Then again, there is only one story, and that is unfinished, about confronting evil forces which are not (directly) imbued with a mythological power (The new shadow). If that particular power, through its various agents, succeeds, then it is end game. It is not like the victors have some good side that could, in time, develop. If Melkor wins, he brings the whole house down; he is too nihilistic not to, cf Myths Transformed. If Sauron wins, none may see the end of his reign, cf Gandalf, Last Debate.

We may see evil loosers in the third age who have less of an unfair advantage (I am reffering to their use of the evil power in Arda), and thus far more merit.

Yes - but I'm not suggesting that the enemies we have in Tolkien's work are 'good, noble or heroic' - I'm asking why Tolkien chose to give us the enemies he did, & what effect that has on the story & on the heroes - why that whole dimension of the noble enemy, the 'fellow brave' is absent. There is no Hector to Aragorn's Achilles, & that particular & specific tragic horror of war is absent - is it a serious lack?

Excluding perhaps Feanor & sons, the noldor were convinced of their cause, that they were marching to freedom. Also, the late-coming noldor were fighting to save their kin, while the teleri were fighting to protect their treasured ships. In Gondor, there was also those who tried to preserve the old traditions and those who tried to preserve the existing blood line. I would hold all these fighted for causes in which they believed.
The problem is that a Hector marred by Melkor would have little merit. This is not just a moral corruption; evil men can stirr great evil, at least during those mythical times. His merit (if he had any; it can be argued that his free will would have been heavily subdued) would be diminished by using "nukes" against "savages". Resisting that kind of evil, in the first three ages, is always a long defeat from an individual point of view, without "outside" intervention.

Whoa! Wait a minute. ;)

If the message is so clear cut, how do you understand Frodo's response in the Scouring? Yes, he's exhausted, and that has something to do with his reluctance to take up a sword. But surely there's more to it than that.

Isn't this a case of Tolkien saying that there is more than one way to look at the use of force? Frodo is in a sense grieving even before the loss of life takes place and it's for the other side, even more than for his own. Plus, we're not just talking hobbits here, but also men.

Frodo's stance is clearly not the only way. It may not even be the best way in a practical sense (from the viewpoint of the story), but I never felt that JRRT was looking down his nose at Frodo because of the position he took. In the Letters, Tolkien tells us that "Frodo's attitude to weapons was personal" and that "he had.... reached the conclusion that physical fighting is actually less ultimately effective than most (good) men think." The efforts of Merry and Pippin essentially free the Shire, but Frodo's presence keeps bloodshed to a minimum. And it is only Frodo who has the moral authority to offer Saruman the chance of redemption essential for the moral balance of the story. Isn't Tolkien saying something about the necessity of having more than one side represented on a question of this type? In a sense he is reminding the reader that the use of physical force has plenty of questions attatched to it.

And speaking of giving your enemies a second chance... The offer to Saruman was an example of that.

And I take those points - yet, the Ruffians were not 'noble, fellow braves', but cowards. Of course Frodo realises that killing is wrong, & seeks to halt, or limit any deaths, but the question I'm posing is different. War seems to be a fact of life in both the primary & secondary world, but it is the nature of the enemy that interests me. In most wars there is heroism & self sacrifice on both sides - heroes fight heroes & no side has a sole claim on nobility & courage.

Except in Middle-earth. Frodo wants an end of killing per se - but that would require an end of the Warrior, of the cause worth dying for (& I'm not limiting 'Warrior' to the military sense).

And war, for all its horror, may produce heroism which is seen nowhere else - yet for such heroism to happen it seems to me that warriors must exist on both sides. If the other side consists wholly of cowardly 'monsters' then the 'hero' is actually reduced to the role of cockroach exterminator - he may go down fighting under a million cockroaches, & that may be a brave act if he does so willingly, to save his friends, but is it 'Heroic' in the Homeric sense - & is it 'tragic' or merely sad if the enemy is not equally noble & his death not an equal loss?

