Tolkien the Rascist

[Fatty]

Well it is an old debate, but does this academic have a point.

Read the article here (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=1387552002) .

What do you think?

[Gowpon]

God it's just a MOVIE!!! AND BOOKS!!! Why do ppl spend time writing just to SPOIL SOMETHING??pfbbt pfbbt verymad verymad

Can't do anything right nowadays...:( :(

Well, if whoever-it-is wrote that before there was even a movie trilogy for that, it would be more reasonable and acceptable. But the moment he picked to publish (write) this article made ppl think that he did that with purpose...:cool:

Conspiracy I say...:naughty: :p

[Polly Sandybanks]

It could of course be interpreted as racist.. but I don't know if that has to mean that Tolkien himself was racist. Didn't he live in Africa for a while by the way?
The thing is, I think LOTR can be interpreted in many ways. Another way to see it is the little people's (that is, the common people) fight against a mighty ruler (i e possibly the government). A fight for their rights possibly.
Traditionally the colour black symbolises evil, while white symbolises pure, good. I don't know if Tolkien even thought about it while he wrote the story.
But then, it is interesting that he'd point out so clearly how white and pure the elves and hobbits, etc, were.
I'll have to think some more about that.

[Lady Eowyn]

I think that's as ridiculous as that petition to change the name of TTT because of the World Trade Center. I think if this guy actually read the books, he probably didn't understand them.

[Aratorë]

This isn't even worth talking about. How can someone be so uber-racist as to assume that LotR is racist?

If you look at who Tolkien was, and how he wrote the books, not to mention all of his other works like the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc, it's pretty clear that he wasn't writing a racist novel.

And if you're a shallow enough person to turn even something as simple as Tolkien's works into a racist conspiracy, you don't deserve to be in a position to tell others what you think of their work.

I really like where he says "While Tolkien describes the Hobbits and Elves as amazingly white, ethnically pure clans, their antagonists, the Orcs, are a motley dark-skinned mass, akin to tribal Africans or Aborigines. The recent films amplified a "fear of a black planet" and exaggerated this difference by insisting on stark white-black colour codes, Dr Shapiro insisted. " I never would have seen a parallell between orcs and tribal Africans and Aborigines. Come on people.

The whole Star Wars episode with Jar Jar, sure, that was a little bit racist, but how can you even get that vibe out of LotR? Tolkien himself described the orcs as "elves ruined by Morgoth," not a separate race of lesser "racial qualities."

This guy is chasing shadows here, and the fact that someone could be so blind to what racism really is just boggles my mind.:(

[Aratorë]

I might add that it doesn't even seem like this guy did his homework on Tolkien at all. I bet he just went and watched the movie and came home, sat down and wrote that based on the movie more than anything else.

[Ogemaniac]

and comes out of it thinking "white people are good, colored people are bad" was a bigot going in.

It appears that the good Doctor, for all his academic prowess, apparently has no clue what he is talking about.

LOTR, from one end to the other, is about people of different races getting along. Yes, LOTR is set in a fantasy version of Europe, and yes, there are some fights between the pseudo-Europeans and the more-or-less equivalents of Africans or Asians. But it is patently obvious that the Southrons and Easterlings are NOT evil, and actually have legitimate grudges against a clearly-less-than-perfect Gondor that Sauron has inflamed. Sam's comments as he watches Faramir's rangers fight the Southrons heading to Morder is one of the most poignant ANTI-racist statements I have ever read.

And as for fighting orcs somehow representing racism, the doctor clearly is stretching. Is a zombie splatter-flick racist, because zombies are bad? Dear lord! We are talking about monsters!

Methinks the doctor sees what he wants to see.

[Meaghan]

hey there!
I am a new member and I feel I am gonna be hated by you all in a second! I am afraid I agree with Dr Shapiro! However I will limit this to the book: the Tolkien's book (probably unvoluntarily) carries ideas, demons and fears of the 50s. We can clearly notice the fear of communism (look at a map!). Besides the bad guys are always black!
Furthermore it is also sexist! No warrior woman (except one but she is disguised in a man costume) and and the end a woman who regrets her acts (Arwen).
I am sorry to disappoint you but I really had those feelings when I read the book.
I think PJ succeed in changing those old 50's trends: the movie is more accurate.
The same critics were adressed to Star Wars were all the bad guys speak with foreign accent (Middle East accents).
However as someone else said: IT IS A MOVIE! Clever people are able to distinguish.
I am sad when I hear that LOTR has success because it comes after the 11/09... and because it reflects the war of Good against Evil. I am muslim guys and I don't want to see the LOTR as a war against mines. And I believe some people would unfortunately see it like that. So we should all take Dr Shapiro article as a warning, nothing else, and let's have fun on the 18th!
Meaghan

[Polly Sandybanks]

I agree with you Ogemaniac. LOTR is about different races coming together, to form a fellowship. So you could say that it's highly un-racist! It's the very opposit of what that guy tried to say. You're right about that.
You can interpret everything in any way you want though. He never mentioned the fellowship with mixed races and all that.. all he mentioned was white versus black.
As far as I know Tolkien was a Catholic. I'm not that religious, but didn't they make for instance the virgin Mary very pure and white and everything!? If Tolkien had grown up with that image, then it wouldn't be so odd that he'd describe his good creatures like that.
I guess you could interpret the Orcs as Africans or Aborigines (sp?) if you want to see them as that, but they could just as well be something else. The first thing that came into my mind when I read (and saw) about Orcs, were animals. Wild animals. If that was Tolkien's image too, when he wrote about them, then he'd probably try to make them as animallike as he could. A lot of wild animals are darkskinned, to be able to hide well, so obviously the Orcs were made darkskinned.
If you see it that way then the person who wrote that article is the one who seems racist, not Tolkien or anyone else.
Oh.. and couldn't you see a certain symbolism in the dark versus light as well!? Dark would be night.. night is usually cold, unfriendly.. you never know what could hide in the dark. Light would be the day, the sun, warmth and happiness. Tolkien could definitely have meant it to be like that.
So, now that I've had some time to think about it.. LOTR is definitely NOT racist.. it's the opposit!

