist' ideas is not the same as accusing Tolkien the man of being racist.

If we say the book is just a story & has no inner meaning (citing Tolkien's words in the Foreword) then we have to counter them by arguing that Tolkien himself wasn't wasn't a racist. So the argument from their point of view is about the book, our counter argument is about the man. This is especially the case if their point is that the book is not intentionally racist, but may be percieved as racist.

Have they directly accused Tolkien of being racist or just said the book is? Are they saying that Tolkien himself may not have been a racist, but due to his cultural background he was unconsiously racist & that that comes through in LotR, or are they saying he was a secret racist & used his fiction to promote hiis ideology?

Pedantically yours (as ever :p )

[Lalwendë]

One of the big drawbacks of course of Reader Response is that we can call a text anything we like if we can find a tiny bit of evidence to support it, even if that evidence is simply our 'feelings' in response to the text. So I wouldn't be surprised if more racist accusations turned up.

Of course we know that there is plenty of evidence in the text to support Tolkien not only not being racist but being actively anti-racist. However that's not going to be of any value when used to combat someone's feelings about the text.

You get exactly the same thing with modern readers accusing Austen of being racist simply by not having any black people in her novels, despite references to the slave trade being immoral in Mansfield Park. And again, there has been for along time a lobby for Heathcliffe being black - even though he is probably an Irish scouser. People don't read texts in isolation any longer, hoping to discern what the Author says, the Author is dead and they drag in everything but the kitchen sink from their own lives and impose it on the text so consequently for a lot of readers, yes, Tolkien is racist, and we won't convince them otherwise.

[davem]

Let me give a short passage from Tolkien's unfinished story 'The Notion Club Papers' (HoM-e 9) :

"Played the a*s as usual, Ramer", said Lowdham. "Sorry, I felt all strung up, wanted a fight, or a carouse, or something. but really I felt very interested, especially about the immram. Underneath we Nordics have some feelings, as long as the dago-fanciers will only be reasonably polite."

Now, what do we take from that? Bearing in mind that, as has been pointed out by CT among others, the converstions between characters in the story are a reflection of conversations the Inklings had, we have a bit of a dilemma.

The term 'd-f' would now be considered 'racist' by many people. But would it have been considered so in the 40's when Tolkien used it in his story? Should it be removed from the text? Should it be left to stand with a ''health warning". It is certainly a difficult passage to read - or at least shocking when one first comes across it. The use of such a phrase does not imply 'racism' on the part of either the writer or the character - at least not conscious. The character even refers to himself as a 'Nordic', so in effect he's comparing types & using a cultural shorthand, common at the time.

Its easy to label someone or something as 'racist', but when one comes down to defining what constitutes 'racism' in the attitudes & speech of people livong over half a century ago one may struggle, & find that it is not as easy as giving a simple yes or no response.

[Laitoste]

One of the big drawbacks of course of Reader Response is that we can call a text anything we like if we can find a tiny bit of evidence to support it, even if that evidence is simply our 'feelings' in response to the text.

Ah, but some readings are better than others. In my literary analysis class last year, my professor gave us an interpretation of "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Frost (http://www.poetry.org/frost.htm). He had read it as in support of bestiality--"My little horse must think it queer/to stop without a farmhouse near." You could find evidence for that, certainly, but that doesn't make it a right reading, or even a good reading. How do you determine a "right" or "good" reading? That's what's debatable... :p

[The Saucepan Man]

Pedantically yours (as ever)Understood, but I'm not at all sure that your pedantry is leading us anywhere productive in this case.