Now, none of this is meant to denigrate Tolkien's achievement, merely to ask whether something important has been missed out & whether that something is of far greater importance than the usual stuff Tolkien is accused of avoiding - like sex, for instance (Pullman's great bugbear. And interestingly Pullman does present us with a noble tragic 'anti-hero' - Lord Asriel...)

What am I to understand? You haven't addressed my last post. We do have persons doing evil acts, for causes which they believe. I also challenged the claim to merit of beings utterly corrupted. It is good to ask a question, but you also need to consider the answers.

I don't see the Kinslaying being a fight between opposing 'causes', but of opposing desires - the Noldor wanted to get to M-e, the Teleri wanted to prevent their ships being stolen - bit like the fight between a housholder & a burglar.

I think you have a point re the Kinstrife, but if anything that is the exception that proves the rule.....

Which is not to say that protecting one's property isn't a cause, esspecially if they treasured as much as Feanor treasured the silmarils (as Olwe says). In fact, both Feanor and the teleri are moved to action (or resistance) by a similar love: the preservation of the greatest work of Art their hands; it is the same cause, but with different instances. Moreover the teleri tried to dissuade the noldor and didn't want to help them, because they still believed in the valar and would not act against their will.

And what do you think about my argument that corrupted persons isn't entitled to merits?
Edit:
Here is a quote to that extent, regarding massive support from Sauron to his warriors
If necessary, I could present the quotes from the letters, LotR and UT reffering to the strength Sauron gives to the nazgul and their complete obedience to him (not much time right now).

I accept that corrupted persons don't deserve merit - the point I'm making is that all the enemy are 'corrupt' - there is a serious absence of 'uncorrupt' enemies & I'm wondering why, & about the effect that has on the story & the heroes.

The closest thing I can think of to the 'tragic' battle in the Homeric sense is the lead up to the Battle of Five Armies, where we almost get a battle between Bard & the Elven King & Thorin & Dain. This would have produced the kind of epic battle I'm talking about, with heroes on both sides. Yet it never happens.

Well, seeing my previous examples, it would be safer to say that all those who are in evident and long term service to the evil guys are corrupt and lack merit. We still have the ocasionally evil guys, who maintain their ability to turn to the good side.

I believe the explanation is that you cannot have independend stanbyers, not in a time when an evil of mythological power is present. Saruman may not have been wholly corrupt when he looked in the palantir, but you can't be lukewarm towards Eru and hope to get away with Sauron. His wickedness, however small, was a gateway to a much greater evil. Likewise, elves who refused the summons of the valar were vulnerable to countersummons of Melkor. There can't be a middle ground in the middle of a battle between such great powers. Perhaps later, with no Sauron and the valar fading, we might get to that.

We seem to be getting a bit stuck. Anyway, I thought I'd go and have a good look at the text again to see how the idea of Enemies is presented. Not got onto Return yet, but so far there seems to be a pattern consistent with race/character emerging. The attitude towards Enemies seems to very in degrees.

1. At the almost pacifistic level we have Gandalf who famously corrects Frodo when the Hobbit wonders why Gollum was not put to death:

2. Frodo is next. He is not the most peacable, due to his statement above, but he quickly learns from Gandalf:

3. Sam comes next. He is the one who thoughtfully expresses those words on the fallen Southron - and note here the echoes of Empire in the description of the fallen man, and the echoes of WWI and WWII in Sam's thoughts:

4. Faramir's attitude seems to be next in line. He is of course a professional soldier so we cannot expect him to express the kinds of views that Gandalf would. But he clearly thinks about his role and his responsibilities and doing his job certainly does not give him 'pleasure':

5. Then comes Aragorn, who is not as sensitive as Faramir and does not pontificate on the morality of killing save that he justifies it from his own point of view as a practical matter. He even makes a little soundbite about what kind of determination goes through a man's mind when he pursues an enemy:

