The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php)

- The Books (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Racism in LOTR? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=216)

I read a while ago in a newspaper that The Lord Of The Rings featured questionable rascist connotations. Can anyone tell me what these are? I considered that it might be the hatred of the Orcs but then again, Orcs were innately evil, so I don't buy that argument at all.
Before I heard this remark, I liked to think that the friendship between Legolas and Gimli was Tolkien's comment on rascism.

Racism?! Where?! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Check this link out.
Quickbeam's Out on a Limb

This article speaks about the apparent racism in the books, yet Quickbeam debunk's each theory.

Oh yeah, there's plenty of racism in LotR, as well as SATAN WORSHIP & BEASTIALITY (you don't want to know what is REALLY going on between Sam & Bill the Pony).
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Lush, That's just scary...*shudders* Bill and Sam...?

Anyways, I haven't heard anything about racist...I always thought that the hate between Dwarves and Elves had to do with what they believed in...Elves loved and appreciated the earth whereas Dwarves hunted the earth for jewels and riches and what have you--and managed to rustle up a couple of Balrogs to boot...

~~Daegwenn

That was a very cogent article. Expresses my views perfectly. Funny, whenever I thought about this (and I have), I too came to Sam's quote from 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit.'

I thought it might be appropriate here to point out that elves and dwarves were different species, created at different times, by diiferent people, whereas (irrespective of your beliefs) humans are all descended from common ancestors. That means that it should be specialism...

But it's not the Elves and the Dwarves that are the basis of the charge of racism. It's the "Swarthy and slant-eyed Southrons". The "good" and "fair" people are lithe, beautiful, and fair-skined.

It was a good article,Joy. Thanks for sharing it with us. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The Elves were not all good and fair, remeber Fëanor, he and his kinsmen, the Noldorians, were responsible for the Kin-Slayings of the Teleri Elves. Eöl was also an Elf who was corrupted. Some fell under the sway of Sauron and began to serve Melkor.

I wish that I had my books in front of me, I would be more specific on a few of the cases.

The thing that I noted on racism was the Elves and the Dwarves. The Elves were the chosen people of Ilùvatar. They were to be the first to awake, yet Aluë created the Dwarves first. I believe that this may have caused some of the contention between them, just as between the Jewish race(Issac) and the Palastinians (Ishmael).

The scary thing is that there's probably a fanfiction story out there somewhere which deals with EXACTLY that combination of Sam and Bill. Ugh. I'm not sure which would be worse, that or a relationship between Gandalf and the Balrog (as they used to say in the SCA - "Don't visualize. Really, don't visualize.")

The racism thing - well, a few narrative remarks in a book that size aren't really much to go off of. The "slant-eyed Southerner" phrase is one that I think people point to most often - the Southerner is later implied to have been a "half-Orc" of some sort, but this doesn't necessarily mean that Orcs had Asiatic features or anything like that, just that to the hobbits (as to any northern European in medieval times who didn't get out much) dark skin or slanting eyes were two things that they would have noticed automatically because they were so unusual. And the Southrons and Easterlings are dark, but as several people already pointed out, in the scene with Sam seeing the dead warrior there's no implication that they were *evil* - they just happened to be the unlucky ones whose lands were co-opted by Sauron early on and became prime cannon fodder for him.

Judging by Orcs seems unfair, since Orcs aren't exactly their own race - they were probably created from Elves (who have varying characters) and were specifically mutilated into the horrible creatures that they were. They don't reproduce, they are manufactured. It's hard to see the Orcs as evidence of anything except the twisted imagination of Sauron et al.

Furthermore, if all the "good" characters were fair or at least had fair skin, so for that matter did all the "bad" characters of any note (as nasty as Bill Ferny and the Southerner are, they're not exactly major players on the world stage). Saruman is never described as being dark, Wormtongue has dark hair but pale skin (a trait he shares with Elrond and possibly Legolas, among others), Denethor has dark hair as do quite a few others in Gondor, etc etc etc.

