Lord of the Rings labelled racist

[Orual]

'In Defense of Theoden'

Well, I rather thought that Theoden left Eowyn behind because somebody who the people trusted had to stay behind to take care of those who couldn't fight--that is, mothers with children, the disabled, the elderly. Eowyn was the niece of the king, and therefore the people knew her and would listen to her when she told them what to do. Now, that's not to say that I don't think that Theoden was also thinking of Eowyn's welfare and protecting her as she would not have wanted, but I think that we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his intentions, at least for the most part, were honorable. An official or high-ranking soldier wouldn't be as easily recognized as Eowyn, since she was a member of the ruling family. Just my two cents.

Heh, no need to worry about me getting girl-power on anybody's butt, Willie. I try to be fair. Not to say I always am, but I try to be. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

~*~Orual~*~

PS: Sorry if this is off-topic, but I felt compelled to leap to Theoden's aid. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It occurs to me that in one of his letters to Christopher Tolkien, JRRT criticises the racism that was prevalent in South Africa in the 1940s. His comments may be found in a letter dated 18th April, 1944 (Letters #61), and read as follows.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

As for what you say or hint of 'local' conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort. not many retain that generous sentiment for long.

I find this contrast between the apparent superiority of the Numenoreans, which looks like a eugenic argument, and this privately expressed sentiment very interesting. However, the 'lesser men' with whom the people of Gondor mingled their blood included the ancestors of the Rohirrim, and the racism proponents hold them up as examples of aryan protagonists (Tolkien would not, since to him Aryan was a linguistic term referring to the Indo-Iranian languages).

Clearly the Numenoreans are 'high men' in terms of being closely associated with the Elves and more aware of Eru and the Valar. Their longevity appears not to be entirely genetic; rather it seems to rely on the moral stance that death is the gift of the One to Men. The moral and cultural fall of the Numenoreans in Akallabeth, which is bound up with a growing intolerant pride in their own culture, implies to me that Tolkien was a long way from propounding the sort of supremacist thinking that Dr. Shapiro sees in his work (that which assumes moral superiority on ethnic grounds), but the existence of a sub-division of humanity that are practically supermen does put him on dangerous ground in today's intellectual climate. The article that provoked this thread is symptomatic of the contemporary cultural scene. However, it seems more interesting to me that when Tolkien says 'race' he means 'species': Elves are a race, Dwarves are a race and Men are a race; and throughout LotR Men are just Men: be that men of Harad, men of Gondor, Southrons or Easterlings. Of course that would tend to fuel the sister-claim of sexism, but that's a different issue.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

I suppose it's only a matter of time before LOTR is found to be all the things that University Researchers, Academics, Feminists, Homosexuals and Muslims or indeed almost any other minority group dislike : -

- anti-Vegetarian for encouraging meat eating .
- anti-Feminist for leaving Rosie Cotton in the Shire during the War .
- Islamophobe for not observing Friday prayers .
- Homophobe for encouraging heterosexual relationships .
- Racist for mentioning " Orcs and swarthy men in the White Tower " .
- anti-Republican for encouraging Monarchy .
- anti-Democratic because of no elections ( except Will Whitfoot ) .
- anti-Semitic because no record of circumcisions in the book .

You could go on for ever . It's all crap and the book is brilliant - end of story .

[ninja91]

Lets also hope that there is no criticism concerning the Haradrim and their faith and appearance with Arabic Muslims.
Also, going back to the very first post, not all of the enemies are ugly. I mean, look at the Mouth of Sauron! What a chick-magnet .

(not you, mouth of sauron the BD'er)

[Aiwendil]

Mouth of Sauron wrote:

You could go on for ever . It's all crap and the book is brilliant - end of story .

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.

I think that the correct way to argue against racism in LotR is not to say "that's stupid". There are after all different races in the book, with different natures, and some are presented as 'good' and others as 'evil'.

