Enemies

[Raynor]

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.

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.

It never states what actually happens in between.

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

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.

[Raynor]

Saying that someone's language is not language but merely "the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts" goes way beyond mere dislike.

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.

Not clear at all what happens in between.

In which case any presumptions that the rohirrim killed weaponless orcs are mere speculations, matters of personal opinions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

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.

[Raynor]

if we didn't have their treatment of the Woses to take into account.

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

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...

[Raynor]

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?

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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?

.

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

this is all too possible in a world where the lies and deceits of Melkor "bear dark fruits unto the latest days".

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

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.

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.

'But if you live after the Darkness, then leave Wild Men alone in the woods and do not hunt them like beasts any more. Ghan-buri-Ghan will not lead you into trap. He will go himself with father of Horse-men, and if he leads you wrong, you will kill him.'

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.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

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.