As for all the "dark" imagery; Dark Lord, Dark Tower, the Nazgul wearing black - all you can say is, darkness has been a symbol of fear and uncertainty since approximately the beginning of time, and not just in Western European stories either (try the South African story "Mufaro's Daughters" if you want some very vivid imagery of a nighttime journey with visions appearing to tempt travelers). If it is innately racist symbolism, then Tolkien is certainly guilty, along with about 98% of all storytellers ever born.

It would appear again that you can read whatever you like into LOTR! I think that Tolkien often talks of outward maninfestations of inward evil. Smeagol started off as a hobbit like creature - obviously not ugly, with any specific physical deformity etc. or mention of any racial characteristics. The changes which took place in his body were a direct result of the evilness which took hold of him. Conversely Aragorn, hero that he is, was seen to look foul but felt fair!I don't think Tolkien attached any specific racial tags to him either.

It is also, IMO, in reference to the 'Book of the Century?' thread (where nothing seems to have been agreed upon as far as empirically judging the work) interesting to note that ideologues across the entire political spectrum have claimed Lord of the Rings as their own. Much harm has been done by misinterpretations of other books, from the Bible and the Koran, to Das Kapital. Unfortunately, it is also happening with LoTR (not on quite the same scale, obviously: it is the same principle at work though), which, in its perverse way, indicates the significance of the work.

I've seen, first hand, Political Correctness run amok in a university, and for a group of alleged scholars seeking 'Truth,' it was an ugly thing to watch.

So, when I see and hear allegations like this, it leaves me a bit queasy, sad and angry.

Don't know if that made any sense...it is 4 in the morning...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]

thanks too, joy, for sharing quickbeam's very eloquent article.

it's kinda surprising for me to know (yes, alas, just now) that some racial slurs have been levelled against tolkien, including an implied xenophobia with his characterization of the southrons and haradrim. see, i'm asian, and have been reading tolkien's works for the longest time, and i've never ever equated these characters with us. as i understood it, men were traditionally under the sway of the dark lords, being easier to corrupt than the quendi; in the first age, for example, only the three houses of the edain were friendly to the quendi and fought against morgoth.

again, as i understood it, in the third age, the southrons and haradrim fell under the dominion of sauron because, having no real contact with the valar and the first-born, they were easier to turn against these and their friends, the numenoreans. they were also geographically closer to mordor and thus flocked to the closest natural ally. as to the discord between them and the elf-friends, well, i never really equated it with evil vs. good, but rather, with the traditional dislike of a native-born to a colonizer, which btw the numenoreans were.

---------------------------------------------
every man's life is a path to the truth -- hesse

I believe that whoever wrote the article I read claiming there to be rascism within LOTR was merely looking for a negative of the book, and if he were to be asked what he meant, I'm sure he would give a very weak explanation.
If there is examples of rascism in the book (and I don't think there is) it would not be a negative because rascism is an issue and it would allow for more discussion on the book.

the racism in LOTR is basicaly between Elves & Dwarfs,
For Example:
1) Gimli said in the council of Elrond:
"I shall die before the ring will get into
the hands of an Elf !"
2) In Lothlorien, the Elves would like Gimli
to NOT come in because they don't trust Dwarves,
that's racism, it's like:"I don't like black people"
(just an example !)

hey haldir, gimli didn't actually say that to legolas, i mean in the book he didn't [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. as to his not-so-warm welcome in lothlorien, well, a kinsman of galadriel, thingol, was murdered by the dwarves over a silmaril-bearing piece of jewelry. his death led to the downfall of his entire kingdom of doriath, the largest and most powerful in the first age, imagine that! small wonder then that galadriel imposed a blanket ban on dwarves, although your right, it does seem like too much of a generalization about all dwarves. but then again, they did make an exception with gimli, so the elves can't all be that bad! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

---------------------------------------------
every man's life is a path to the truth -- hesse

Guys, I was kidding. Funny ha ha.