Rather, the correct way to argue against racism is to provide positive counter-arguments. In fact, on the whole, LotR has always struck me as being quite anti-racist in showing beings from many different cultures (Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Dunedain, Rohirrim) working together as allies for the common good. One could go further and provide more positive arguments - for example the excellent passage where Sam sees a dead Easterling (or is it a Southron?) in Ithilien and feels sympathy for him.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.

But then, we're not arguing on the same terms as them. Arguing the book is racist, or contains 'racist' ideas is not the same as accusing Tolkien the man of being racist.

If we say the book is just a story & has no inner meaning (citing Tolkien's words in the Foreword) then we have to counter them by arguing that Tolkien himself wasn't wasn't a racist. So the argument from their point of view is about the book, our counter argument is about the man. This is especially the case if their point is that the book is not intentionally racist, but may be percieved as racist.

Have they directly accused Tolkien of being racist or just said the book is? Are they saying that Tolkien himself may not have been a racist, but due to his cultural background he was unconsiously racist & that that comes through in LotR, or are they saying he was a secret racist & used his fiction to promote hiis ideology?

Pedantically yours (as ever )

[Lalwendë]

One of the big drawbacks of course of Reader Response is that we can call a text anything we like if we can find a tiny bit of evidence to support it, even if that evidence is simply our 'feelings' in response to the text. So I wouldn't be surprised if more racist accusations turned up.

Of course we know that there is plenty of evidence in the text to support Tolkien not only not being racist but being actively anti-racist. However that's not going to be of any value when used to combat someone's feelings about the text.

You get exactly the same thing with modern readers accusing Austen of being racist simply by not having any black people in her novels, despite references to the slave trade being immoral in Mansfield Park. And again, there has been for along time a lobby for Heathcliffe being black - even though he is probably an Irish scouser. People don't read texts in isolation any longer, hoping to discern what the Author says, the Author is dead and they drag in everything but the kitchen sink from their own lives and impose it on the text so consequently for a lot of readers, yes, Tolkien is racist, and we won't convince them otherwise.

[davem]

Let me give a short passage from Tolkien's unfinished story 'The Notion Club Papers' (HoM-e 9) :

"Played the a*s as usual, Ramer", said Lowdham. "Sorry, I felt all strung up, wanted a fight, or a carouse, or something. but really I felt very interested, especially about the immram. Underneath we Nordics have some feelings, as long as the dago-fanciers will only be reasonably polite."

Now, what do we take from that? Bearing in mind that, as has been pointed out by CT among others, the converstions between characters in the story are a reflection of conversations the Inklings had, we have a bit of a dilemma.

The term 'd-f' would now be considered 'racist' by many people. But would it have been considered so in the 40's when Tolkien used it in his story? Should it be removed from the text? Should it be left to stand with a ''health warning". It is certainly a difficult passage to read - or at least shocking when one first comes across it. The use of such a phrase does not imply 'racism' on the part of either the writer or the character - at least not conscious. The character even refers to himself as a 'Nordic', so in effect he's comparing types & using a cultural shorthand, common at the time.

Its easy to label someone or something as 'racist', but when one comes down to defining what constitutes 'racism' in the attitudes & speech of people livong over half a century ago one may struggle, & find that it is not as easy as giving a simple yes or no response.

[Laitoste]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

One of the big drawbacks of course of Reader Response is that we can call a text anything we like if we can find a tiny bit of evidence to support it, even if that evidence is simply our 'feelings' in response to the text.

Ah, but some readings are better than others. In my literary analysis class last year, my professor gave us an interpretation of "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" by Frost. He had read it as in support of bestiality--"My little horse must think it queer/to stop without a farmhouse near." You could find evidence for that, certainly, but that doesn't make it a right reading, or even a good reading. How do you determine a "right" or "good" reading? That's what's debatable...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Pedantically yours (as ever)

Understood, but I'm not at all sure that your pedantry is leading us anywhere productive in this case.