[Sharky]

While Tolkien describes the Hobbits and Elves as amazingly white, ethnically pure clans

Someone hasn't done their homework, the hobbits are made up of three strains, Harfoots, Fallohides & Stoors, if anything they're racialy impure. As these 3 races came together to work in peace and harmony, isn't this an example of multi-culturalism ?

As for the Elves, in almost all racist societies its the half-breeds who are most despised being neither one race nor the other, yet here we have a half-breed in the form of Elrond half-elven who is not only a great lore master, but also a great leader !

Racist ? pfft. :angry:

[Catz]

whoa there.....lol ....we wont hate ya.........just may not agree with ya.........and after all, thats what forums are for arent they? to discuss ditterent opinions......that said heheh, i think youre reading a lot into this.......are you also saying that all those old pulp westerns were racist too?cos you know, they used the black hats for the bad guys, and are we talking about the same Star Wars that ive seen? cos Darth Vader, the Emperor,Count Dooku..........not a middle eastern accent among em...........i think were confusing a natural human tendency to equate LIGHT (not white, but light) as good, and dark as bad....with racism......putting 21st century pc thought where it frankly doesnt belong.
yes one group of enemies in this book is dark skinned.......and this means what exactly? not all the enemies are dark skinned.........yeah all the heroes of the book are light skinned..............since the book is supposed to be a prehistory of the British Isles i dont find that at all unusual.......the britons didnt tend to dark skins. And with communism......well i think youre reading alot into a direction arent you?.....im mean its not like Sauron was starting collectives for Orcs.......or starting the socialist republic of Mordor.......Sauron was NOT a communist.......he was a tyrant.......a totalitarian leader..........as for dragging in Tolkiens supposed sexism.....he was not, by the lights of his time and upbringing particularly sexist........and this issue has already been debated at length on this forum........he was however somewhat paternalistic in his view of women...........that he could include any female warriors at all kind of negates this arguement...........and when does Arwen regret her actions?......shes sad, yes......who wouldnt be? and she laments.....but i dont think shed have changed any of it.
and yeah.......lol i intend to have a ball on the 18/19th....;)
:catz:

[Green Dragon]

It doesn't matter whether it was intended or not.

People will always see what they want to see. The choice of perception comes from that person, and them alone. No-one can ever force a perception on to anyone. So, if people choose to see this, then we cannot change that.

[Gowpon]

I think if we interpret Tolkien's idea of "Dark is evil" as racism, then we are pretty much racists ourselves. Because I don't believe no one had spoken this idea of "the darkness of..." or "the dark side of...". If referring "dark" is racism, then we all are.

It's just simply a stereo type and concept, nothing more.

[Miruvor]

Yes, everyone needs to take Catz's excellent points to heart.
Tolkien was a man of his own time - not ours. I (and you) understand the archetypal usage of black for evil and white for good, and that, mixed together with 1930's, 1940's , & 1950's attitudes (I should say lack of enlightenment (unplanned pun!) ), Tolkien could hardly have produced anything different. I think we should praise Tolkien greatly for avoiding any real blatant racism. (I just always assumed the Southrons were from a slightly different race - maybe moorish or indian-like (from India) who just happened to be in the wrong proximity (to Mordor) at the wrong time. The only thing that struck me as a little bit racist, but was also a sign of the times, was that he actually CREATED an enemy (ORCS) that were less-than-human, demonized characatures, sort of the way, during world war II, we created propoganda posters of Japanese and Germans as demonized characatures -- But WE did it to real peoples. Tolkien invented a wholely separate group of these characatures so that the readers would not have to deal with too much violence against human beings of any race (except for the few dupped or en-slaved by Sauron and Saruman (I assumed the Dunlanders to be white - so there was some balance), but still get into the fantasy of warfare. (Plus, the slaves were released and given the land to work as their own after the war, and the men in Sauron's army were given a slap on the hand and sent home. )
(P.S. I didn't read the article, so my comments are not in absolute reference to it.)

[Faramir]

This may have been said before, but LOTR was written before the 50's. The bulk of the trilogy was written during World War 2. The Hobbit was written in the 30's. So, the trends of the 50's can probably be ruled out.

[Green Dragon]

I see a story in which someone wrote about the inner battle of the balance of light and dark, good and evil. All these aspects, every part of it is simply a way to explain what goes on inside us all every day. In reality there is no good, and there is no evil. We always have a choice. Everyone is capable of anything, and everyone is doing what they believe is right. We are all capable of doing terrible things, but we choose not to. There is no separation. We are just making choices every day, whether to do one thing or another.

As we also choose to see this as racist or not. The person who wrote the article chose to see it like that, and perhaps others will see that too. It does not mean that Tolkien ever intended it. He was just telling his story.

[Aratorë]

Originally posted by Faramir
This may have been said before, but LOTR was written before the 50's. The bulk of the trilogy was written during World War 2. The Hobbit was written in the 30's. So, the trends of the 50's can probably be ruled out.

I'll chip in again and add that Tolkien wrote most of the "good" type forces and the "evil" forces way earlier, when he was in a sickbed during WWI. During this time he wrote the beginings of the Silmarillion, and came up with the ideas for the orcs, elves, men of all kinds, etc.

So all of those characterizations preceded WW2 and the '50's by quite a while.

[Lorien]

Ok, I am going to blow up. He has no right in contradicting Tolkien. I wish some people would stop putting down one of the best epics in history. If he has a problem about Lord of the Rings then he should keep it to himself. There now I feel better.