There is this bit from Letters:

Quote:

Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

Although this might not be racism in the technical sense, it does show Tolkien's own tastes. By this description, the orcs in the movie were off in appearance.

Has anyone checked 'Letters' to see if there was any response from Tolkien? I mean, people criticezed him for being Anglocentric in his portrayal of ME, but I say, stick to what you know. As for the racist connotations in the descriptions of the Southrons etc, I think the question should be: Was it intentional racsim ,manifested out of hatred, or was it passive, unintentional, nationalistic in a way. After all, if he makes ME look like England, then naturally he would make the inhabitants English looking, therefore, to convey difference, he would have to describe different features. In turn, he would have to use negative language to describe them, because they were the BAD GUYS, kinda like the Mongols invading Europe...
Make sense?

I would like to point out that hobbits are sometimes said to have brown hands it was also said that blonde hair was rare in hobbits. The Southrons and the Easterlings also may have had weak minded leaders. Sauron has shown he has the ability to bend others wills even the kings of numenor and the stewards of gondor.

You know: Tolkien probably did something like that for a reason: to GET a reaction like that. I mean, the best thing a book can do is inspire conversation, and that's what his books do. I mean, it's not all about "symbols" and "inner meaning", but...it inspires message boards like these to be formed! Tolkien probably meant nothing, he just created the world like any world would be: with prejudice and love and hatred and good and evil and war...

I think what some critics pushing the idea of racism in LOTR are referring to when they make those statements are certain, inconspicuous quotes made by certain characters such as "no black man shall pass these gates" and so on. Of course, they take these quotes totally out of context and bend them to say whatever they want them to say for the sake of political correctness. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] For example, that particular quote was referring to a Nazgul but one would never guess due to the fact that there's no context surrounding it. Tolkien was not trying to make racial statements with LOTR:he was trying to tell a poignant tale that would span the generations.

I think that also the fact that the elves have a strong dislike for men. If you really look at in the Silmarillion how the elves turn on men, It makes you wonder actually who the elves hate more, Dwarves or Men

Elves don't really "hate" humans and dwarves, they just don't get along with them and have had some unhappy run ins with them sometimes. I mean seriously, the books would get really boring after a while if everyone got along with everyone else, don't you think?

LOTR actually calls the black people from Far Harad who fought against Gondor at the battle of the Pellanor Fields troll-men, but I don't think this is racist at all, I just think that Tolkien was saying that from the people of Gondor's prospective, who had never seen black people before, they looked kind of troll-ish or something.

Hmm, a very interesting question. I definitely see how there is some potential for racism here, and i dont know how the characterization of the haradrim, the southrons and those guys, would hold up if the books were written today. I can definitely see how they are rather eurocentric, and yes, all the main free-peoples are probably caucasian looking. But i dont know if this is racist or just what tolkien was used to, he may not have thought of trying to add a whole lot of diversity (and yet there are so many different races!) to the books. So i dont know. Yeah, those commments about the southrons could be a bit offencive. But really, i dont know. It's a complicated and unpleasant topic. Interesting, though.
The only other thing is that i dont feel as if the animosity between races such as elves and dwarves shows a racist attitude on the part of tolkien at all. sure, its an example of racist characters, but its really a rather anti-racist sentiment. Sorry, i just ADORE the friendship that forms between legolas and gimli...i think there's just something really cool about it... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] It's a nice piece of symbolism and wonderful characterization. OK, im done with my rant now! ill stop rambling!

My dictionary defines racism as follows -

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

There is a somewhat circular argument (which is linked to the development of political correctness) that if, in literature or other art form, one associates personal characteristics with a particular appearance or race - even coincidentally - then the reader may consciously or subconsciously infer (and accept) racist connotations. For example, it may be true that there were one or two ill-educated and feeble-minded black people in 19th century America who were blindly devoted to their white masters, but the fact that ALL black people were portrayed in this way in Hollywood up to the late 1940s certainly DID contribute to a commonly-held racial stereotype and the continuing cultural and political oppression of black people in America.