I hold by my original point. In the face of accusations that Tolkien was a racist or that LotR is a racist work (whether intentionally or incidentally so), it is legtimate to analyse the book in the way Aiwendil suggested in order to counter such accusations (or at the very least to satisfy ourselves on the issue). And we can do so without necessarily forming any settled view as to what it was Tolkien was trying to achieve by writing the story. I fail to see how such a position can be at all controversial. But there we go. Pedantry will out.

Originally Posted by Laitoste

How do you determine a "right" or "good" reading? That's what's debatable...

Well, I would say that depends upon how you react to it personally. The closest that we can get to an objective assessment in this regard is by considering the extent to which people react positivley or negatively to a particular interpretation. On that basis, I would say that the interpretation of LotR as a racist work is "incorrect" - certainly as far as I am concerned, but also, I would venture to suggest, for the majority of readers.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Understood, but I'm not at all sure that your pedantry is leading us anywhere productive in this case.

I hold by my original point. In the face of accusations that Tolkien was a racist or that LotR is a racist work (whether intentionally or incidentally so), it is legtimate to analyse the book in the way Aiwendil suggested in order to counter such accusations (or at the very least to satisfy ourselves on the issue). And we can do so without necessarily forming any settled view as to what it was Tolkien was trying to achieve by writing the story. I fail to see how such a position can be at all controversial. But there we go. Pedantry will out.

.

Ok. To be honest this is not something I feel any need to defend Tolkien against. the accusation crops up, we disprove it. It crops up again, we disprove it. This will go on ad infinitum. There are critics out there with an agenda. Unfortunately at the present time its not enough simply not to be a racist you have to prove you aren't a racist - & the easiest way to do that is to denounce someone else as one - preferrably an easy target (like a dead author). We can have an interesting discussion on the exact nature of 'race' & how Tolkien deals with it, we can have a pedantic discussion, playing word games & the rest, but the idea there is any chance of coming up with a strategy that will silence the critics once & for all is, I think, one bound to fail. When one's opponents are putting forward arguments like 'LotR is racist because the Orcs are dark skinned (or sallow skinned, or come from the east' its pretty clear that they are not interested in complex refutations - if indeed they they would even listen to them. My own feeling is they have decided it is racist & there is not a thing any of us can do to convince them they are wrong.

Frankly, my own feeling is that anyone who thinks LotR is racist has either not read it, or not understood it, & there's no point in flogging a dead horse.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

My own feeling is they have decided it is racist & there is not a thing any of us can do to convince them they are wrong.

You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that?

Although, in fact, my own initial consideration of this issue (in the thread I linked to above) was directed at calming the slight qualms that I had, having not at that stage read the book for many a year and having little knowledge of Tolkien the man, that there might be racist undertones. Suffice it to say that they were calmed.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that?

Although, in fact, my own initial consideration of this issue (in the thread I linked to above) was directed at calming the slight qualms that I had, having not at that stage read the book for many a year and having little knowledge of Tolkien the man, that there might be racist undertones. Suffice it to say that they were calmed.

I don't think most readers of the book would even think about it being racist - until some critic points it out, & most of them would instantly dismiss the idea as silly. The ones who propagate the idea won't be convinced otherwise, however convincing your arguments, because they want it to be true that the work is racist. They repeat their position, we repeat ours, & most people, for whom (hope everyone is seated for this...) Tolkien's work is an irrelevance couldn't care less one way or the other.

Originally Posted by MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this. I was just browsing different sites when I came across this. I said to myself, 'What the F***!?' As I read, I became more and more furious. Oh, by the way, here's the link Lord of the Rings labelled racist. I kept reading and I just couldn't believe what this guy was saying. First of all, Tolkien said that his works did not represent anything, so how could LOTR represent nativism or racism (actually, nativism wasn't mentioned at all). It doesn't at all.

I HATE it when people say f*****g stupid stuff like this (please excuse my language). It's such a shallow and underdeveloped statement. It was uncalled for and false. This person obviously cannot be very bright when it comes to Tolkien. What he said is flat out wrong.

