Racism and Lord of the Rings
From the Guardian (UK), “Wraiths and race“:
It was the same with The Phantom Menace - I had no choice. When part of your childhood is playing down the road on a big screen with surround sound and popcorn, there’s no escape. But as the wonder of discovering that there was more to New Zealand than sheep wore off, something began to worry me.
Maybe it was the way that all the baddies were dressed in black, or maybe it was the way that the fighting uruk-hai had dreadlocks, but I began to suspect that there was something rotten in the state of Middle Earth.
Perhaps Dubya’s war on terror is making me a bit uneasy, or maybe it’s just good old-fashioned Guardian-reading imperial guilt, but there was something about watching a bunch of pale faces setting off into the east to hack some guys with dark faces into little bits that made me feel a little queasy.
When I got home I dug out my copy of The Lord of the Rings from a box somewhere - okay, so I pulled it straight off the shelf - and found there was worse to come. The Two Towers is the story of the battle between Isengard and Rohan. In the good corner, the riders of Rohan, aka the “Whiteskins”: “Yellow is their hair, and bright are their spears. Their leader is very tall.” In the evil corner, the orcs of Isengard: “A grim, dark band… swart, slant-eyed” and the “dark” wild men of the hills. So the good guys are white and the bad guys are, erm… black.
This genetic determinism drives the plot in the most brutal manner. White men are good, “dark” men are bad, orcs are worst of all. While 10,000 orcs are massacred with a kind of Dungeons and Dragons version of biological warfare, the wild men left standing at the end of the battle are packed off back to their homes with nothing more than slapped wrists.
We also get a sneak preview of the army that’s going to be representing the forces of darkness in part three. Guess what: “Dark faces… black eyes and long black hair, and gold rings in their ears… very cruel wicked men they look”. They come from the east and the south. They wield scimitars and ride elephants.
Perhaps I’d better come right out and say it. The Lord of the Rings is racist. It is soaked in the logic that race determines behaviour. Orcs are bred to be bad, they have no choice. The evil wizard Saruman even tells us that they are screwed-up elves. Elves made bad by a kind of devilish genetic modification programme. They deserve no mercy.
To cap it all, the races that Tolkien has put on the side of evil are then given a rag-bag of non-white characteristics that could have been copied straight from a BNP leaflet. Dark, slant-eyed, swarthy, broad-faced - it’s amazing he doesn’t go the whole hog and give them a natural sense of rhythm.
Scratch the surface of Tolkien’s world and you’ll find a curiously 20th-century myth. Begun in the 1930s, published in the 1950s, it’s shot through with the preoccupations and prejudices of its time. This is no clash of noble adversaries like the Iliad, no story of our common humanity like the Epic of Gilgamesh. It’s a fake, a forgery, a dodgy copy. Strip away the archaic turns of phrase and you find a set of basic assumptions that are frankly unacceptable in 21st-century Britain.
But it’s the same with The Attack of the Clones - I’ve got no choice. Maybe the fizzy pop will go to my head, maybe the Pearl and Dean music will be able to work its magic, but I’m worried that the popcorn is going to taste a bit wrong - I’m worried that childhood isn’t going to be quite so much fun the second time around.
December 8th, 2002 at 4:52 am
If the good guys were black and the white guys evil, would it make any difference?
Villains in movies are almost always English (sometimes German,) bad guys tend to be white with blonde hair (with the possible exception of Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man, he was half way there though.) You don’t get English and German guys with blonde hair yelling descrimination, do you? (Myself being English/German relation with blonde hair.)
If it makes you uneasy or not, black (not as a skin colour) is associated with negative things, white is associated with positive. This is not racism, but psychological reality. Kids get scared of the dark, not the light. Resident evil is set in a dimly lit mansion, not a well lit hotel.
People should be careful before crying racism. It’s a serious claim.
December 8th, 2002 at 10:54 am
People should be careful before crying racism. It’s a serious claim.
It’s even more serious to spout nonsense by way of defending racism. Your “psychological reality” bit is absurd and irrelevant.
The difference between portraying villains as black and portraying them as white is just the difference of 400 years of oppressive history. But then when you’re committed to defending racism at any cost, what’s a little history?
December 8th, 2002 at 4:27 pm
i think you have a point in stating that there is blatant racism in the series, but you are also overreacting. tolkien wrote his books during a specific period of time, and i dont think the movie would have worked if they had changed all that. another example is a distinct lack of strong female characters. a lot of “classic” literature suffers the same fate, but its not like its all going to be rewritten now is it? *shrug*
December 9th, 2002 at 12:08 am
I am extreme when it comes to race related issues, but you are definitely overreacting.
December 9th, 2002 at 2:23 am
Aparna is exactly right. My girlfriend, a dedicated lover of the series, reminded me that there are only four female characters in the entire series. She likes the series, but also sees them as sexist.
December 9th, 2002 at 11:54 am
“Aparna” grants that LOTR contains blatant racism, but then says that my pointing out that relevant fact in this context is overreacting.
At any rate, re: sexism, that LOTR is blatantly racist (or, more accurately: that it blatantly appeals to racist imagery and representations) is in no way mutually exclusive with it also being sexist. It’s not, alas, a case of either-or, but both-and.