Now since Orcs are all uniformly base creatures, you could argue there was a sort of racism at work here. To be an Orc is to automatically be a foul and inferior being. But, since Orcs are in effect a "different animal" from every other grouping in ME, they can be seen as more of a different species than a race. If this is the case, then there is no racism ... eg. it's not racist to describe dinosaurs as more stupid than mammoths. Or to describe Balrogs as evil.

So in addressing this issue, the first question in Tolkien is whether Elves, Men, Hobbits and Dwarves are different races OR different species. Since the whole "science of race" is ill-conceived and muddled, and the 'evolution' of Middle Earth does not correspond to the "accepted" scientific wisdom of our Earth (don't get me started on evolution theory), it's very hard to get past the starting line on this one.

The second question is whether groups (ie. Men, Dwarves etc.) have differing personality characteristics that are clearly 'better' or 'worse'. It seems to me that Men, Elves and Dwarves all suffer from pride, greed, they can lie, and so on. In this respect Hobbits come out rather well. But is it the case that, just as to be a Dwarf means that one is small, it also means one is necessarily small-minded, obsessed with material things etc.? This is the key question. I think that Gimli's description of the glittering caves, and his devotion to Galadriel, counteract the 'racist' archetype for Dwarves. And Feanor's folly shows that even Elves are flawed.

So, the key issue is among Men. Does being 'swarthy' or dark-skinned necessarily mean one is more easily corrupted by Sauron, more violent and base?

Sadly I think we have to accept that Tolkien was a product of his age here. This isn't exactly racism in it's clearest manifestation, but the archetypes of post-colonial England (and South Africa) hold sway. In this context, naturally the invading hordes from distant lands would be black-skinned or oriental. And (to evoke fear and foreboding), in this context naturally those hordes would be resentful, acquisitive and ruthless, unwilling to accept the patriarchal justice of the nobility (of Gondor etc.).

Tolkien was a political and cultural conservative, and it would be more of a surprise if none of this cultural context could be found in his work. He was also set against "reformers" and "modernisers" per se. However, it is to his credit (and to the benefit of his work) that these references are so sparse and obscure, and in no way do they define or underpin the morality or narrative at work.

I would summarise my reading of this argument as follows -

"As a product of his age, in some small ways Tolkien's work reflected the dominant cultural assumptions of the time. However, the greater essence of his work was the creation of a new mythos - with its own cultural framework, its own tradition and social evolution, and its own history - which was neither allegorical nor metaphorical. It is just possible (with much delving) to find the rare phrase or reference that reflects the racial assumptions of one born in the 19th century. But more dominant in his work are the illustrations of wide moral and cultural variations, both within and between different social groups."

BTW if someone wants to start a new topic, I do think 'Sexism in Tolkien' has legs [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

kalessin --that was breathtaking! your scientific way of sieving the racism issue using species vs. race distinction is genius. i'm almost sure even tolkien didn't think of it though [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], being a believer in the christian faith which is antithetic to evolutionary science. but maybe in the back of his mind, he had an intuitive grasp of this distinction?

rereading this thread, it becomes plain that tolkien only desired to create his own myth from the perspective he did belong in, which was the western one. to have expected him to write a myth conforming to the sensibilities of all races on earth is unreasonable. the fact even that his novels in several instances spoke of racial and species "barriers" falling away for the better (gimli and legolas, gimli at lorien, dwarves at nargothrond, huan, the ents, the great eagles) demonstrates tolkien's belief in the universality of good.

i shall continue to belive what is plain in the novel, than what is implied without.