He's a bit arrogant with the Orcs too, appearing to want to offer parley at Helm's Deep but merely wanting to offer them a bit of bluster from the walls - of course the Orcs respond by shooting arrows at him. As you would. ;)

6. Next come Legolas and Gimli who make some sport out of their killings at Helm's Deep, which is not an entirely pleasant thing, nor is it even funny as Peter Jackson seems to think. Rather than portraying humour here I think Tolkien is echoing the grim 'point scoring' which many WWII fighter pilots and bomber crews engaged in when they would paint numbers of 'kills' onto the fuselage of their aircraft:

7. Then we get the Rohirrim who are at times extremely questionable in their attitudes. They seem not to echo anything even remotely modern (and by that I mean from the high Middle Ages and beyond), but to take a more Early Middle Ages approach which is quite bloodthirsty.

When Gandalf appears with his troops, the Orcs surrender:

But were they taken prisoner? No. Somehow they were all killed. Perhaps they slipped on some cunningly placed banana skins and impaled themselves on Rohirric spears? Or did the dog do it? the fuller passage is quoted here as it also includes a good reference point to how Men can offer other Men respect, but not Orcs.

And listen to Eomer's attitude towards the Dunlendings:

The Dunlendings' attitude is no different to that of the Rohirrim. No wonder Saruman chose to inflame their hatred and liking for a good scrap. Saruman indeed has the Rohirrim attitude to war pinned down to a T:

I don't think it does him justice to consider this a purely "practical" matter. His friends were caught, and they were about to be kiled or worse. I see no room in him other than concern. I don't read bloodthirst but a sense of urgency, seeing that he knows what orcs are. And all this is in accord with Gandalf's words, that "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us".
I disagree
They way I interpret this is that Saruman's old buddies from the woods took care of the orcs - not the Rohirrim.
I don't see your point. As Pengolodh states in Quendi and Eldar about the audio impact language of the valar, 'plainly the effect of Valarin upon Elvish ears was not pleasing'. Which is not to say that the Eldar had a low opinion of the valar.

The Orcses who run off go under the trees, but not all of 'em. What happened to 'em?

The 'point' is that Eomer is saying the Dunlendings sound like animals, worse, like 'beasts'. He doesn't just say he cannot understand them (as Gamling patiently points out it is an ancient language), he equates their language and them with 'beasts'. There's a definite point here as Tolkien was a skilled linguist and will have known not only the importance and inherent beauty of old languages but will have known the 'politics' involved with language, that no language is the sound of 'beasts'. The sound of 'Dunlendish' is not merely 'unpleasing' to Eomer, it sounds savage.

I am not versed enough in English to nitpick on the very quote you gave. What it seems to me is that all orcs cast aside their spear or sword and ran off into the woods. If some of them didn't ran, I expect that they were very few in numbers, they kept or re-took their weapons (if they threw them in the first place) and continued to battle. But frankly, I see no proof any orc remained behind to contemplate Theoden and Gandalf.
And Gamling doesn't disagree, although he looks more familiar with this language than Eomer. I see no reason why Eomer was distorting a fact. Do you think he did?
These people were eating, breathing and living in hate; they were at war; they were stirred by Saruman. I could only expect that their "alien" language, as described in the appendices, would sound rather harsh under these circumstances. I find French to be very melodic, but I have no doubt a person can "bark" in French. While some people find Russian or German less than pleasant, to be polite, I don't presume they demonise the russians or the germans. Anyway, the dunlendings being savage is consistent with Gamling description of them.

Yes, but... (& here I think I may be arguing against my own theory, but I'll throw it in anyway)

The folk of Rohan were hardly a tolerant bunch - we know they hunted the Woses for sport, which is a clear denial of their humanity. It wouldn't surprise me to find that they saw the Dunlendings in the same way. The Dunlendings may have been 'stirred by Saruman', but I doubt it took much effort on his part to get them to turn on the Horselords. If they hated the folk of Rohan it was hardly without cause. The Rohirrim were clearly a folk in awe of their more 'advanced' neighbours to the south & looked with contempt on both the Woses & the Dunlendings.