[Devilwrites]

I'm kinda new here, and accidentally posted a new thread instead of a reply, which was my intention. At any rate, here were my thoughts...

Since when was "race" only applied to color?

This article simply kills me. I mean, is the guy really paying attention what he's reading? He sees color, and refers to "race", but yet, there's a dwarf and an elf who overcome there differences and become fast friends, and a hobbit who shows pity on a poor creature that can easily be viewed as dark and evil. Isn't it a well-known aspect of fantasy to refer to different creatures as different races?

The fact of the matter is, Tolkien drew from mythology, and I hate to tell people this, but some mythologies don't include people of color. Does that mean the people who came up with them are racist? I think not. They told what they knew, and quite frankly, anything viewed out of context can be taken a variety of different ways. You can read LOTR as racist, or as a big slash story, or whatever your heart desires, but the truth is, that's what you put into the literature. That's obviously what this Dr. Shapiro did. Yes, he talked about what was going on at the time and how Tolkien may have unconsciously let things "slide in", but for goodness sakes. Does this mean we should rewrite literature as a whole to make it more "politically correct"? Does that mean we should condem a piece of work written by someone who wrote about either a) what they knew or b) what they imagined? Why should they be at fault?

And why is it we never hear the flip side of this arguement anyway? Why are there never any people saying literature that contains no people of white color is also racist? What about those tales, or folksongs, or whatever exists from say, Africa, that doesn't talk about white men BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHITE MAN EXISTED? OR, if white men is mentioned, it's more likely negative, isn't because that's all the creators knew about?

Sorry, I'm going off on a tangent. It's just that articles about people like that never explore the flip side, never really admit that perhaps, race just isn't the issue at heart (heaven forbid). And while I freely admit that literature of any kind can be interpreted many different ways (I'm an English student, so yes, I'm very well aware of this), and while it may be proven, disregarding the author's own take on his or her own work is just pretty darn bad. I mean, unless Tolkien was jumping up and down waving a flag that said, "I'm a racist!!!!", who are we to judge his morality or intentions? Even if he was the biggest bigot on earth, the truth is, he created something huge and powerful. For that he should be comended, no matter what his personal views were or were not. It's the merit and achievement that count here.

[Aludra]

This is an interesting discussion. I hate to see the books/films dragged through the mud, and accusations of racism are always awkward and difficult. It is unfair, however, to dismiss the argument out of hand.

Before I read LotR, my brother made the offhanded comment that it contained racist insinuations. His words resurfaced as I read the books, which may colour (unintended pun!) my opinion. However, I'm reasonably sure I would have noted the trend regardless.

I wouldn't say that Tolkien is blatantly racist, nor is LotR. I would, though, feel justified in claiming that there are definitely images in the trilogy that qualify as racist in this day and age. They are of the subtler brand and all the more worriesome for it. Very few will take the message the heart and think all dark peoples are evil, but there is the underlying impression reinforcing racial divisions. Tolkien's descriptions go beyond light vs dark; he attributes details and physical characteristics to both sides that are distinct. Perhaps the dark-faced and slant-eyed enemies just 'happen' to belong to the opposition—they are still the 'bad guys'.

(A note: Gimli and Legolas overcoming their own differences is an encouraging example, as is the Fellowship itself. Unfortunately, race as it is defined in society focusses almost solely on colour. And the Fellowship unites to fight a common foe, a frequent trend in history. If we were to compare them to the British Isles, it's like all the peoples of Britain in medieval times uniting to stave off invasion of an enemy. Also, the archetypes of light being good and dark being evil are not universal.)

I would not say Tolkien was more or less racist than the average man in that portion of the century. But were the trilogy to have been published for the first time in this millenium, without the accompanying awe and reverence, the outcry against its racial imagery would be great. Tolkien employed images that his audience at the time could relate to, which I have no doubt helped promote his works, with no racist intent. That doesn't mean the images in themselves are not racist.

Finally, a few links to get some other views on the situation. Contrary to Barry Clarke's assertion, the argument has been raised elsewhere.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/lordoftherings/news/0,11016,852217,00.html

http://www.mugu.com/pipermail/upstream-list/2001-December/003967.html

http://www.lordoftherings.net/film/filmmakers/fi_pjack_qanda.html <--- do a search for the word 'racism' to find the reference.

[Meaghan]

yeah, Ok. I guess my human rights activities are probably a bit heavy on my shoulders. Though I won't give up my point. I never said Sauron intended to established a socialist regime (that would be kind of funny though!): I just believe that a man's environnment does influence his/her job. By the way, I never said Tolkien was racist: I think the existence of the fellowhip shows the exact contrary. But I believe his books carries lots of the time (30's till 50's) fears and that is NORMAL!

[Keverzwijn]

Wow, lots of new people here, welcome to the forums. Tolkien never appeared to me as a racist when I read the books. Maybe he was in real life, but it didn't really reflect in his books.

[Ogemaniac]

This metaphor is nearly universal across history and existed in a wide variety of cultures (actually, I don't know of an exception).

It has nothing to do with race or skin color, but rather that 'darkness' symbolizes the unknown and death.

[Aratorë]

I may be wrong here, but didn't Tolkien say in one of his letters that he patterned the orcs after wild animals(after a fashion)?

Hence the lack of a single spoken language among the tribes, the "dark" complexion, the slant eyes, etc.

It's a simple fact of life that in nature, animals are very rarely white, unless they live in the arctic. The orcs are portrayed as semi-nocturnal, and there are very few nocturnal animals that fit the bill for being "white."

I just guess that if you want to see something bad enough, you'll see it whether it's really there or not.

[Bess the Bard]

I don't find LOTR to be a racist book. I don't think Tolkien was a racist. But there are some references in the books that are jarring to a 21st century sensibility, which have been enumerated in this discussion.