I hold by my original point. In the face of accusations that Tolkien was a racist or that LotR is a racist work (whether intentionally or incidentally so), it is legtimate to analyse the book in the way Aiwendil suggested in order to counter such accusations (or at the very least to satisfy ourselves on the issue). And we can do so without necessarily forming any settled view as to what it was Tolkien was trying to achieve by writing the story. I fail to see how such a position can be at all controversial. But there we go. Pedantry will out. :p

How do you determine a "right" or "good" reading? That's what's debatable...Well, I would say that depends upon how you react to it personally. The closest that we can get to an objective assessment in this regard is by considering the extent to which people react positivley or negatively to a particular interpretation. On that basis, I would say that the interpretation of LotR as a racist work is "incorrect" - certainly as far as I am concerned, but also, I would venture to suggest, for the majority of readers.

[davem]

Understood, but I'm not at all sure that your pedantry is leading us anywhere productive in this case.

I hold by my original point. In the face of accusations that Tolkien was a racist or that LotR is a racist work (whether intentionally or incidentally so), it is legtimate to analyse the book in the way Aiwendil suggested in order to counter such accusations (or at the very least to satisfy ourselves on the issue). And we can do so without necessarily forming any settled view as to what it was Tolkien was trying to achieve by writing the story. I fail to see how such a position can be at all controversial. But there we go. Pedantry will out. :p

.

Ok. To be honest this is not something I feel any need to defend Tolkien against. the accusation crops up, we disprove it. It crops up again, we disprove it. This will go on ad infinitum. There are critics out there with an agenda. Unfortunately at the present time its not enough simply not to be a racist you have to prove you aren't a racist - & the easiest way to do that is to denounce someone else as one - preferrably an easy target (like a dead author). We can have an interesting discussion on the exact nature of 'race' & how Tolkien deals with it, we can have a pedantic discussion, playing word games & the rest, but the idea there is any chance of coming up with a strategy that will silence the critics once & for all is, I think, one bound to fail. When one's opponents are putting forward arguments like 'LotR is racist because the Orcs are dark skinned (or sallow skinned, or come from the east' its pretty clear that they are not interested in complex refutations - if indeed they they would even listen to them. My own feeling is they have decided it is racist & there is not a thing any of us can do to convince them they are wrong.

Frankly, my own feeling is that anyone who thinks LotR is racist has either not read it, or not understood it, & there's no point in flogging a dead horse.

[The Saucepan Man]

My own feeling is they have decided it is racist & there is not a thing any of us can do to convince them they are wrong. You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that? ;)

Although, in fact, my own initial consideration of this issue (in the thread I linked to above) was directed at calming the slight qualms that I had, having not at that stage read the book for many a year and having little knowledge of Tolkien the man, that there might be racist undertones. Suffice it to say that they were calmed. :)

[davem]

You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that? ;)

Although, in fact, my own initial consideration of this issue (in the thread I linked to above) was directed at calming the slight qualms that I had, having not at that stage read the book for many a year and having little knowledge of Tolkien the man, that there might be racist undertones. Suffice it to say that they were calmed. :)


I don't think most readers of the book would even think about it being racist - until some critic points it out, & most of them would instantly dismiss the idea as silly. The ones who propagate the idea won't be convinced otherwise, however convincing your arguments, because they want it to be true that the work is racist. They repeat their position, we repeat ours, & most people, for whom (hope everyone is seated for this...) Tolkien's work is an irrelevance :eek: couldn't care less one way or the other.

[Mansun]

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this. I was just browsing different sites when I came across this. I said to myself, 'What the F***!?' As I read, I became more and more furious. Oh, by the way, here's the link Lord of the Rings labelled racist (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1387552002). I kept reading and I just couldn't believe what this guy was saying. First of all, Tolkien said that his works did not represent anything, so how could LOTR represent nativism or racism (actually, nativism wasn't mentioned at all). It doesn't at all.

I HATE it when people say f*****g stupid stuff like this (please excuse my language). It's such a shallow and underdeveloped statement. It was uncalled for and false. This person obviously cannot be very bright when it comes to Tolkien. What he said is flat out wrong.