Gamling's words are significant:

He acknowledges that his own people drove the Dunlendings out of their ancestral lands & that they are 'fierce folk' who will fight to the death, rather than turn & run.

What I take from this is that Eomer is equivalent to a junior officer who has a pretty self satisfied view of his own superiority over the 'savages'. He is like the upper class Victorian young man who graduates from Sandhurst or West Point with a head full of military knowledge but with so little practical experience that he's likely to get himself & his men killed in their first combat due to his underestimating the enemy. Gamling is the veteran sergeant who knows his enemy through experience, doesn't underestimate them, & is prepared to acknowledge their reckless bravery, & thus manages to prevent the 'h'officer' from leading his men to their deaths. And I wonder if we find an echo of Tida & Totta in this incident?

In fact, I can imagine Gamling speaking the words of Kipling I quoted at the start of this thread in regards to the Dunlendings:

’E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An’, before we know, ’e’s ’ackin’ at our ’ead;
’E’s all ’ot sand an’ ginger when alive,
An’ ’e’s generally shammin’ when ’e’s dead.
’E’s a daisy, ’e’s a ducky, ’e’s a lamb!
’E’s a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
’E’s the on’y thing that doesn’t give a d**n
For a Regiment o’ Rohan Cavalree

In Unfinished Tales it is stated that the rohirrim didn't recognize them as humans. And there is a precedence to this: the eldar hunting petty dwarves, who weren't recognized as sentient beings either. Also, hunting a beast may be more than a sport, more like a problem of survival in special conditions. Their description, esspecially of their relentlessness in pursuing enemies, isn't much conducive to cooperative feelings.

'orrible, isn't it, how easy it is to justify genocide.

I'm reminded of the fate of the Boethuk Indians of Newfoundland, of whom some reports say they were hunted like animals.

And what is Tolkien's attitude to the treatment of these races by the Rohirrim? Of course, the bodies of the slain Dunlendings are not burned like those of the Orcs, but perhaps its a case of 'The only good Dunlending is a dead Dunleanding.' I also note that the surviving Dunlendings are set to work 'cleaning up the mess they've made' - not allowed to rest like the Rohirrim, & any cause or justification they may have is dismissed by Erkenbrand & put down purely to their stupidity in believing Saruman.

And yet, I wonder if their treatment of the Woses later is meant to show the moral growth of the people......

Sorry that's too quick, but I don't have time...

What genocide?? A passing mention doesn't amount to systematic or mass killings. Aren't you taking this too far?

Not many soldiers would openly disagree with their superior officer, especially with one like Eomer, who is not only royal but is also quite a fierce character! In fact Gamling goes as far as he can by simply explaining the linguistic history of these people and why they hate the Rohirrim so much. He very much 'puts Eomer right' in what he says. Whereas Eomer associates the Dunlendish language with animals, Gamling gives it a history and meaning; Eomer demeans it whereas Gamling acknowledges it.

One of the commonest ways of oppressing and sometimes even exterminating a culture is to denigrate the language of a people, which is what Eomer is doing.

Bethberry and davem know what I'm talking about. Tolkien knew what I'm talking about. Language and identity are deeply intertwined. This is why many people in Wales today resolutely maintain Welsh as a first language (and my great-great grandfather refused to learn English); the English and the Irish establishment tried to Anglicise place names in the Gaeltacht region of Ireland which was not popular - there's a great play by Brain Friel built around this matter. Dunlendish is given a place in the history of Arda's languages by Tolkien, and is, if I recall correctly, linked to the original language of the Hobbits before they took up (submitted to the relentless force of?) the Common Speech.

Eomer's attitude towards the language of the Dunledings is not just cultural imperialism, it verges on racism, whether intentional or not is another matter. And davem is right that Tolkien shows how the Rohirrim learn to move away from these attitudes as his story progresses. Language is a powerful aspect (the most powerful aspect? Some would say so) of Tolkien's work and we can learn a lot from his characters' realtionships with it.