Tolkien was a product of his time, as we are of ours. So he could be forgiven if some of the common biases of his time slipped into his writing, probably unconsciously.

But for every so-called "racist" reference (which are subtle at best), I can find clear themes of races working together, of "foreigners" being shown as individuals with the same needs and desires as we have. It was the evil of Morgoth and later Sauron, that separated the world of Men and pitted them against each other. Not their racial makeup.

Tolkien was aware of racism in his world. Read his response to a German publisher in the 1930s who wanted to know if he had Jewish ancestors. Tolkien despised the racial superiority nonsense spouted by the Nazis and respected Jewish culture. Many of his British contemporaries did not. I don't think he would ever have consciously made racist assumptions or comments in his work.

I'm glad I live in a time when I have been taught to question assumptions made about a person based on their color or other physical characteristics. It does make me sensitive to a few subtle comments made in LOTR.

But I look at the context and the intent and what else is said, far more clearly in the book. I see that all the races of Middle Earth are prey to the domination of Sauron, that no race is better than another, although each may have particular talents and attributes, and that all the races had to work together to save their world from evil.

That is as far away from racism as it is possible to get. I think it is not Tolkien, but Dr. Shapiro, that sees the world only in terms of black and white.

[Devilwrites]

"I think it is not Tolkien, but Dr. Shapiro, that sees the world only in terms of black and white."

*applaudes wildly*

Thank you for that very accurate and right on statement. :)

[kjsohn02]

I believe the professor has a point and agree with some of what he says.

Tolken was a byproduct of his times, and during those times, societies weren't as racially inclusive as they are now. When I read the appendix of the Orcs and Goblins, I was offended (as a black person) by how he described them (tribes can't even understand each other). Tolken was from Africa- but South Africa which only within the last 15 years has ceased Apartheird, so he probably carries some of his ideas with the text that many Afrikaans did (that was the title of whites in South Africa at that time). There is one quote when the orcs are talking to each other and call the people of Rohan "Whiteskins." That didn't register with me.

Personally I think that there are a lot of racist subtexts in LOTR, but the same time there are a lof of racially inclusive subtexts in the film (the dwarves and elves dislike for each other racially until Gimli and Legolas form their friendship).

Tolken might have been a racist- he might have not. LOTR is an English mythology, so I would assume that the characters would be white, but the detail that was given to "The Enemy" does raise concerns. The problem with bringing a movie to book is now these characters you had your own idea of how they looked (racially) and subject to someone else's interpretations- naimly Peter Jackson. I thought that Boromir, Faramir, and Lord Denathor were Arab/Black due to my own interpretations of reality, but when it goes to film, we are given the image of what it should be.

Personally, all the problems I have with LOTR aren't equal with how much I enjoy the book. It's a great piece of literature and I can't sait until Wednesday when I get out of work and see probably the best film I've ever seen.

[Daisy Gamgee]

I think a few people have said this, but Tolkien was subjected to the happenings of his time. I'm not sure of this, but I would take Tolkien as growing up around the time of the Boer war. He would have read or heard the British or the "Empire's" slant on the war. This may have influenced what he wrote about, and his descriptions. They may seem to be racist now, but when Tolkien was establishing the story, his views may have been commonplace throughout England. I think that until the 50's/60's Britain was a racist country - most people felt threatened by black people who came to Britain - mainly due to what was written in the papers. There was a great deal of propaganda that led people to assume the worst of these newcomers.

[Miruvor]

Well, really, LOTRs had some gay undertones and some sexist undertones also. People, as others have stated, can see into the books, what they can relate to.

Welcome kjsohn02. Interesting point about your envisioning the Gondor people as dark-skinned. Just goes to show how reading allows one to picture the content based on their own foundations. Unfortunately, the movie medium doesn't leave that flexibility. But by saying that PJ, (coming from his own white New Zealand foundation), thinks his movie images are what SHOULD be, is attributing to him, more deliberation on the subject than I think exists. You did not claim that YOUR imaginings were what things SHOULD be. Only what IS, in your frame of reference. Same with him.

Thinking back on my parents as a reference point to Tolkien’s generation, I'd still like to believe Tolkien evaded some of the environmentally learned prejudices of his time by the fact that he left South Africa at a young age, and that he lost his parents too early to be very subliminally indoctrinated by them; and also, by having an open mind as many educated people do -- enough to see the injustices in the world and be less affected by peer pressure than most.

Even now, we are not fully exorcised of prejudice, but, in general, I think the English were ahead of the American's in letting go of it. As for New Zealanders? Maybe one of them can tell us.

[PS, Gollum, a Hobbit, is described in the book many times as being black. But if he had lived underground for 500 years, he SHOULD be like a translucent albino. Therefore, I think Tolkien strongly used the black and white (and "many-colored" Saruman) in an archetypal way, rather than to indicate race.]

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Miruvor
[B]Well, really, LOTRs had some gay undertones and some sexist undertones also. People, as others have stated, can see into the books, what they can relate to.

and also, by having an open mind as many educated people do -- enough to see the injustices in the world and be less affected by peer pressure than most.


I may be stereotyping here, but I would not have attributed the Professors from the Ox-Bridge Universities as having wildly open minds.These establishments were by nature very traditionalist, and were not liberal in their views. It was a distinctly upper class environment, and these views, except for the minority, would have been "not in my Country". Whether the Professors would have the same view as the administration board I'm not sure. This may have not been Tolkiens views, but the world he was living in was still like this.

Also, an educated mind does not necessarily lend itself to an open mind. For example there are many scientists that do not believe that there is (now) life on other planets, yet you would have thought that they would be among the first to admit that there is the possibility that there is planets similar to ours that are capable of having life.

I personally don't feel that there is anything wrong with how the book is written, but somebody who has grown up with a different background may think there is. Our views and what we read into something can be influenced heavily by what we know and have experienced.