Why do people jump to conclusions like these? Was it just as random as one on the 'jump-to-conclusions' board (if you've seen the movie Office Space, you'll know what I'm talking about)? Why did he say that? That's like saying Martin Luther King Jr. had all those speeches because he hated whites and because he was racist. It's almost as absurd as that, and it's just as stupid as that. I just hate it when someone makes a great novel or anything great, just because they want to, or for a good cause, and then someone just has to s*** all over it. Why do they do that??? Tolkien just wanted to make books for children (The Hobbit) and a mythology for England (The Lord of the Rings), and then just to develop the world he created. And now here comes Dr Shapiro, and takes something good and says it is racist. He just had to make it look bad. Why? I just can't understand. Why?

He's lucky Tolkien is dead, or he'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. I'm glad Tolkien isn't around to hear about this. I've said somethings that people do are like slapping Tolkien in the face. Well, this is like Dr Shapiro just raped Tolkien's mom. That's how I see it.

Does anyone feel like I do? I hope so. And even if you don't, tell me what you think.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]


I can't believe that you have brought this subject up. Why give attention to this when there are far more beautiful aspects of Tolkein's works that remain unexplored?

[Lalwendë]

You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that? ;)


Thinking about this need to 'defend' LotR, I do think you are right, even though it might make little difference to those who have their minds made up already. Why did I think this? I was thinking back to University when there was a tendency in classes to actively seek out racist overtones (or rather, undertones) in texts. Ridiculous questions would be posed such as why there were no black people in Thomas Hardy's novels, or why he didn't deal with race issues. Merely pointing out that black people weren't exactly common in rural 'Wessex' would cut no ice. And I think that some critics (and potential readers) will come at it from that angle, unfortunately.

Well, I would say that depends upon how you react to it personally. The closest that we can get to an objective assessment in this regard is by considering the extent to which people react positivley or negatively to a particular interpretation. On that basis, I would say that the interpretation of LotR as a racist work is "incorrect" - certainly as far as I am concerned, but also, I would venture to suggest, for the majority of readers.

Interesting. Well, fortunately most of us are not racist so in that kind of reader interpretation we are OK with the 'majority' view. However other kinds of reading may be more forceful - not necessarily due to numbers or a majority view, but to cultural and political pressures (and pressure groups' influence on culture) in contemporary societies.

[Nogrod]

Sorry, ignore this if it's said a thousand times already.

But it surely looks weird to me if someone, who recounts and remodels the stories of her/his tradition (lending bits and pieces from other cultures, in a wide sense of the term 'culture') and forges them to an epic, is called racist if s/he just happens to be primarly interested on her/his own cultural roots and blends the common prejudices og her/his era into the epic... With that account both Socrates and Jesus, and Kung-fu-Tse (Confucius?) and Lao-Tse were racists too. Basically that would mean that all the authors of great stories or philosophies of any era or place, not counting post-modern intellectuals, are racists... :)

And even here we have a case for doubt: what is the thing anyone who in the "advanced society" of ours pointing the racism of others has ignored? We all ignore something in a way or another, if nothing else, our own premises which we can't neither show or argue for for any greater length, not to speak of proving them to those who don't share them already! Being aware that one's premises are a choice (or culturally given) surely is good understanding, but still just the awareness of that doesn't clear anyone to be the "his (sic!) masters voice", even with good intentions.

It seems to be a question then also of a cultural situation and the zeitgeist, or ethike of things. If we look at earlier generations with the cultural standards of ours, we miss things on a grand scale?

The problem surely is, that if we wish to dissect those "culturally anchored" beliefs of the author's time out from a work to see the "eternal truth" in it, then on which timeless ideology do we base or ground that choice of ours? :D

[davem]

Of course, it must be remembered that there are racist/neo-Nazi groups out there who are happy to claim LotR as a 'racist' work, & would take offence at such a claim being challenged or mocked.

Some 'condemn' LotR as 'racist', some praise it as 'racist'. Of course, neither group is right (imo, of course).