The other interesting thing, which is entirely a side issue to this topic, but I had to get down ;) is that this is a great example of how Tolkien worked characterisation not into 'interior monologue' but into speech.

And on language... ;) No, it's not anything 'hidden' in the language, simply that we see Orcs laying down their weapons, and the next we know is that some run off into the trees and are 'eaten up' (or whatever horror happens there) and some lie dead. It never states what actually happens in between.

You are making a big leap from presumed individual cultural violence (I see no reason behind his statement other than dislike of an instance when an alien language was used probably in its worst form) to institutional violence. That's a slippery slope fallacy, since I know of no other argument to support this idea.
We know that the besieged retaliated; some while back, even Legolas claims some 20 casualties. We have evidence of other cause, and no direct evidence of Rohirrim attacking weaponless orcs.

And he surely is here recounting the attitude of the ancient Greeks who thought that the language of all non-Greeks sounded like "bar-bar-bar-bar", harsh, savage and brute. So they decided to name all those non-Greeks with a common name of barbar. Aristotle says in his Politics that outside the Greek city-states (polis) there dwells only gods and beasts.

So we meet here with an ancient arrogance that is so much a part of our cultural heritage, tied up with language. As Lal said: the language is a major part of our identity.

And russians think their language is beautiful and special as no doubt germans think of their own. I don't think we can very easily make an objective valuation to the degrees of beauty between different languages. We may be enlightened enough nowadays that we don't demonise others because of their language but that has not been always the case - and no doubt some far-nationalistic parties flirt with these sentiments even today and seem to gain at least some followers. :(

Saying that someone's language is not language but merely "the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts" goes way beyond mere dislike. Eomer may not be jumping in the face of a Dunlending and making mocking ape noises but the thoughts he expresses are the same thing. And this is why Tolkien takes the care to give Gamling the words of reason, of intelligence, to put him right.

Bear in mind that Eomer is also one of the powerful elite of Rohan, one of the establishment, a leader. It is his responsibility to set an example, and if that example is one of racism then it is not good. But Tolkien gives him a wise soldier who will correct him. Maybe Tolkien himself may have had to do this to his own superiors in war? The attitudes of the English in general towards Germans are apalling and have been for a very long time (way before WWI) - Tolkien on the other hand was much more understanding, as expressed in his letter about the ridiculous idea of the German people being 'exterminated' as some spurious 'punishment' for WWII. I don't doubt his understanding sprang from his skill and love of language.

I'm talking of after Gandalf turns up with the cavalry and the Orcs: "reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear." Tolkien then says: "Like a black smoke driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again. " That explains that the trees 'ate' some, but then later we read: "No Orcs remained alive; their bodies were uncounted. But a great many of the hillmen had given themselves up; and they were afraid, and cried for mercy."

Not clear at all what happens in between.

I don't have the books handy, but it seems like they are talking about war cries. If I am correct, and I will check later, then, generally, war cries are pretty much consistent with his description; they are intended to sound "savage" and instil fear. This would only strengthen the accuracy of his description and diminish whatever fears we might have of his racism, based on this quote.
In which case any presumptions that the rohirrim killed weaponless orcs are mere speculations, matters of personal opinions.

Which would perhaps work - if we didn't have their treatment of the Woses to take into account. Or must we imagine that the Woses also regularly attacked the Rohirrim, & that this is the reason for their being hunted like animals?

But no - Ghan's words to Theoden make it clear that the Woses are innocent victims - Ghan effectively asks Theoden to stop hunting the Wildmen, & Theoden agrees - no request that the Wildmen stop attacking the Rohirrim in return - they aren't agreeing a peace treaty: the Woses are begging for their lives & the survival of their race.

Like Lal I believe this is deliberate on Tolkien's part - the Rohirrim are an uncultured people when compared to the Gondorians & Tolkien is clear about their faults, but he also shows quite effectively the beginnings of their moral growth in their treatment of the Woses at the end.