---------------------------------------------
every man's life is a path to the truth -- hesse

I as a happy newbie wrote a post about racism, i was in a bad mood and so it wasnt the most analysing of statements. Sorry all. Anyway it is shut down, thank god.
I think that modern society and the society that certainly Tolkien lived in was indeed xenophobic and racist, however there is a great difference between latent racism and open aggrovated racism. I personally believe that Tolkien neither conciously or sub-conciously intended his books to display a hidden racist element, only people who themselves have underlying racist tendences will find such messages if they so wish. The hijacking of Tolkien's masterpiece as a tool to spread racism sickens me to my inner core. A War(i know thats not all it was) has allies and enemies, of what race it doesnt matter. Look at Sauron, a Maiar, an angellic being, the key enemy in LOTR and also Melkor, one of the Valar brother of Manwe was the most evil of all. Also, Saruman.

Evil underlies all racial groups in LOTR, i believe Feanor was not the nicest of Elves, Men of any group were corruptable irrespective of race, Ar Pharazon, Castamir, the Mouth of Sauron with his High Numenorean blood.

There is no racism in LOTR just realism, irrespective of race evil and good are found in all groups of Society and the idea the good professor was a racist is appalling. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

The fellowship: 9 beings, 5 'species' represented (I include the Istari in these 5), against the might of the ONE Ring. Diversity v Autonomy. Doesn't sound very racist to me- in fact, sounds positively encouraging of diversity and tolerance.

I only have a minute before I go off to work, but I wanted to add my two cents. Tolkien's stratification of humans as "high", "Middle", and "Low" are simmilar to the ideals that Hitler, and many people around the world believed during the late 19th and 20th centuries, as a sort of twisted expansion of evolutionary theory. I don't believe that Tolkien was overtly racist. These beliefs that some "races" are more advanced or enlightened was just common during Tolkien's time. When I get home from work I can do some reseach and expand this though. TTFN

ACTUALLY Tolkien himself says that the Numenorean stratification of Men is erronous. It is based on the Elves' classing (not raciialy) of Light, Grey and Dark, based on whether they'd seen Valinor, at least went on the journey there, or had simply never been there.

Tolkien says the Numenorenas attmepted to clasify Men similarly, but since no man had been West, it failed. High in their terms means Numenorean, Middle means related ot the Edain, Low means "alien" to their culture - despite the fact that the Druadain, say, would be classified as Low, yet were staunch allies in Beleriand of the forces of good.

I would just like to point out Tolkien's dislike for "allegory in all of its manefestations"

I found an article about this topic here:Tolkien,Racism,& Paranoia

Quote:

Tolkien, Racism, & Paranoia
A strong argument can be made that the single most radical separation between American culture and our European roots is the elimination of class (or caste) structure. The concept of a class-free society is a more powerful call to social reform than the abstracts of "freedom" and "liberty," and creates even greater and farther-flung demands on social institutions than the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence expresses this radical revision of social structure with a simple phrase, "that all men are created equal." Notice the use of the adjective, "equal," rather than the adverb, "equally." This means that men are not just created in the same fashion, and thus may undergo subsequent change to suit society's needs, nor that we simply enjoy some sort of shared brotherhood of progeny.

The use of "equal" means that each man is inherently, permanently equal to all other men. This concept was so mind-bogglingly foreign to our own culture that even after two centuries of hard work, we're still trying to work out all that it means. At the time, indeed, we didn't really mean it -- we meant all free men (and not women). Even now, there are unspoken limitations: all men and women who are legally of age and haven't committed a felony or been declared legally insane.

Regardless, in terms of a government-supported socioeconomic state, America has never had a true caste system in place. We had slavery and the subjugation of women, but that's not nearly the same thing. A working caste system is blind to all properties of the individual except birth. It doesn't really care about race, gender, money, education, etc. It provides security and dictates action; it is inexorable and hereditary; it is supported by the same individuals which it entraps and to which it dictates. A caste system isn't just a general agreement to allow a social injustice. Indeed, it would be a little too arrogantly American of me to spout off about how caste systems are an "injustice" at all. Almost all countries older than a few centuries have had them, and many still have them today.