We are, as is not unusual, on difficult ground. If it can be argued that while Tolkien did not write LotR as a Christian work, his Christianity came through in it, one could, I suppose, argue that he was 'unconsciously' racist due to the culture he grew up in being 'institutionally racist', & while he didn't write a 'consciously' racist work there is an underlying 'racist' subtext. This is the problem we face when we start arguing for this or that 'subtext' to the work. People rarely approach such a 'search' objectively. They usually have an agenda, something to prove, & will use all kinds of convoluted arguments to get you to where they wish you to end up.

The writer of the article that started all this wanted to convince people that LotR is a racist work, & attempted to steer them in that way. Others in various books & articles have attempted to convince their readers its a 'Christian' book, or a humanist book, or an environmentalist book. Lots of individuals & groups want to claim the work for themselves or foist it on others or reject it altogether.

Quick addendum.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that just as for some readers the presence of themes such as mercy, pity, self sacrifice, One God are enough to make LotR a 'Christian' work while others demand the presence of more specific Christian themes & symbols, so the presence of 'Black' Riders, dark or sallow skinned enemies, predominantly white skinned heroes, is enough to make it a 'racist' work.

Because of this it is not simply a matter of convincing a critic that the work is not 'racist' - it would actually require us to change their whole conception of what racism is & the form it takes in literature - which would probably also require us to change their political stance, & possibly their entire worldview.

[Saurreg]

I am amazed that this thread is still going on. Can't recall whether I posted in here before...

Anyway I am Chinese and am proud of my heritage. And yes, my skin is dark (from my father's side, the men of the house of Ong have dark skin :D)

So do I look upon LoTR as a work of racism or the work of a racist? Neither. Infact it is one of my favourate books which incidentally is one reason I still linger around these boards. But neither do I feel the need to jump into the defence of the work or the author like many of you here, not just because I have no idea what was going through his mind then and whether there was "regression of subconscious racism" (good phrase!) but rather because I am just apathetic.

To me it is just a story book. Read it and enjoy it, if not read it and trash it. If that story was written with intention as racist propaganda such as "Be wary of foul, untrustworthy darkies and white skin supreme!" I tell you I must have been completely dense to missed it head, tail and all.

There are of course the ultra-mandarins who would say that my casualness is a byproduct of the English colonial second class citizen mentality. This dispite the fact that a) I have not called any caucasian "master" before, b) public education has etched in the prejudice that the Brits can't fight to save their lives, hence the disasterous occupation of Singapore by the Japanese and c) I have two white aussies working under me whom I bend and break so often depending on my mood (they call me the "devil" at Brani).

And I know I am not alone here and there are many other people worldwide who would share my point of view - the same kind of people that opponents of LoTR's "racism" love to equate and "speak out in defence of" with the dark-skinned people with red tongues (too much promegranate juice I reckon) and foul dispositions.

So my response to this thread; the accusations academics heaped upon Tolkien and the defences for the same man, is "So what?" The people who are being "racially" depicted are either ignorant of existance of this work or just don't care.

If Tolkien was still alive and I met him, I would have congratulated him on a good read and no, I won't buy him a pint because he already earned loyalties through the copy I bought. And if, just if I were to walk through some streets somewhere in this world and some kid pointed at me exclaiming "Haradim! Hardadim! Foul Easterling!" I'll be cool.

At least I have an elephant kid. A big one. Now what you got?

[Elu Ancalime]

Even though the first half of the 20th centrury was clearly racially divided in culture, it sounds like this Dr. Shapiro is capitalizing off something he/she sees as a threat to Western 21 century integrated culture.
It is intersting that the Dr said that Tolkien aliked the elves and the other Free Peoples to "Aryan" culture. Since much of Tolkien's work was coming together during the 1930's and 40's, I think that if Tolkien was truly an advocate of supremacy, he would have flown into Nuremburg and being Goebbles right hand man. Here is a quote from Tolkien when his german publishers asked him if he was of aryan descent:

"I must say that the enclosed letter from R?tten & Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of arisch origin from all persons of all countries? ... Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Best?tigung (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." ? July 25, 1938 (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #29 ?

and then:"Thank you for your letter ... 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 noone of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I 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." (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #30 ? Tolkien's unsent response to his German publishers; a more neutral version was ultimately sent)
________
Lebanese cooking (http://www.cooking-chef.com/lebanese/)

[Saurreg]

That's the problem with the world today. You have people "championing" the rights and interests of people they have no heartfelt interesting in representing at all or raising similar notions just for the sake of media attraction.