[Finrod Felagund]

I think this PhD is just trying to stir up some publicity and get his name in the paper by besmirching one very hot item (LOTR) with another(Racism). And he's succeeding

[Bess the Bard]

Absolutely spot on with that one, Finrod. :gofatty:

[Tar-Palantir]

Well, as for the Racist undertones, I never thought of that while reading the book, im now reading it for the fourth time this year.
And I have never found any racist undertones, perhaps only because I wanted to read the story and not accuse Tolkien of things such as Racism and Anti-Feminism.
Those who have read Tolkiens books with racism on their minds would find it, same goes for EVERY piece of literary work.
You can try it at home, probably you can find them in childrens books, if you look hard enough. And possibly change some places, or misinterpret.
I also welcome kjsohn02, it's good to have you on the board, and you really personify that LOTR can be read from any point of view and be a good book.

Now that im done here, can't we all just read the books, have fun, and get along? (That also goes for all those who think Tolkien is racist)

[Tar-Palantir]

I forgot one thing.
Wasn't Tolkien very religious?
I am a Christian, and I also belive that every human is worth the same as another. And from an entirely scientific point of view I think that racism is just one thing, dumb!

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Those who have read Tolkiens books with racism on their minds would find it, same goes for EVERY piece of literary work.
You can try it at home, probably you can find them in childrens books, if you look hard enough. And possibly change some places, or misinterpret.

Now that im done here, can't we all just read the books, have fun, and get along? (That also goes for all those who think Tolkien is racist)

That's a great way to explain it. I have to agree with you on that one. This sure has been an interesting discussion hasn't it? It seemed to bring a few of us newbies here at least...

[Lady Melody]

Nah, Tolkien's not a racist, the black and white thing, represented in almost EVERY culture, is there. Skin colour or anything doesn't really count, for me, it's just evoulution's way of protecting ourselves from the sun (Melanin).... Elves are supposingly slant-eyed, delicate yada yada... but that doesn't make them evil... du-uh...

But mostly people with pointed ears are evil, usually.

The only thing I dissaprove of anything in Tolkien is the fact that there's barely any heroic women in the story (yikes!)..except that Tolkien potrayed them as fighting also in their own way....

Oh,yeah.... is it just me or doesn the Easterlings wear somehow 'Arabic' clothings.... I'm not THAT racist or anything, but I find it a little offending... for all sides.... there's no sandstorms in anywhere that has 4 seasons for God's sake, whats the stupid face covering for?? It looks out of place, and not only that, I feel sorry for the poor actors who cannot breathe during the shooting.

Speculative, isn't it?

[Tar-Palantir]

Well, the arabic clothing was in the movies, or?

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Lady Melody
The only thing I dissaprove of anything in Tolkien is the fact that there's barely any heroic women in the story (yikes!)..except that Tolkien potrayed them as fighting also in their own way....

Oh,yeah.... is it just me or doesn the Easterlings wear somehow 'Arabic' clothings.... I'm not THAT racist or anything, but I find it a little offending... for all sides.... there's no sandstorms in anywhere that has 4 seasons for God's sake, whats the stupid face covering for?? It looks out of place, and not only that, I feel sorry for the poor actors who cannot breathe during the shooting.

Speculative, isn't it?

I think the whole sexist thing has been argued before. But, again here is another area that you can argue is a result of the time Tolkien was writing in. During the wars, women weren't allowed to go fight - they stayed at home and helped the war efforts by doing mens usual jobs, and looking after the community. This may be viewed as sexist now, but back then I doubt it would have been. And although, what the women were doing was necessary to help the war, it wouldn't have been considered heroic, unlike the men who were suffering in the trenches.
And as to the sandstorms, we have four seasons, and get dust storms, parts of America do too, and I can imagine being stuck in one without a face cover would not be fun. I kinda imagined them coming from an Eypt type place with the use of Mumakins and stuff.

[Rumil]

I don't think that Tolkien was racist and I'm pretty sure that LOTR isn't racist. Nevertheless the novel does contain references to racial conflict. I am always a little bit uneasy when i read the line "out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues". The north west of middle earth is basically western europe and men elsewhere (Khand, Rhun, Harad etc) have all fallen under the spell of evil (NB not that they are necessarily evil) but nevertheless they serve Sauron. This kind of thing can be used by racists. The British National Party ( a UK white supremacist group) has LOTR on its website and claims that Tolkien believed in racial purity (largely because of the theme of the blood of lesser men diminishing the numenoreans - which can be made to read like Nazi eugenics. I personally think that this is about a million miles away from Tolkien but that the books CAN be interpreted in a racist way.

[Lady Melody]

I don't imagine that dust storms is any problem in Middle earth... it's probably mild.

[Tar-Palantir]

As I said, your own viewpoint changes the way you read and interpret the books.

[Lady Melody]

I know, but I believe my knowledge in Geography (which is I tell you pitifully small) does not allow it....

Both my sisters have been living in England for years and none of them have ever told me of any darned sandstorms there!! Neither did my cousin who was studying in America.... NYC I think.

And I can assure you I certainly didn't flunk the subject at school.

[Ruin's Fate]

Here is the answer to this question of light and dark. To do this we must first travel to the battle of helm's deep (use the movie as a visual aid). Ok, now replace all the orcs will 1000s upon 1000s of Galadriels, all pounding their weapons and speaking in the black tongue (and glowing pale white too boot). REAL MENACING right....boy those poor Rohaners must be crappin' their pants.

[Lady Melody]

lol... hehehehe...

Yeap, you're right. Instilled in most human cultures black just simply means bad. Before anyone decides to go an all assault of racism here... humans are all shades of Brown, neither Black nor White. It's the only sort of darkening or lightening the human melanin can produce. Except for Sophie Ellis Baxtor, which I swear she seriously needs a tan of some sort. I don't want to stumble into her in the middle of the night anywhere... she looks like a ghost! No offence, she's real pretty, but...