Why do people jump to conclusions like these? Was it just as random as one on the 'jump-to-conclusions' board (if you've seen the movie Office Space, you'll know what I'm talking about)? Why did he say that? That's like saying Martin Luther King Jr. had all those speeches because he hated whites and because he was racist. It's almost as absurd as that, and it's just as stupid as that. I just hate it when someone makes a great novel or anything great, just because they want to, or for a good cause, and then someone just has to s*** all over it. Why do they do that??? Tolkien just wanted to make books for children (The Hobbit) and a mythology for England (The Lord of the Rings), and then just to develop the world he created. And now here comes Dr Shapiro, and takes something good and says it is racist. He just had to make it look bad. Why? I just can't understand. Why?

He's lucky Tolkien is dead, or he'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. I'm glad Tolkien isn't around to hear about this. I've said somethings that people do are like slapping Tolkien in the face. Well, this is like Dr Shapiro just raped Tolkien's mom. That's how I see it.

Does anyone feel like I do? I hope so. And even if you don't, tell me what you think.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

I can't believe that you have brought this subject up. Why give attention to this when there are far more beautiful aspects of Tolkein's works that remain unexplored?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

You may be right. But just because a cause looks hopeless, it does not follow that one should not seek to uphold it. Where would Middle-earth have been with an approach like that?

Thinking about this need to 'defend' LotR, I do think you are right, even though it might make little difference to those who have their minds made up already. Why did I think this? I was thinking back to University when there was a tendency in classes to actively seek out racist overtones (or rather, undertones) in texts. Ridiculous questions would be posed such as why there were no black people in Thomas Hardy's novels, or why he didn't deal with race issues. Merely pointing out that black people weren't exactly common in rural 'Wessex' would cut no ice. And I think that some critics (and potential readers) will come at it from that angle, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by SpM

Well, I would say that depends upon how you react to it personally. The closest that we can get to an objective assessment in this regard is by considering the extent to which people react positivley or negatively to a particular interpretation. On that basis, I would say that the interpretation of LotR as a racist work is "incorrect" - certainly as far as I am concerned, but also, I would venture to suggest, for the majority of readers.

Interesting. Well, fortunately most of us are not racist so in that kind of reader interpretation we are OK with the 'majority' view. However other kinds of reading may be more forceful - not necessarily due to numbers or a majority view, but to cultural and political pressures (and pressure groups' influence on culture) in contemporary societies.

[Nogrod]

Sorry, ignore this if it's said a thousand times already.

But it surely looks weird to me if someone, who recounts and remodels the stories of her/his tradition (lending bits and pieces from other cultures, in a wide sense of the term 'culture') and forges them to an epic, is called racist if s/he just happens to be primarly interested on her/his own cultural roots and blends the common prejudices og her/his era into the epic... With that account both Socrates and Jesus, and Kung-fu-Tse (Confucius?) and Lao-Tse were racists too. Basically that would mean that all the authors of great stories or philosophies of any era or place, not counting post-modern intellectuals, are racists...

And even here we have a case for doubt: what is the thing anyone who in the "advanced society" of ours pointing the racism of others has ignored? We all ignore something in a way or another, if nothing else, our own premises which we can't neither show or argue for for any greater length, not to speak of proving them to those who don't share them already! Being aware that one's premises are a choice (or culturally given) surely is good understanding, but still just the awareness of that doesn't clear anyone to be the "his (sic!) masters voice", even with good intentions.

It seems to be a question then also of a cultural situation and the zeitgeist, or ethike of things. If we look at earlier generations with the cultural standards of ours, we miss things on a grand scale?

The problem surely is, that if we wish to dissect those "culturally anchored" beliefs of the author's time out from a work to see the "eternal truth" in it, then on which timeless ideology do we base or ground that choice of ours?

[davem]

Of course, it must be remembered that there are racist/neo-Nazi groups out there who are happy to claim LotR as a 'racist' work, & would take offence at such a claim being challenged or mocked.