So let me set morality aside (well, you know what I mean), and focus on something that has to do with the title of this article. Having a caste-free society, Americans are handicapped when it comes to interpreting literature from caste or class societies. We try to understand the idea that a person's birth could dictate their job, their economic and political status, their self-image, and the relationships to all other people, but we fail miserably. Instead, we can only extrapolate from our understanding of discrimination: racial, gender-based, and economic. As a consequence, we view all castes as evil, and caste-oriented discussion as racist, sexist, and/or rich vs. poor.

Take slavery, for instance. There isn't a race on the planet that has avoided being and owning slaves. Ancient Greek and Roman slaves came from every country that then existed, and after buying one's own freedom, a member of any race could purchase slaves in Greek and Roman markets. Blacks and Asians and Caucasians and Hispanics and Arabs and Inuit have all bought and sold each other at one point or another in time.

But you say "slave" to a contemporary American, and they'll think only of whites -- excuse me, Southern whites -- owning African-born blacks. As a consequence, "slavery" is incorrectly considered a racial, rather than classicist, issue. Frankly, Americans are kind of strange in regarding slavery through such a narrow focus. Egyptian slaves, for example, were treated well, received a salary, and even held the first-ever workers strike when their elephant garlic cloves were cut from their guaranteed wages. Many aboriginal slaves actually had arrangements similar to the American (and white) sharecropper's, working on fields and getting paid with a percentage of the harvest. But when Americans talk about slavery, it's a horror of chains and rape and white people abusing black people.

Which is not to say -- heaven forbid! -- that white American slave owners weren't horribly abusive to black slaves and that this is an incredibly awful thing. It is. It's just not the definition everyone in the world has for slaves or other caste structures.

In fact, the reason Americans in particular treated their slaves so poorly may well be that there was no "cushion" of an established caste system to encourage people away from abuses. Ancient Grecian slave-owners, for example, could get into trouble for abusing a slave, and had certain duties towards the slave if the slave became ill, or pregnant. American slaves weren't treated as a caste, they were simply property, and thus the level of depravity some slave owners exhibited knew no bounds.

Such is liberal guilt, and such is American confusion regarding the social -- not racial -- aspects of classicism, that we've become waaaay too quick to see racism in anything. So it's inevitable, I suppose, that J. R. R. Tolkien, a highly class-conscious author, is now being accused of racism.

One of the most prominent "accusers" is Dr. Stephen Shapiro, an American prof at Warwick University in the United Kingdom. His argument pretty much mimics everyone else's:

Tolkien's good guys are white and the bad guys are black, slant-eyed, unattractive, inarticulate and a psychologically undeveloped horde....Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings because he wanted to recreate a mythology for the English, which had been destroyed by foreign invasion. He felt the Normans had destroyed organic English culture. There is the notion that foreigners destroy culture and there was also a fantasy that there was a solid homogeneous English culture there to begin with, which was not the case because there were Celts and Vikings and a host of other groups....For instance, the fellowship is portrayed as uber-Aryan, very white and there is the notion that they are a vanishing group under the advent of the other, evil ethnic groups....For today's film fans, this older racial anxiety fuses with a current fear and hatred of Islam that supports a crusading war in the Middle East. The mass appeal of The Lord of the Rings, and the recent movies may well rest on racist codes.

Now, putting aside that you should never trust anyone who pretends to know what someone else wants when they haven't said so, we can see that this argument projects American notions about caste structures. Basically, he's taken a story that requires an understanding of multiple levels of classes, and forced it into the American duality of white vs. black, slave-owner vs. slave.

The Lord of the Rings does not present us with a homogenized white society being invaded by evil black men. Instead, we have the race of men, the race of elves, the race of dwarves, and the race of hobbits, along with wizards, goblins, orcs (who are ex-elves), and various other magical creatures, including the venerable tree guardians.