It's just a misunderstanding, when you look at it thoroughly.

[Lorien]

Does it matter? If this PHd person thinks Tolkien is racist he is quacked. I believe like Finrod that he is only trying to get publicity. Anyway Fatty did say this was an old document so maybe this Phd guy changed his mind. You never know. Anyway, good point Lady Melody, everyone is brown it just the way the sun has made your skin. For all you know anyone of you could have black in your background and through the ages your skin turned white. This is just a theory of mine that I say when racisism is the topic. Anyway, see TTT it rocks.

[Lord of the Nazgul]

I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if this has been said already, but wasn't Tolkien like REALLY religious? Racism isn't really accepted in Christianity. I don't want to say anymore cause then I'll go rambling on and it ain't pretty. Out of the posts I did read I agree with people that say this guy just wants publicity.

[Rumil]

OK i am being at least a little devil's advocate here :flamer: and i dont think that the article cited does justice to the claims. The point about Tolkien being racist does not rest upon his using black and white in symbolic moral terms. IMO it rests upon his creation of Numenoreans - genetically superior human beings who form a master race. Numenoreans are 'kings of men' (inherently and genetically superior to 'lesser' men). As a book LOTR is one that dwells a fair amount on racial purity and the 'mingling' of 'pure' Numenorean blood with that of inferior men. Even Eowyn and Faramir are aware of this 'racism':

"And would you have your proud folk say of you:'There goes a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North! Was there no woman of the race of Numenor to choose?'

'I would', said Faramir"

Thus these two characters know they will be criticised for entering a 'mixed race' marriage. Now as I have said before I think Tolkien is very far away from being racist, but nevertheless his blood purity theme has startling similarities with Nazi eugenics. We can sit here and scoff at the idea as much as we like but i don't think it is entirely unfounded.

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Lord~of~the~Nazgul
I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if this has been said already, but wasn't Tolkien like REALLY religious? Racism isn't really accepted in Christianity.

IMO, a person's religion doesn't realy have any affect on whether they are racist. Theres alot of trouble in the world that are due to people not liking another persons religion - isn't this one form of racism?

but nevertheless his blood purity theme has startling similarities with Nazi eugenics

I wouldn't say this. Tolkien based his works on mythology. If you look at other works, like the Arthurian legends, you will find that the higher classes were very inter bred, and didn't tend to mix that much with any other class. If you look at the many European Royal families, you will see that they are all linked to one or two blood lines - they tended to stick to their own, and not bred with families with "lesser" blood - even the blood lines of smaller Royal countries, which would have been deemed less powerful by the major Royals. Although in the last 2 centuries, some thinning down of blood lines has occured.

[Ruin's Fate]

Meh, Mr. PhD (you know you can buy those things online right?) isn't worth the arrow needed to shut his arse up.

Simple question, LotR has been published for almost 50 years...why now? Wouldn't have anything to do with an imensely popular movie series now would it?

[Catz]

Rumil...interesting thought :thumbs:......but i think Daisy has the right of it.........not so much a racist POV as that of a monarchist and believer in the divine right of kings.....this could i guess be seen as a type of racism.....but only in its broadest definition
:catz:

[Tar-Palantir]

Meh, Mr. PhD (you know you can buy those things online right?) isn't worth the arrow needed to shut his arse up.

Ruin's Fate, can you explain this for me? And make it legible?

[Daisy Gamgee]

I think what he may be saying is that firstly, you can buy qualifications on line without actually doing anything, and secondly its not worth wasting an arrow to kill the PhD, therefore, shutting his arse up (I assume Ruin means that the PhD talks out of said arse lol)

[Meaghan]

stoooop! I feel sorry for the PhD Sir now! Poor guy! he is in troubles!

[Arwen Elf]

I think that is propaganda. Tolkien of course was an expert in Medieval history. I only think of it as what a medieval legend would be like. I don't think he was even thinking about races. The reason that orcs are black-as in TOTALLY black, not the skin color- is that black has always been representative of evil. Saruman is totally white and he is evil. I really don't think Tolkien was that ignorant. Most of his races have issues too (Ex. Legolas and Gimli) and I thought his joining groups together was the exact opposite of what Monsieur said. Sometimes I think poeple have to always have something to complain about. I don't know much, but it does not take an idiot to see that this is no Mein Kampf!pfbbt verymad

[Undomiel]

Personally i dont think that Tolkien was RACIST as such. It's a very difficult topic and by no means clear cut. I've suffered racial abuse and i can see racial implications in the books especially. The Southrons, the Easterlings, the men of Harad. All from the East and the South. And i quote:

"For a moment he caught a glimpse of swarthy men in red....................................His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold"

It is far too obviously linked to africa and especially with the inclusion of "oliphaunts".

HOWEVER, i have to say that for my part i dont think that Tolkien was trying to be racist. I think he believed the people of Africa and other mainly (at the time) non-christian nations to be misunderstood. He was a devout catholic and i can't help feeling he felt these people needed to be shown the true religion-which by the way i dont agree with at all. However, the book was written a long time ago. I doubt that he actually hated people of other races or thought them inferior. Indeed Sam thinks after he sees the Southron man:

"what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home."

Unfortunately i was not too happy to note that PJ didnt change this in the films. I had hoped that the Easterling and Southrons wouldnt be dark-skinned. I was disappointed to see that they were wearing eyeliner and that the writing on their robes look worryingly like Arabic script. I realise that PJ was trying to keep to the books, but given the present world climate I dont think that it was a good idea. Since the attacks on the Twin Towers, racial hatred has increased, particularly against Islam-which, although i'm not Muslim myself i utterly condemn.