Some 'condemn' LotR as 'racist', some praise it as 'racist'. Of course, neither group is right (imo, of course).

We are, as is not unusual, on difficult ground. If it can be argued that while Tolkien did not write LotR as a Christian work, his Christianity came through in it, one could, I suppose, argue that he was 'unconsciously' racist due to the culture he grew up in being 'institutionally racist', & while he didn't write a 'consciously' racist work there is an underlying 'racist' subtext. This is the problem we face when we start arguing for this or that 'subtext' to the work. People rarely approach such a 'search' objectively. They usually have an agenda, something to prove, & will use all kinds of convoluted arguments to get you to where they wish you to end up.

The writer of the article that started all this wanted to convince people that LotR is a racist work, & attempted to steer them in that way. Others in various books & articles have attempted to convince their readers its a 'Christian' book, or a humanist book, or an environmentalist book. Lots of individuals & groups want to claim the work for themselves or foist it on others or reject it altogether.

Quick addendum.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that just as for some readers the presence of themes such as mercy, pity, self sacrifice, One God are enough to make LotR a 'Christian' work while others demand the presence of more specific Christian themes & symbols, so the presence of 'Black' Riders, dark or sallow skinned enemies, predominantly white skinned heroes, is enough to make it a 'racist' work.

Because of this it is not simply a matter of convincing a critic that the work is not 'racist' - it would actually require us to change their whole conception of what racism is & the form it takes in literature - which would probably also require us to change their political stance, & possibly their entire worldview.

[Saurreg]

I am amazed that this thread is still going on. Can't recall whether I posted in here before...

Anyway I am Chinese and am proud of my heritage. And yes, my skin is dark (from my father's side, the men of the house of Ong have dark skin )

So do I look upon LoTR as a work of racism or the work of a racist? Neither. Infact it is one of my favourate books which incidentally is one reason I still linger around these boards. But neither do I feel the need to jump into the defence of the work or the author like many of you here, not just because I have no idea what was going through his mind then and whether there was "regression of subconscious racism" (good phrase!) but rather because I am just apathetic.

To me it is just a story book. Read it and enjoy it, if not read it and trash it. If that story was written with intention as racist propaganda such as "Be wary of foul, untrustworthy darkies and white skin supreme!" I tell you I must have been completely dense to missed it head, tail and all.

There are of course the ultra-mandarins who would say that my casualness is a byproduct of the English colonial second class citizen mentality. This dispite the fact that a) I have not called any caucasian "master" before, b) public education has etched in the prejudice that the Brits can't fight to save their lives, hence the disasterous occupation of Singapore by the Japanese and c) I have two white aussies working under me whom I bend and break so often depending on my mood (they call me the "devil" at Brani).

And I know I am not alone here and there are many other people worldwide who would share my point of view - the same kind of people that opponents of LoTR's "racism" love to equate and "speak out in defence of" with the dark-skinned people with red tongues (too much promegranate juice I reckon) and foul dispositions.

So my response to this thread; the accusations academics heaped upon Tolkien and the defences for the same man, is "So what?" The people who are being "racially" depicted are either ignorant of existance of this work or just don't care.

If Tolkien was still alive and I met him, I would have congratulated him on a good read and no, I won't buy him a pint because he already earned loyalties through the copy I bought. And if, just if I were to walk through some streets somewhere in this world and some kid pointed at me exclaiming "Haradim! Hardadim! Foul Easterling!" I'll be cool.

At least I have an elephant kid. A big one. Now what you got?