As an American myself, I'm not going to be too good at "assigning" these races to various British classes, but with Tolkien's own guidance, I can assume that the hobbits represent the British peasant, the people whom Tolkien most admired in the world for their sense of duty and hard work, their self-confidence and loyalty, their intelligence and their beauty. The elves seem to stand for the old ways of the British aristocracy: the absolute monarchs, princes and dukes who once ruled the land. Or they may be those valiant knights on noble quests. Men stand for the new, more democratic rulerships. Dwarves sort of seem to be factory workers and hard laborers, and those old tree guardians seem at once to be old men sitting around a gentleman's club and representations of the will of the people -- slowly raised, but deadly in their ultimate power.

The good guys in the story are not racially segregated, but representative of various types of social structures. In fact, the good guys' race is incidental, because the "bad guys" in the story are not another race. Sauron is an evil wizard, not a foreigner, and the orcs are elves who were tortured out of their minds and souls until nothing but empty husks remain. They're "black" in the story not because torture somehow robbed the elves of their Caucasianess, but because they're burnt by hellfire and have become creatures of the night. As for the "slant-eyed" thing, well the eyes are the windows to the soul, and the fact that today we use more PC terms "shifty-eyed" and "beady-eyed" doesn't mean we get to point fingers at a years-dead author for not knowing the term "slant-eyed" would one day become offensive.

Charges regarding Tolkien's "racism" are so easy to deflect, in fact, that the truly interesting thing to be learned from such comments as Shapiro's has little to do with the author, and everything to do with us. In our desire to live out the promise that "all men are created equal," Americans haven't been content with abolishing slavery and letting women vote, we go out of our way to admire the success of those whose birth held no privileges. We jeer at the abuses of the wealthy and pass laws against discrimination based on religious, sexual, and physical considerations.

Currently, we're engaged in a somewhat bitter battle of attitude. While many people view this as the ultimate step -- doing away with the cultural and social biases reminiscent of inequality -- others have been complaining that taking up arms against people's thoughts is going too far. Being PC means eliminating even the appearance of discrimination, and, as every good reader of Tolkien knows, appearances can be deceiving.

When we Americans look at everything for its potential "racism," we have crossed over from vigilance into paranoia. Worse yet, we're wasting energy that could be so much better used against real instances of discrimination. If people want to find racist literature to vilify, there's plenty to choose from. Going after the works of a man whose epic champions the strength of "the little guy," and who often wrote of the evils of apartheid and racism, smacks of an academic who's just trying to get noticed and an American who really needs to end his witch-hunt and remember that other countries don't write literature based on uniquely American sins.

I think that the main thing that people need to realize that values have changed dramatically from Tolkien's time to ours. What is construed as racism today, was perfectly decent, albeit in a casually offensive manner, in his time. We cannot fault the Professor for adhering to the values and culture of the society that he lived in. No person in full possession of their faculties could expect him to look forward into the future and carefully structure his books around what would be construed as all right and accepted. All Tolkien was doing was creating a mythology for England. Is it his damn fault if he retained historical accuracy? In ancient and medieval times, Britain never had much luck with invaders. I'm assuming that was because they had a rather nasty tendency to, oh say, rape, pillage, burn, murder, etc., the usual invader stuff. I wouldn't fault any country for disliking invaders after having a history of being invaded. Tolkien merely used that dislike in his books, because he wanted to create an accurate representation of a mythology for England.

I think these damn witch-hunters need some sense knocked into their heads that they can't change literature just because they are too damn insecure about themselves and their society. Apparently, the First Amendment applies no longer in this country. I daresay that those poor Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to hear that their descendants were going after some of the most brilliant literature all in the name of equality, non-discrimination, and fair treatment. Those people have to realize that men, women, and children gave their damn lives to keep this kind of witch-hunting and book-bashing out of America. For the first time in my life, I am truly ashamed to be living in a country that condones such uneducated, ill-mannered barbarism.

(Can anyone tell that I'm slightly ticked off????? [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] )

[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Finwe ]

Here, here Finwe! Why don't recent criticizers just try to ENJOY the book in its whole and uniform glory, and not try taking it apart and looking into meanings which Tolkien may not have intended?