I don't think PJ is racist at all, and i love the books and the films. Particularly i can forgive the books, things were certainly not as PC when they were written. I do wish that PJ had changed it for the film though.

[Tar-Palantir]

This debate will never end, or at least not in a very long time. Or perhaps tomorrow? Or today? We do not know what the future holds for us.

[Lord of the Nazgul]

Originally posted by Undomiel
HOWEVER, i have to say that for my part i dont think that Tolkien was trying to be racist.

I agree with that much, but the only reason it was probably linked to Africa was because Middle-earth is centered around Europe, for they thought themselves the center of the world, calling it Middle-erthe. Tolkien used that lost name for his story, also including danger in the east such as invaders from China and Mongolia and so on, but I, too, doubt he was being racist. That is why Africa would be included, but in a different way.

[Catz]

i think were making a pretty big assumption of race here from basically one word.......swarthy
now that does mean dark.........but dark to an english person of Anglo Saxon descent doesnt have to be very dark at all.........some Cornishmen can be described as swarthy, and theyre most def not african...........were also reading a lot into the directions i feel.......just because we have hang ups about the east or south we should not lay that onto a work of fiction.......i just feel were reading waaaay too much into this
:catz:

[Thorondor of Manwe]

First of all I want to say that I am Native American - or what some people would call a "person of color." I first read The Hobbit and LOTR thirty-three years ago. I have read the books four times - along with several other Tolkien Middle-Earth books. I also studied Tolkien's source material after reading the first book written about Tolkien's influences - "Understanding Tolkien" A Look Behind the Lord of the Rings - written by Lin Carter and published in the early '70s.

I know what racism is. I've lived with it all my life. In their history with Euro-Americans, Native Americans were subjected to "Manifest Destiny." Manifest Destiny was a belief system through which powerful, white Amercians, of European descent, "justified" their genocide, ethnocide, and ecocide of Native America. Essentially, through Manifest Destiny, white people believed that they had a right to the Americas - a right given to them by God. This idea of white "righteousness" forms the basis of racism today and, in particular, finds expression through institutional racism.

I should also add that I have a BA in Ethnic Studies. Basically, Ethnic Studies is a discipline that studies racism.

The reason that I am writing all this is that I haven't - nor have I ever - considered Tolkien nor his books, as racist. And, because Peter Jackson's LOTR is an extension of Tolkien, I likewise do not consider the movie as racist.

I've read several articles that claim that LOTR is racist. "Politically correct" critics seem to see racism expressed through the equation of black with evil. One journalist of Japanese descent, claimed racism because the Easterling, who was in the liege of Sauron, wore Samuri styled armor - thus, TTT was racist because Asian people were equated with evil.

The one thing that I learned in Ethnic Studies is that is no such thing as race. Race is a socially constructed idea. There is only one race - the human race, composed of many different cultures.

To my thinking, Tolkien's works are not about race and the superiority of one race over another. Rather, Tolkien's themes are about universal human values. Good vs bad, temptation, sacrifice, redemption.

If anything, Tolkien wrote about the beauty of tribalism. The mythologies that influenced his works - in particular, Nordic myths - were mythologies of peoples who had retained their connection Mother Earth.

Christian themes, themes that some have claimed underlie Tolkien's world, really had nothing to do with the peoples, or the world, that Tolkien had created. Indeed, it was Christianity, supported through the military might of Roman legions, that destroyed the tribes of Northern Europe. However, I am not suggesting that Sauron represents Christianity.

But it is clear that Tolkien wrote about a world that was undergong mass changes, and that those peoples who had spiritual/religious belief systems rooted in Mother Earth were being enveloped by those changes. And, those changes were being wrought through man's subjugation of the Earth.

The idea of Earth's destruction, and the wrongness of it, formed an important theme in Tolkien's works. Think of the trees uprooted by the White Hand Orcs and tossed into the Saruman's pits. Think of Treebeard and the Ents' destruction of Isengard.

LOTR is NOT an allegory about race and superiority of race. It is really an allegory about ecocide. It is this theme that needs to be addressed.

[Catz]

thank you Thorondor.....beautifully put:cool: youve articulated just how i feel
:catz:

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Thorondor of Manwe

To my thinking, Tolkien's works are not about race and the superiority of one race over another. Rather, Tolkien's themes are about universal human values. Good vs bad, temptation, sacrifice, redemption.

[/B]

I certainly agree with this sentiment, well actually I think with your whole post, but this is the bit that stuck out at me the most. These human values affect us all, no matter what religion or country or background we come from and so to that matter Tolkien is writing a book about the human race. Its also about the various sections of the human race overcoming their troubles to get along and achieve a common goal - if only they could manage that in todays climate!

[Thorondor of Manwe]

Originally posted by Lord~of~the~Nazgul
...Racism isn't really accepted in Christianity.

Hmmmmm...to say that racism isn't accepted by Christianity is like saying priests haven't raped and molested little boys. The fact that such molestation has occurred - worldwide - in historic times and in contemporary times indicates to me that Christianity has had a difficult time living by the morals that it teaches.

As for racism, the early Church very clearly delineated between those peoples who were Christian - white, non-tribal peoples of Western/Southern Europe - and those peoples who were culturally divergent - tribal, non-Christian peoples of Eurasia, Asia, Africa - and, later, the Americas.

In 1216, Pope Innocent III wrote Quod super his. Without getting into a lot of details here, the sum of Quod super his was that it was a discourse that identified non-Christian culturally divergent peoples as infidels and heathens. Because these peoples were culturally divergent - i.e., they differed culturally, and, for the most part, racially, from white, Christian European peoples - they were given a choice. They could accept Christianity and, if so, come under the yoke of Christian kings who would rule over them, or, if they chose not to accept Christianity, they would be invaded and destroyed by Christian knights and their lands would be taken away. Essentially, Quod super his was the basis for the Crusades, which, in turn, led to the invasion of Spain and the campaign against the Moors. The Moors were, of course, black.