The best way is of course to ignore them. Even the act of debuking them adds to their influence and power as these folks capitalize on such sensations.

Tolkien referring to Germanic laws as absurd and rubbing it into Germans (why would they ask if he had Aryan blood??) by stating that the Jews were gifted were pure gems IMO.

[Maédhros]

Rather, the correct way to argue against racism is to provide positive counter-arguments. In fact, on the whole, LotR has always struck me as being quite anti-racist in showing beings from many different cultures (Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Dunedain, Rohirrim) working together as allies for the common good. One could go further and provide more positive arguments - for example the excellent passage where Sam sees a dead Easterling (or is it a Southron?) in Ithilien and feels sympathy for him.
Aiwendil, I have never thought that JRRT was racist in his books, but this has always made me wonder:
From the Silmarillion
For Elves and Men are the Children of Ilúvatar......
'Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani! But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my Children; and they shall have the greater bliss in this world. But to the Atani I will give a new gift.'
It is my personal view that Tolkien meant for the Elves to be the ideal race, or the way that perfect humans should be. But if both Elves and Men were created in the same theme of Ilúvatar's music, how is it that all of the Elves are white, while men have different skin colours?

[Thinlómien]

I think quite many of you miss the cultural aspect here. Tolkien wanted to write a mythology for England. English(wo)men are white.

Usually temperature and thus skin color don't vary much in one small region (north-western ME) and as the story concentrates on this smallish area, it only makes sense that humans don't vary really much in skin colors. (Europe is a relatively small area too. You don't find black, yellow or red skinned people in Europe. Like in north western Middle-Earth in Europe hair and eye colors vary though.)

Tolkien just chose the white-complexion area because the tales he mostly used were from this area/ethnicity, like was the people he wished to write a history and legend for.

But if both Elves and Men were created in the same theme of Ilúvatar's music, how is it that all of the Elves are white, while men have different skin colours?Well, I guess Elves are somewhat European. As LotR was to be a mythology for England the people who were supposed to be the most beatiful represented a caucasian/European model of beauty. That only makes sense. On the other hand, it might be that Tolkien simply held white skin more beautiful or "noble" and thus thought it befitted his Elves the best.

And is the appearance of the Avari who lived in south and east described anywhere? Maybe they were black?

[Lalwendë]

Just a quick point picking up on what Elu Ancalime quotes from Tolkien's letter about his German publishers' enquiry:

Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of arisch origin from all persons of all countries?

It was actually most probably the latter. The authorities in Germany at that time sought to excise all non-Aryan Art as much as possible, and would have sought out racial information on writers, artists etc as far as they could obtain it, in order to 'spare' the German people the risk of reading something 'dangerous'. Tolkien's indignance about this speaks volumes as Britain was by no means free of its own fascists and racial supremacists.

[Maédhros]

Well, I guess Elves are somewhat European. As LotR was to be a mythology for England the people who were supposed to be the most beatiful represented a caucasian/European model of beauty. That only makes sense. On the other hand, it might be that Tolkien simply held white skin more beautiful or "noble" and thus thought it befitted his Elves the best.

And is the appearance of the Avari who lived in south and east described anywhere? Maybe they were black?
Notice that you refer to LotR, while I refer to the nature of all the Elves since the making of the 3rd theme, in the Quenta Silmarillion. The thing that strikes me the most interesting, is while both Elves and Men were created in the same theme, all of the Elves are white, (not only the ones in LotR), yet Men, are racially different. (colour of their skin). (If someone has seen any evidence that there are multi racial elves, please show it, because I have missed that.)
That bit about the elves have always made me wonder.