First, I must say to this:

Quote:

Regardless, in terms of a government-supported socioeconomic state, America has never had a true caste system in place.

... balderdash. Can anyone really put their hand on their heart and tell me that there isn't a "caste system" of sorts existent in America? No matter where you are born, if you are lucky enough to be born into money/influence/stardom, you start out with certain adavantages. And so it is not just Americans who level the accusation of racism at Tolkien.

That article seems to be trying to day that, because there are races other than Mankind in Tolkien's works who are regarded as having admirable qualities, Tolkien cannot be labelled as racist. No. I am afraid that it is an inescapable fact that the "Mannish" enemies in LotR largely come from the South and the East and are described in terms that clearly give them a Middle-Eastern (Easterlings and Haradrim) and African (those from Far Harad) flavour.

But I do not for one moment believe that Tolkien was racist in true sense of that word. He did not regard races other than his own as inferior.

Quote:

What is construed as racism today, was perfectly decent, albeit in a casually offensive manner, in his time. We cannot fault the Professor for adhering to the values and culture of the society that he lived in.

Quite right Finwe, although I would put your first sentence somewhat differently. I would say rather that we cannot relate the term "racism" as we understand it today to attitudes towards other races in the time that Tolkien was writing, since society has moved on so much since then.

I will not say much more, since I expressed my views at length on this thread in response to an excellent article by Inderjit Sanghera. I also addressed there a rather nasty article written by this Dr Shapiro fellow, and contrasted it with a much more thoughtful and reasonable article by an admirable chap by the name of Quickbeam.

Well, I guess the Haradrim had a dark shade of skin, didn't they?

I don't think there is any racism per se in the books, but simply a sort of "Western" view of things. In the West, the terrors either come from over the western waters (not really likely in old European days, though) or from the East/North: the Huns, the Goths, the Visigoths, the Mongols, the Persians, the Moors. These people came from the east or the north of major Western centers of activity (somewhat from both south and east in the case of the Moors).

Look at LotR: the Easterlings, a generic race of men invading from the mysterious east, from where the Huns, Persians and Mongols came. The Orcs (in the First Age) were marauders from the North, like the various -goths. With those from south of Umbar (Harad, correct?), they could simply be analogous to a Moorish type of invasion/enemy.

You may ask, "Why not make M-E centered on the Eastern shores, not the Western, therefore making the invaders western or European/American/Middle-Eastern?" Well, I look at it this way. Symbolically, you have the Children of Iluvatar coming from the East, from the lands of the rising sun, sort of a dawn country then, and where do they want to go? The West: the sun traverses the sky like a sign saying "go West." It's a place of fulfilment, signifying the end of the struggles of the day and an eternal rest. I don't think it would work the same having people on the Eastern Shores; you focus on the start of the day but give no thought to its progress or its end, and the rest that follows.

That was rambling and I don't think it accomplishes what I set out to say. Basically, in a western world, the enemies come from the east. In a world supposing to be an ancient Europe, why not follow the trends and have the enemies come from North and East? It makes sense. Then, as the ages past (and the north fell = germanic tribes were assimilated) the attacks still came from the east, but also from the south (Moors, if you want). I guess you could even say the Carthaginians were a southern invader of a western power, but since I consider that a war of equals with no right or wrong, I can't say who was necessarily invading or on the moral high ground, where we place the elves and three houses of loyal men.

In short, it's late.

Wow, Ninth Valar, that's one paragraph of good points!
Yes, I think Tolkien was leaning more to Western culture as opposed to African/Asian, though the Haradrim were more Gothic or Barbarian/Germanic, as you said Ninth Valar. In Middle-earth, each race was similar to a race in the real world - like Rohan was like a Norse sort of land, Gondor maybe a Hungarian culture, Haradrim, Germanic etc

~Lotessa

[ November 08, 2003: Message edited by: Lotessa ]