Lord of the Rings labelled racist

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Mouth of Sauron wrote:


I agree that LotR is not racist. But I think that your summary dismissal of all such criticisms is unfair.

Certainly, the examples like "anti-semitism because circumcision isn't mentioned" are absurd. But criticisms such as the anti-republican point deserve serious consideration.

But if its 'just a story' then such analyses are unneccessary. We only need to analyses it if we feel there was more going on - in the author's mind at least - than the production of a mere 'entertainment'. Is Tolkien saying anything at all in the book?

[The Saucepan Man]

Here's another relevant thread, which includes my considered view (for what it's worth) plus links to additional material provided by Squatter (inclusing, I think, a link back to this thread).

Racism and Tolkien

Originally Posted by davem

But if its 'just a story' then such analyses are unneccessary. We only need to analyses it if we feel there was more going on - in the author's mind at least - than the production of a mere 'entertainment'. Is Tolkien saying anything at all in the book?

Well I would agree that that Tolkien was not intending to make any statement about race, racism or racial superiority in terms of the real world. So no such analysis is required when one is considering either the story qua story or authorial intention.

However, where the likes of Dr. Shapiro and Jonathan Hari seek to criticise LotR as a racist work or, worse still, where racist groups seek to use it to justify their warped creed (as some do), is it not legitimate to counter those points as Aiwendil has suggested? Particularly since, as Squatter points out, there is material there (Numenorean superiority, for example) which does provide them with some kind of a basis for making the argument (albeit a facile one, in my view).

[Lalwendë]

I often wonder myself about modern values and how these are represented in Tolkien, such as race relations, class, gender etc. But what I find when I dig down is that Tolkien seems to have put in so many examples which fully support our modern viewpoints. So for example we do have the Numenorean 'master race', but to counter them we also have the Druedain, an ancient, primitive (in terms of contemporary Third Age society) people, who have been cruelly treated by the Rohirrim but prove themselves to be above mere vengeance and demonstrate to these same people that in many ways they are better than them, by helping them instead of sticking them full of poisoned arrows. Vengeance might be what the reader might expect, but Tolkien turns this on its head and shows us a marginalised race rising above the treatment they've received - and makes a point in the process about so-called 'civilised' people.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But what I find when I dig down is that Tolkien seems to have put in so many examples which fully support our modern viewpoints. So for example we do have the Numenorean 'master race', but to counter them we also have the Druedain, an ancient, primitive (in terms of contemporary Third Age society) people, who have been cruelly treated by the Rohirrim but prove themselves to be above mere vengeance and demonstrate to these same people that in many ways they are better than them, by helping them instead of sticking them full of poisoned arrows.

A fair point. Although, to reiterate the point that I made on one of the threads linked to above about Tolkien being a "product of his time" (or, in this case, of his shared history), this might be ascribed to the concept of the noble savage.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well I would agree that that Tolkien was not intending to make any statement about race, racism or racial superiority in terms of the real world. So no such analysis is required when one is considering either the story qua story or authorial intention.

However, where the likes of Dr. Shapiro and Jonathan Hari seek to criticise LotR as a racist work or, worse still, where racist groups seek to use it to justify their warped creed (as some do), is it not legitimate to counter those points as Aiwendil has suggested? Particularly since, as Squatter points out, there is material there (Numenorean superiority, for example) which does provide them with some kind of a basis for making the argument (albeit a facile one, in my view).

The issue, I think, is whether Tolkien 'intended' the work to have any meaning or relevance to the primary world, or to be any kind of commentary on it. If not, if it was merely an 'entertainment' & the reader supplies the 'meaning' then the work cannot be labelled 'racist', 'sexist' or anything else - because if examples of those things are found in there the reader has himself supplied them, imposed them on the text.

The work itself can only be labelled 'racist' or 'sexist' (or anything else) if we accept that the story was intended to be that by the author. We can't say 'Its just a story' & then argue that it is, or is not, objectively this or that.

As to the Numenorean example, one could note that this particular 'Master Race' brought about its own downfall as a direct result of its Master Race philosophy. If Tolkien was commenting on 'Master Races' through the Akalllabeth he was presenting them in a very negative way.

[The Saucepan Man]

The work itself can only be labelled 'racist' or 'sexist' (or anything else) if we accept that the story was intended to be that by the author.

The likes of Dr Shapiro and Jonathan Hari, as I understand their position, do assert that Tolkien intended LotR to be a racist work, or at least a work which supported his presumed (by them) racist worldview.

Morevover, a work can be labelled as promoting undesirable actions or ideologies irrespective of authorial intention. I doubt that the creators of Tom & Jerry ever intended it to promote smoking, yet it was deemed to have that effect and so the "offending" scenes were duly excised.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The likes of Dr Shapiro and Jonathan Hari, as I understand their position, do assert that Tolkien intended LotR to be a racist work, or at least a work which supported his presumed (by them) racist worldview.

I know - but its hardly an original or unusual statement. My point is that we can either dismiss their statements out of hand by saying the book has no inner meaning & leave it at that, or we have to argue on their terms & state what it does mean - in which case we have to determine what it actually means, what Tolkien actually is saying in the book.

Morevover, a work can be labelled as promoting undesirable actions or ideologies irrespective of authorial intention. I doubt that the creators of Tom & Jerry ever intended it to promote smoking, yet it was deemed to have that effect and so the "offending" scenes were duly excised.

Of course - even the words an author uses change meaning over time (Tolkien's use of 'gay' & 'queer' now have to be mentally 'translated' by the reader into their older sense). Where Tolkien uses the word 'queer' in the book it also has negative connotations, having the sense of eerie, supernatural. If a gay reader percieves a homophobic sub text (intended by Tolkien or otherwise) how should we respond?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

My point is that we can either dismiss their statements out of hand by saying the book has no inner meaning & leave it at that, or we have to argue on their terms & state what it does mean - in which case we have to determine what it actually means, what Tolkien actually is saying in the book.

I disagree.

There is ample material on this and the linked threads to support a very strong (overwhelming, in my view) case to the effect that Tolkien was not a racist, that he did not intend LotR to support a racist agenda and that (irresepective of his intention) it does not in fact support such an agenda. It is not necessary to formulate any particular view on what Tolkien was trying to say in order to put that case.