[Elu Ancalime]

Even though the first half of the 20th centrury was clearly racially divided in culture, it sounds like this Dr. Shapiro is capitalizing off something he/she sees as a threat to Western 21 century integrated culture.
It is intersting that the Dr said that Tolkien aliked the elves and the other Free Peoples to "Aryan" culture. Since much of Tolkien's work was coming together during the 1930's and 40's, I think that if Tolkien was truly an advocate of supremacy, he would have flown into Nuremburg and being Goebbles right hand man. Here is a quote from Tolkien when his german publishers asked him if he was of aryan descent:

"I must say that the enclosed letter from R?tten & Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of arisch origin from all persons of all countries? ... Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Best?tigung (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." ? July 25, 1938 (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #29 ?

and then

:"Thank you for your letter ... I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware noone of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #30 ? Tolkien's unsent response to his German publishers; a more neutral version was ultimately sent)

________
Lebanese cooking

[Saurreg]

That's the problem with the world today. You have people "championing" the rights and interests of people they have no heartfelt interesting in representing at all or raising similar notions just for the sake of media attraction.

The best way is of course to ignore them. Even the act of debuking them adds to their influence and power as these folks capitalize on such sensations.

Tolkien referring to Germanic laws as absurd and rubbing it into Germans (why would they ask if he had Aryan blood??) by stating that the Jews were gifted were pure gems IMO.

[Maédhros]

Rather, the correct way to argue against racism is to provide positive counter-arguments. In fact, on the whole, LotR has always struck me as being quite anti-racist in showing beings from many different cultures (Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Dunedain, Rohirrim) working together as allies for the common good. One could go further and provide more positive arguments - for example the excellent passage where Sam sees a dead Easterling (or is it a Southron?) in Ithilien and feels sympathy for him.

Aiwendil, I have never thought that JRRT was racist in his books, but this has always made me wonder:
From the Silmarillion

For Elves and Men are the Children of Ilúvatar......
'Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani! But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my Children; and they shall have the greater bliss in this world. But to the Atani I will give a new gift.'

It is my personal view that Tolkien meant for the Elves to be the ideal race, or the way that perfect humans should be. But if both Elves and Men were created in the same theme of Ilúvatar's music, how is it that all of the Elves are white, while men have different skin colours?

[Thinlómien]

I think quite many of you miss the cultural aspect here. Tolkien wanted to write a mythology for England. English(wo)men are white.

Usually temperature and thus skin color don't vary much in one small region (north-western ME) and as the story concentrates on this smallish area, it only makes sense that humans don't vary really much in skin colors. (Europe is a relatively small area too. You don't find black, yellow or red skinned people in Europe. Like in north western Middle-Earth in Europe hair and eye colors vary though.)

Tolkien just chose the white-complexion area because the tales he mostly used were from this area/ethnicity, like was the people he wished to write a history and legend for.

Originally Posted by Maédhros

But if both Elves and Men were created in the same theme of Ilúvatar's music, how is it that all of the Elves are white, while men have different skin colours?

Well, I guess Elves are somewhat European. As LotR was to be a mythology for England the people who were supposed to be the most beatiful represented a caucasian/European model of beauty. That only makes sense. On the other hand, it might be that Tolkien simply held white skin more beautiful or "noble" and thus thought it befitted his Elves the best.

And is the appearance of the Avari who lived in south and east described anywhere? Maybe they were black?

[Lalwendë]

Just a quick point picking up on what Elu Ancalime quotes from Tolkien's letter about his German publishers' enquiry:

Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of arisch origin from all persons of all countries?

It was actually most probably the latter. The authorities in Germany at that time sought to excise all non-Aryan Art as much as possible, and would have sought out racial information on writers, artists etc as far as they could obtain it, in order to 'spare' the German people the risk of reading something 'dangerous'. Tolkien's indignance about this speaks volumes as Britain was by no means free of its own fascists and racial supremacists.

[Maédhros]

Well, I guess Elves are somewhat European. As LotR was to be a mythology for England the people who were supposed to be the most beatiful represented a caucasian/European model of beauty. That only makes sense. On the other hand, it might be that Tolkien simply held white skin more beautiful or "noble" and thus thought it befitted his Elves the best.

And is the appearance of the Avari who lived in south and east described anywhere? Maybe they were black?

