Patriotism and the Lord of the Rings

[Kent2010]

I think Patriotism is more than love and willingness to fight for the land. It's an 'us' and 'them' question that William mentioned.

Once a nation has been established the problem facing that place is what's our identity? Or in the words of Bismark...'We have created Germany, now it's time to create Germans.' Should Germany include Austria? Catholics? Those are the types of questions facing any nation.

It was the same in the US, this is the Constitution of the United States of America, but what does it mean to be an American? Geography became one of the most important subjects of study, because it named things, it identified places. Maps were rampant. Land surveying was a popular profession.

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

And The Hobbits, they might have a loose conception of The Shire as a 'nation,' but there is a distrust for outsiders and there even is an 'us' and 'them' identity from within....'There's something queer about that Bilbo, he's not like us - oh and those Bucklanders are odd too.'

I think patriotism implies both, a sense of land, but also an identity. What does it mean to be a Gondorian? Denethor loved Boromir more than Faramir, but why? Was it because Faramir didn't represent Denethor's image of a 'Gondorian'?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not well versed in LOTR, but will ask a couple things and maybe something useful to add. What is the importance of maps in Middle-earth? Is it something to identify places, and within what are the people like? Why do people want to avoid Lorien and Fangorn?

Well, going back to the First Age at least, the feeling is definitely rather more tribal than geographical- we see, for example the Noldor and Sindar placing loyalty in their own kings, even when they were geographically mingled (as with the Sindar of Hithlum, who considered themselves Thingol's subjects). The exception was Gondolin, but then Gondolin was unique in its total isolation. And with Men, the Houses of Hador and Beor accepted 'vassalage' to Elf-kings on a quasi-feudal pattern, but the Haladin remained independent though residing in territory which was nominally Elvish; and the Green-Elves were never considered to have fallen under Thingol's rule simply because they crossed the mountains into Beleriand.


A lot of this was I think Tolkien's oft-expressed dislike of homogenization. It was important to him that the Rohirrim live under their own laws notwithstanding Gondor's semi-suzerainity; and Gimli's folk at Aglaraond were an independent people under the 'protection' of the Crown. Similary the Shire was *not* placed under direct Arnorian rule, except for the basic obligations to "speed the King's messengers" and keep the Bridge in repair.

[Rumil]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

I like the ideas above that -

Settled men and hobbits identified with 'their' land

Nomadic men (and hobbits?) identified with their tribe

Dwarves identified with what they or their ancestors had made (Moria, Jewellery etc)

Elves identified with their leaders (which given their longevity in absence of nasty accidents covers land and tribe too in some ways)

Caveats I suppose are the low population density of Middle Earth, and likely insularity of most inhabitants, after all Sam had never been more than 20 miles from home and might have considered Buckland 'foreign' let alone Bree.

In todays world its strange to think how Dark Age kingdoms could be less than 50 miles wide, and that even comparatively recently there were great differences between counties (eg Cornwall and Devon; Yorks and Lancs) let alone countries.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Nice to see use of huge tracts of land and oppressed masses in the same thread

Yeah... the screenplay to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[Lush]

I see the "Rohanites" are now famous! I think that if I ever run away, I'll start a band called Lush & the Rohanites. Weird electro-pop. For children.

Anyhoo,

What does Tolkien’s portrait of the affairs in Middle- Earth say about his views on patriotism as a whole

I've always appreciated Tolkien's nuanced portrayal of patriotism with regard to Faramir and Boromir. When Faramir rejects the Ring - it can, in one sense, be seen as highly unpatriotic:

"But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo." - The Two Towers.

(Let me know if that quote is off, btw, I still have not been reunited with my books, and am relying on Wiki)

But Boromir had already taught us, at that point, that patriotism can be meaningless, if not downright destructive, if you lose perspective. Faramir is able, to use a very over-used phrase - "think outside the box." There's something about the nature of the Ring that Faramir knows he can't afford to overlook, and that, perhaps, is true patriotism - thinking beyond the norm when you are called to do so.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

But Boromir had already taught us, at that point, that patriotism can be meaningless, if not downright destructive, if you lose perspective. Faramir is able, to use a very over-used phrase - "think outside the box." There's something about the nature of the Ring that Faramir knows he can't afford to overlook, and that, perhaps, is true patriotism - thinking beyond the norm when you are called to do so.

Indeed, Faramir has echoes of Von Stauffenburg. I've never really understood how the German Officer's oath to Hitler had such a crippling effect on potential
resistance, since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

[William Cloud Hicklin]

since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

That's really a very modern notion, and fairly American, or at least a reflection of American thinking's influence on the world. The old paradigm, which certainly dominated the aristocratic Junker officer corps, was indeed mein Kaiser/Vaterland/Fuehrer, richtig oder falsch. The idea of disobeying an order just because you personally disagreed with it (for any reason) was utterly alien- as indeed it would have been to Napoleon's marechals or Marlborough's subordinates. It's fairly hard today to grasp the extent to which the Subject's Duty of Obedience was the assumed basis of political thinking in former times.

Even under the original Hague Convention of 1899, the first attempt to create or at least codify a Law of Armed Conflict, responsibility for a war crime fell entirely on the authority who ordered it: his subordinates could not be held culpable for obeying the order. In the Neumann Trial (1922) the Leipzig Supreme Court explicitly ruled that Befehl ist Befehl was a complete defense. (The Nuremburg Tribunals may have advanced 'human rights,' but as courts of law they were pretty much kangaroo courts).

[Kent2010]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Indeed, Faramir has echoes of Von Stauffenburg. I've never really understood how the German Officer's oath to Hitler had such a crippling effect on potential
resistance, since ethics and morality should always trump "My country right or wrong".

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but just will mention a Holocaust scholar Christopher Browning in Ordinary Men really does blow up the entire obediance argument. It's interesting that during the trials the defense typically was "I had to shoot, or I would have been shot," but no evidence of this exists. What took place is supported more by the Milgram experiment and Zimbardo's prison experiment. Nazi's executed more out of conformity than obediance to orders from higher up. When the "final solution" in Poland first began, Major Trapp a veteran of World War I, told his battalion they did not have to take part in the shootings (and Trapp was not going against any direct orders from superiors, he didn't get 'punished' by anyone). There was an authority figure telling them "you don't have to do this" only 20% went with Trapp's solution. As the war dragged on that 20% got smaller and smaller, although that might have been due to the option to not take part had all but disappeared.

With the SS the obediance argument may be made, because to deny an order in the SS was suicide, but the SS was pretty small compared to the ordinary Police Battalions that Browning writes about and that Trapp was a part of.

Maybe this can be tied into patriotism because you see anti-semitism all over Europe throughout this time. In America too, in Nazi Germany the anti-semitism became radical and turned to genocide, but it existed everywhere. The idea of "we are superior," because we are Germans, French...etc stuck with everyone, not just those in charge.