[Maédhros]

A weird thought came to me the other day. If you notice the photo page in the barrow donws, you would notice that most of the members pictured there, are mostly white.
I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that people don't find it weird or curious that the Elves are only white.
But then again, perhaps it has nothing to do with it.

[Thinlómien]

A weird thought came to me the other day. If you notice the photo page in the barrow donws, you would notice that most of the members pictured there, are mostly white.
I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that people don't find it weird or curious that the Elves are only white.
But then again, perhaps it has nothing to do with it.I'd say the reason for most 'downers being caucasian is that most of the people who have access to both Tolkien's books and internet (frequently) are in today's world white caucasian.

I don't think that has anything to do with the skin colour of the Elves. Honestly can't imagine eg. a black person reading the book and throwing it to the waste paper basket because s/he discovers the elves are white... :p Of course we must admit the fact that LotR is more entwined with western cultural tradition than for example chinese or north african cultural tradition and thus it's more widely known and loved in western countries (in which most people are caucasian).

[Maédhros]

I don't think that has anything to do with the skin colour of the Elves. Honestly can't imagine eg. a black person reading the book and throwing it to the waste paper basket because s/he discovers the elves are white... Of course we must admit the fact that LotR is more entwined with western cultural tradition than for example chinese or north african cultural tradition and thus it's more widely known and loved in western countries (in which most people are caucasian).
And I agree with that. Yet, that doesn't answer the question. If both Men and Elves were created in the same theme, how come men end up being Multi-racial, while Elves are all white?

[Saurreg]

And I agree with that. Yet, that doesn't answer the question. If both Men and Elves were created in the same theme, how come men end up being Multi-racial, while Elves are all white?

You know, I have always thought of tolkien writing in the elves as mere custodians of Middle-Earth and guide to some of the men who would inturn influence others (think the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks etc). Hence the elves were not the lords of Middle-earth; men were. That together with the facts that they were not widely spreaded throughout the world and their time on Middle-earth was short could most probably explain their percieved "caucasian" features.

Men on the other hand would spread out and settle in many parts of that world and hence they would evolve physically to their environments over the ages.

That stated, I submit the possibility that when Tolkien wrote on the physical appearances of elves, he might have a totally distinctibe racial look for them that could be very different from Caucasians. After all in this world we live in, many people other the caucasoid have grey eyes, fair skin and height. Whose to say the great one had actually a combination of the best features of each racial stock for the elves - making them very similar to everyone that sees them, yet quite alien.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

We could add to that argument the fact that elves and, for that matter, dwarfs, don't appear in myth, folklore or literature outside the Celtic and Germanic languages. Even fairly local Romance languages, such as Spanish and Italian, don't share the idea, and this has been a major obstacle for translators throughout the history of Tolkien's fiction. If he wanted to tie in his myths with the real world, he may have taken account of their Northern European origins when writing about the Eldar. Not only is there not a dark-skinned elf in Tolkien's writing, but there is no such thing anywhere in literature. I wonder why it's considered a problem only in his fiction.

[Thinlómien]

We could add to that argument the fact that elves and, for that matter, dwarfs, don't appear in myth, folklore or literature outside the Celtic and Germanic languages. . . . Not only is there not a dark-skinned elf in Tolkien's writing, but there is no such thing anywhere in literature. . . .
There are no dark-skinned dwarves either, or are there? Very interesting. So maybe Tolkien wanted to give the dwarves and the elves the "usual" form and bind them more strongly to the follore and tradition they came from by giving them a fair complexion?

[doom_hammer]

I read the attachment and i thought it was #@*!^#. in all fantasy books and movies i have seen it is always the good vs the evil not so smart horde so how is just this one thing racists. shouldent it make all fantasy books that have elves and evil hordes racists???