Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Raynor
I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.
|
I don't think anyone is accusing you of justifying racism, but this does open up a wider question, in that fiction is not reportage, & when a writer introduces these kind of situations into his work he must have a reason even if he doesn't have an agenda.
When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable. Now Tolkien is very clear about good & evil within M-e - he makes moral judgements regarding the behaviour of Morgoth, Sauron, the Ringwraiths, Orcs & other servants of evil - he condemns their behaviour out of hand.
So, when we are presented with the Rohirrim's behaviour as regards both the Woses & the Dunlendings we require him to present just as clearly his position on that. Therefore, he must either state that it is wrong or that it is fine - it cannot merely be 'understandable in the circumstances'.
Personally, I feel he
does make clear his position - which is that the behaviour of the Rohirrim is wrong - he may not say it in so many words, but in the way he presents Ghan & the Woses in LotR & in the words of Gamling, he shows up the Rohirrim (or at least their leaders) as a people who were ignorant & cruel at times, & who saw the two races who inhabited their land as 'sub human'. Now, I could see Eomer & Erkenbrand hunting the Woses to their deaths, but
not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords. His words to Eomer regarding the Dunlendings would be completely unnecessary if Tolkien believed that the Dunlendings were 'subhuman'. In fact Tolkien's own tale 'The Faithful Stone' confirms that he didn't see the Woses in the way the Rohirrim did.
The great danger is that we take a simplistic 'good' guys vs 'bad' guys approach, & decide, well, the Rohirrim were 'good' & therefore they had no faults & thus were not capable of 'racism', or at least of 'cultural supremicism'. Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.
So, could it be they believed that they were servants of the enemy? I doubt it. Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them. In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'. And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.
I don;t see any way around this - Eomer typifies an attitude - because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them. If he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Dunlendings it is hardly surprising he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Woses. Yet this is clearly a choice he makes.
But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.
Of course we see the same kind of 'racism' displayed by the Numenoreans in regard to the inhabitants of Endor, & this 'attitude' of cultural supremicism runs right down the ages of Arda, with races claiming the moral high ground & using, abusing & often killing those of a 'lower' race.
As I stated, I think Tolkien meant to depict this kind of behaviour as racist & as morally wrong. I don't think we can deny it is there.