Concerning the rohirrim, we could at best accuse them of being dumb in the past, not able to distinguish some, arguably, rather ugly humanoid beings from beasts. Elfhelm recognizes, at the time of LotR, that they are crafty with wood - but they also are "wild and wary as the beasts" [and wielding poisoned arrows, and he is happy that "they are not hunting us" - doesn't that raise the question of retaliation in the past too?]. Frankly, their description in UT, including that of the elves, resembles this. Unfortunately, misunderstandings like this have happened in the past, as I mentioned Eldar/petty dwarves; this is all too possible in a world where the lies and deceits of Melkor "bear dark fruits unto the latest days".

We have no information of what led to the attacks of the Rohirrim, when they started, how they lasted, how many were involved, or how many casulaties were on each side. Seeing that the drugs are "relentless enemies", whose "red wrath was slow to cool", and that, however, they voluntarily offered to help the rohirrim, I can only see this as emphasising the whole tragedy as in a distant past. The attacks were not meant to be against sentient beings; if the Eldar can be exonerated from moral blame, then so should the rohirrim. After all, it is intention that defines the morality of an action.

So if someone is thick enough not to be capable of tolerance and respect towards other people who are a bit ugly by their standards then they can be excused?

Errr...


:confused:

.

So retaliating when you're attacked justifies the the attacker's behaviour?

Ah, the old 'Melkor made me do it' argument....

I don't read the passage in that way. To me the Woses offered to help the Rohirrim for one reason only - they were on the verge of being extirminated & saw little hope whichever side won, but slightly more if they could win the Rohirrim over.

This hardly implies that the hunting is in the distant past - Ghan is asking that his people are not hunted anymore. And his last line is certainly ambiguous - it may, of course, be read simply as a deal Ghan is making - 'I'll go with you & help & if I lead you wrong, you can kill me.' (ie 'We're equals & these are the terms of our agreement'), but it may just as easily be read as ' I'll go with you & help & I know that if I lead you wrong you'll kill me.' (ie 'I'll help you because you're the lesser of two evils as far as my people are concerned, but I'm well aware you guys are a bunch of spear happy yahoos who think killing people like me is perfectly fine, so I'm under no illusion that if I don't do as you want I'm warg meat').

Of course, we can't tar the whole of the Rohirrim with the same brush - Gamling is evidence that some of them at least recognised that the other peoples were human beings.

I probably didn't spell out what I meant clearly enough the last time... :(

In classical thought it's not a question of appearance but of essentia, of what one is, not how one looks. The Greeks surely had no problem recognising familiar features in Persians. Still the Persians were not men but beasts because they lacked the essence of humanity (mankind) which is Reason expressed through Greek language and which is shown in the reasoned society they had built them in the city-states.

So the ancient thought didn't classify the world according to looks but according to essences. The prof knew this well enough and I believe used it accordingly... At least I see the stance of the Rohirrim quite unproblematically in this way.

I never argued they were thick enough to be intolerant about people. Only that they were thick enough not to recognise drugs as sentient beings. If you want to argue about the morality of that, fine, let us do it. But please don't misrepresent my argument.

but do you think that the Rohirrim did recognise them as sentient people? There are plenty of examples in history of peoples hunting other people because they consider them inferior...

May I ask where this idea appears, during which period it was representative of the greeks, and the likes? There are hot heads in every era and country, so I wouldn't mind some background on the matter in this debate.
I hardly see ground for comparison, as I know no evidence of rohirrim-supremacist philosophy. Independent, yes; but not ubermenschen, or whatever the appropriate title would be.
No, the core of my argument is Tolkien's statement that the drugs weren't recognised as such, at least as long as there were attacks . Afterwards, yes; they were able to see their crafts and abilities, as apparent from Elfhelm's words.