Innocent's doctrine was also used against the tribal peoples of Northern Europe. Although these peoples were Caucasian, they lived under tribal social structures. Thus, the Romans - who espoused the canons of Judeo-Christian ethics - invaded Northern Europe. The result was that the culturally divergent peoples of Northern Europe were brought under the yoke of Christianity.

Innocent's Quod super his was later incorporated into the Church and "legally" sanctioned the conquest of non-Christian lands. The fact that Quod super his was used against those lands that was inhabited by non-white peoples, would make the doctrine racial. This is further evidenced by the fact that Northern European counties were allowed to keep their own kings because those countries were inhabited by white peoples - however, in those countries that were not only culturally divergent, but also racially different, the people were ruled by Christian rulers, who were white. And, the peoples were often reduced to the status of slaves who were forced to extract their mineral wealth - gold, silver or other goods that had value - and use it to pay tribute to their Christian rulers.

[Tar-Palantir]

That Thorondor should end this debate. Well said! :)

[Herenyë]

Hello!

Well after reading the article....it seems true but i just wanted to point this out.....(agreeing with GowPon) IT IS JUST A MOVIE AND A BOOK!!!!!!!!! if he meant that he should of said that in like the newspaper or something.......and this book might have been band.....if you know what i mean......i dont really agree its just A MOVIE!!!!! and plus it is also a BOOK!!!!!.......this book doesnt really have like a races thing going on from my point of view cuz first of all this has RACES going TOGETHER to fight the evil dudes......they come together no matter what race they are....they come together.....they fight together......they do everything together.....and like he said that hobbits are amazingly white (also elves) is that a bad thing? cuz like i think the elves look good like that.....some might be toned but who cares....its just a movie and its just a book.....just have fun with it....cuz really this is a really good book......so just dont go deep into it.....cuz really i think there isnt really anything to argue about :grin:....so basically, dont go deep in it cuz there is no reason for it.....just enjoy the book and enjoy the movie.....thank you. (hope you understand my point of view :grin:)

[Tar-Palantir]

I understand what you mean, though it required some time for me to read what you had written ;)

Summary of these posts : Tolkien was NOT racist!

[Undomiel]

i definitely dont think tolkien was a racist. I do think this is a pretty sensitive issue though. There are going to be people with different opinions. I'm half-Indian, so i've had a lot of problems with racism, not just from English people but from Indian people as well. While as i said, i agree that Tolkien wasnt racist, i still feel it was a shame that PJ didnt change some details in the film, such as the ones i've stated. I dont have a problem with orcs and other fantasy creatures. It just the men. What i really hate is to see one of my favourite books and films being used to support groups like the BNP. It makes me sad because i love these books and i love the films and having these people who would want me out of the country say that it supports their theories makes me feel ill. It's like they are trying to say "if you read these books you agree with us" and that makes me so mad. I doubt most of them have even read them.

[Tar-Palantir]

They look for every single opportunity to strike a blow at people they don't like. verymad mecry

[Rumil]

Originally posted by Undomiel
i I doubt most of them have even read them.

Absolutely true - they are trying to appropriate something which is way above their petty hatred or understanding.

[Herenyë]

The thing is they just dont know how it feels if people dont like them because of what they are..........can they just let this be......i just want to just tell them that this is a book which is for entertainment..........and the movie is entertainment...........if this book was for pointing this view out then like Tolkien could of just said that............but did he say that? NO he didnt so then this doesnt mean he is racist or this doesnt mean that he made this movie to show people that he doesnt like people who arent british or white..........i just wish i can smack those people........GRRRRR........i hate it when they make something we all love into a issue that isnt nessesary.......GRRRR (sorry about the spelling :grin: )

[Tar-Palantir]

I want to add a last thing to this debate.

In RotK there were 'Swarthy' men of Gondor, fighting for Gondor in the Battle of The Pelennor Fields.
Think about that!

[Fëalossë]

Originally posted by Thorondor of Manwe
Hmmmmm...to say that racism isn't accepted by Christianity is like saying priests haven't raped and molested little boys.

If you're going to slash Christianity, don't make reference to the Pope and Catholic preists. Christianity does not in any way support racism. Jesus never once taught that any man is more than any other; and whatever "doctrine" came from the minds of the Popes is of no concern to any who claim to follow Jesus. Christianity means "following Christ," not following imperfect Popes. They were human, as are the rest of us.

And as for those priests... Well, never mind.

Anyways, now that I'm done ranting (sorry), I (mostly) agree with Herenyë; it's a little crazy to hate the Lord of the Rings because you're being suspicious of the author. Sometimes I feel like smacking people around too. I just don't think it was necessary for Tolkien to have set up his world with "good" in the West, and "bad" in the South.

However, in the Silmarillion, Melkor's fortresses were in the North, but at that time he didn't have men openly fighting for him.

[Gwaihir]

I agree with you on Christianity, Fealosse. I myself is a Christian. But let us not go any farther than this on the subject, because people can feel strongly about their beliefs.
I do not think Tolkien was a racist. I don't think I even care if he was one(don't get me wrong... he is my fav author of all time). It would not affect my love of the books.

[Tar-Palantír]

Well, the comments by Sam should really sum up this debate.

The most probable reason would be that the Southrons and Easterlings were fighting because they were decieved by Sauron. Perhaps even so as Sauron fooled them into thinking that the Gondorians and Elves were the real "bad-guys" and they were fighting them.
And as for the good people in the West of Middle-Earth that could be explained by the simple fact that Tolkien had to put them somewhere, and it simply became West, probably because England lies in the West of Europe.

There, let's just try to end this rather silly debate ;)