[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I see your point, alatar, but I don't think your arguments are very strong. I mean, maybe at the Maiar-Maiar thing you can talk like that, but definitely not in the Hobbit-Hobbit thing. Not even in Sandyman's case and, in fact, not even in Gollum's. However the Hobbits may be in fact Men, there are no definite anti-hobbits as a whole faction, there are bad hobbits, but that varies from Sackville-Bagginses through Sandyman to Gollum. But to place the equation - or rather, X-mark between hobbits A and hobbits B you'll need first to find a hobbit society somewhere else that is "evil" in general, like some Easterling-hobbits or something. But that's based on the society, which I believe was not the point of view you took. Genesis-based you have either to place the Hobbits all under Men or you need also to find some counterpart to them. And this is the stance you took, or so I understood it, genesis-based, yet you are using individuals as examples in the case of hobbits. It works with the others, since you are not working with societies (like "good" Gondorians and "evil" Easterlings but "good" Aragorn and 99% of M-E and really corrupted Mouth of Sauron), but not with hobbits. Sandyman is still a hobbit. And Wormtongue, Wormtongue is still a Man! Watch out that you don't step off of your line. Because your theory and division, as you outline it, is acceptable as long as you observe it from this genesis-based POV, but that means leaving most of the "ordinary" Easterlings and Southrons on the left side, as "good" men. Or either you have to move all who commit evil deeds, but on the outside remain the same, to the right side, but then you also have to accept with the evil Dwarves as the Anti-Dwarves. You have to choose the point from which you are looking at this, but that means either agreeing with Dwarves or backing away with Hobbits.

And by the way, how do the Drúedain fit into the scheme?

(crossposted with Farael)