Notice that you refer to LotR, while I refer to the nature of all the Elves since the making of the 3rd theme, in the Quenta Silmarillion. The thing that strikes me the most interesting, is while both Elves and Men were created in the same theme, all of the Elves are white, (not only the ones in LotR), yet Men, are racially different. (colour of their skin). (If someone has seen any evidence that there are multi racial elves, please show it, because I have missed that.)
That bit about the elves have always made me wonder.

[Maédhros]

A weird thought came to me the other day. If you notice the photo page in the barrow donws, you would notice that most of the members pictured there, are mostly white.
I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that people don't find it weird or curious that the Elves are only white.
But then again, perhaps it has nothing to do with it.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Maédhros

A weird thought came to me the other day. If you notice the photo page in the barrow donws, you would notice that most of the members pictured there, are mostly white.
I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that people don't find it weird or curious that the Elves are only white.
But then again, perhaps it has nothing to do with it.

I'd say the reason for most 'downers being caucasian is that most of the people who have access to both Tolkien's books and internet (frequently) are in today's world white caucasian.

I don't think that has anything to do with the skin colour of the Elves. Honestly can't imagine eg. a black person reading the book and throwing it to the waste paper basket because s/he discovers the elves are white... Of course we must admit the fact that LotR is more entwined with western cultural tradition than for example chinese or north african cultural tradition and thus it's more widely known and loved in western countries (in which most people are caucasian).

[Maédhros]

I don't think that has anything to do with the skin colour of the Elves. Honestly can't imagine eg. a black person reading the book and throwing it to the waste paper basket because s/he discovers the elves are white... Of course we must admit the fact that LotR is more entwined with western cultural tradition than for example chinese or north african cultural tradition and thus it's more widely known and loved in western countries (in which most people are caucasian).

And I agree with that. Yet, that doesn't answer the question. If both Men and Elves were created in the same theme, how come men end up being Multi-racial, while Elves are all white?

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Maédhros

And I agree with that. Yet, that doesn't answer the question. If both Men and Elves were created in the same theme, how come men end up being Multi-racial, while Elves are all white?

You know, I have always thought of tolkien writing in the elves as mere custodians of Middle-Earth and guide to some of the men who would inturn influence others (think the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks etc). Hence the elves were not the lords of Middle-earth; men were. That together with the facts that they were not widely spreaded throughout the world and their time on Middle-earth was short could most probably explain their percieved "caucasian" features.

Men on the other hand would spread out and settle in many parts of that world and hence they would evolve physically to their environments over the ages.

That stated, I submit the possibility that when Tolkien wrote on the physical appearances of elves, he might have a totally distinctibe racial look for them that could be very different from Caucasians. After all in this world we live in, many people other the caucasoid have grey eyes, fair skin and height. Whose to say the great one had actually a combination of the best features of each racial stock for the elves - making them very similar to everyone that sees them, yet quite alien.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

We could add to that argument the fact that elves and, for that matter, dwarfs, don't appear in myth, folklore or literature outside the Celtic and Germanic languages. Even fairly local Romance languages, such as Spanish and Italian, don't share the idea, and this has been a major obstacle for translators throughout the history of Tolkien's fiction. If he wanted to tie in his myths with the real world, he may have taken account of their Northern European origins when writing about the Eldar. Not only is there not a dark-skinned elf in Tolkien's writing, but there is no such thing anywhere in literature. I wonder why it's considered a problem only in his fiction.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

We could add to that argument the fact that elves and, for that matter, dwarfs, don't appear in myth, folklore or literature outside the Celtic and Germanic languages. . . . Not only is there not a dark-skinned elf in Tolkien's writing, but there is no such thing anywhere in literature. . . .

There are no dark-skinned dwarves either, or are there? Very interesting. So maybe Tolkien wanted to give the dwarves and the elves the "usual" form and bind them more strongly to the follore and tradition they came from by giving them a fair complexion?

[doom_hammer]

I read the attachment and i thought it was #@*!^#. in all fantasy books and movies i have seen it is always the good vs the evil not so smart horde so how is just this one thing racists. shouldent it make all fantasy books that have elves and evil hordes racists???