Sorry, I'm in a hurry right now although we might continue this later... But you might start by reading Aristotle (not normally seen as a hothead I think - but as a fairly good representative of his times). :)

Well they had that hatred of Dunlanders, like Helm's slaying of that guy who 'men said had much Dunlendish blood'. Oh my Eru he had Dunlendish blood! That must make him a really bad person. A good enough reason to kill him for wanting his son to marry your daughter...

There's a difference between not knowing & choosing not to know.

Now, none if this is to imply that the Rohirrim were the M-e equivalent of the Nazi Party. They were a basically decent, honourable people, but nonetheless they were far from perfect in their attitudes to the other inhabitants of their land. I think Tolkien wanted to the reader to understand that they are not a 'modern' people, & that their outlook & attitude as regards other races was very much as Nogrod implies.

No race is entirely perfect in Tolkien's world - the Elves had their 'embalming' tendencies, the Gondorians were backward looking & obsessed with their own sense of superiority, the Hobbits were parochial in the extreme, the Dwarves extremely materialistic & the Rohirrim's attitude to other races is not all it should be (to put it mildly).

Yet, by the end of LotR the Elves have accepted that their time in M-e is over & have made the decision to let go, the Gondorians under Aragorn & Faramir have begun to look to the future & realise that other cultures are not necessarily 'less' than they are, the Hobbits have begun to open up to a wider world (for all that they have to be protected by Argorn's ruling), the Dwarves (as typified by Gimli) are beginning to realise that there are greater treasures than gold & jewels, & the Rohirrim have realised that those they thought of as 'sub human' are actually just like they themselves. It is actually a very hopeful way to end the tale.

Yet it is hopeful because we see these changes - that those races are growing & leaving behind their faults. To deny those faults ever existed actually removes that sense of hope in the ages that will follow...

Your statement is misleading. Helm didn't strike Freca because he hand Dunlendish blood, but because he came with "many men" to claime the hand of his daughter and he afterwards insulted and threatened the king for refusing.

It's the same thing.

I think Tolkien has firmly grasped hold of the concept of the 'Noble Savage' with the Drugs. This is not so fashionable today, as it is a view seen as slightly patronising towards native and tribal peoples, but it had been around for a long time. This is the view that native people live a simple life in harmony with the earth and that their very simplicity can teach us a thing or two. Which they do with the Rohirrim. In so many ways they prove themselves to be better than them and they teach them a valuable lesson.

Maybe after the war they return and give lands back to the Dunlendings and after Eomer learns his lessons from Gamling he learns to treat his near neighbours as human as much as himself. They are a culture on the cusp of becoming literate, and at the verge of becoming fully civilised.

The interesting thing is the resemblance they do bear here to the real Anglo-Saxons who arrived here and immediately fell to practices such as apartheid in an attempt to drive/wipe/breed the Britons out. And its also interesting how much Tolkien loved Welsh, the modern descendant of the old languages of the Britons (including Cymric), languages which to the Anglo-Saxons, Normans and all further invaders were to be driven underground or wiped out. Tolkien would have personally found an attitude like the one expressed by Eomer unforgivable.

Before I comment on the difference between cognitive and moral abilities, let me get this straight: do you actually mean this??

Tolkien mentions in UT people who thought that Drugs were creatures of Morgoth (with no special refference to the Rohirrim) or those who maintained that "there had been a remote kinship, which accounted for their special enmity; Orcs and Drugs each regarded the other as renegades [Author's note]". It is also worth mentioning that UT it is stated the Anglo-Saxon root of Puckel-men means "goblin, demon". It would seem that Tolkien took care in presenting the drugs and their culture in a rather unfavorable light, even if only through the eyes of other races.
Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

Maybe he was just pointing up the other races' stupidity, narrow-mindedness & basic bigotry?

I think all this could actually be put down to their being a dispossessed folk who had been driven to live in the wilds. Effectively, they are refugees. I certainly can't see the Rohirrim allowing them decent land to live on. You seem to be blaming them for a situation that was forced on them by the incoming Rohirrim.

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.
No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.