Finally, as for the question of rewriting classic texts, I’m not suggesting that the LOTR movies shouldn’t have been made. I actually was fairly entertained by the first one. The question is simply one of educating ourselves, especially people who liked the books or movies, about some of the politics involved, which may or may not lead you to read or not read, view or not view, other books or movies, and so on.
That racist representations are often overlooked is part of the problem. I’m just trying to make it harder to overlook them.
December 9th, 2002 at 2:46 pm
First point: I suspect that LOTR is rooted a bit more in a Die Nibelungen sensibility, thus its racism is likewise rooted in a more general anti-Semitism (in the broadest sense) than a specifically anti-African sensibility (though, surely, it all gets blurry). Thinking of it in terms of Orientalism seems fruitful.
Second point: Oh yeah, it’s pretty damn sexist, as was pointed out. Seems to be *more* a reason to complain rather than less.
Third point: The deep biologicization of character differences (which John Yatt noted) should be a matter of thought and concern *even* independant of its straightforward mapping onto extant oppressive structures. I.e., even if the biological markers were *reversed* (black becomes good, white becomes bad; note to the “psychological reality” guy: think about culture where white is associated with death, or even the LOTR depiction of Gollum and his environs. “The dark” != black, or even Black in any non-socially conditional context (or at least most of them)), that is, *even if* the biological markers were reversed, I would hope that the brute biologicalization of difference would something to *debate*, at least in the readers mind. Would such a world be a good thing?
When considered as allegory, it becomes more worrisome. When considered on its own terms, it seems clear that Tolkien failed to provide enough structure to push his readership into serious engagement with the issue of Biological Determinism. Hmm. Although, there is the notion of hobbits acting against type, or evolving under a variety of pressures. Ringbearing changes Frodo (and Bilbo, and Gollum) in fundemental ways, and not all for the clearly worse. (Hmm. Though the taste for adventure does have a decidedly biological taste, as it’s thought to stem from Bilbo’s and Frodo’s bad Took blood, IIRC. I don’t know that Tolkien did enough to distinguish the “social” inheritence possibility, but I’m not clear that he didn’t.)
Fourth point: I don’t see that John Yatt was advocating *rewriting* Tolkien, even for the movie (though they *did*, in order to play up one of the female characters! why go that far and no further?), just acknowledging its rather deep problems. This is good, yes? Isn’t pointing out the racism, the deep systematic racism, the *advocation* of genocidal racism a good thing? Especially when it appears in a fairly influential work, one which manages to dodge some criticism by being a “fantasy” and other criticism by being a “classic”?
I find it disingenuous to use one’s *status* as an anti racism advocate to make a *purely* authoratative dismissal. Why should we conclude, Cathryn, from your post that John Yatt is too extreme instead of you being not radical enough? I would be happier with your radicalness if your post contained a *critique*. Is it *extreme* to notice the racism of LOTR? Or just to be disturbed by it? I find this piece to be *as much* about John Yatt being disturbed at finding out that a cherish childhood book was so racist and that he didn’t know it at the time. Why *shouldn’t* that worry him? I mean, our childhood experiences shape our later lives, yes?
Aside from being somewhat empty, such dismissal is dangerous. It brands John Yatt as a loony. But, pretty clearly, he isn’t, especially in this piece (IMHO). Why would you, radical antiracist, want to merely disparage a fellow traveler and ally? Why only disparagement and no debate?
Final point: Even if we don’t want to rewrite the past, I don’t see why we want to be ignorant of what it really was. Perhaps more importantly, we don’t want to *replicate* it. If you look at the fantasy bookshelves, you’ll see dozens and dozens of Tolkinesque books which exactly repeat the Tolkien problematicities. Shouldn’t we strive to do better? What would be the *wrongness* of striving to write something that condemned Tolkien to the remainder piles and *wasn’t* racist? Or perhaps writers can be encouraged to engage with Tolkien’s racism, or the issues he papered over, if we rub their faces in it.
I just don’t see where silence on the racism of LOTRs serves *any* good purpose, personal or political.
December 9th, 2002 at 5:06 pm
The fact that the Vanguard News Network gave the first movie a rave review did give me pause.
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/movie75.htm
December 10th, 2002 at 10:13 am
jello: Yeek! That is a very disturbing review. One thing interesting to me about it was it’s *rejection* of the biologic reading of the various Tolkien races, even in allegorical form. Rather, the races represent “parts of the soul” (so a differnet sort of allegory), and the LORTs becomes a Platonicesque tale about internal struggle to find balance, reflected in the overarching sociopolitical struggle.
That’s neither an impluasible, nor an unintelligent reading. Maddness ensues as it’s tied firmly back to white superiority. Well, actually, the review both starts and ends with that, with the opening paragraphs a bizarrely rapturous hymn to the physicality of both the actors (with all those luminos blue eyes!) and the landscape (no *wonder* the English coveted New Zeland! yeek!).
The interesting question, in the current context, I suppose is exactly how perverted a reading this is, and exactly what the problematicities are for the artists and producers are.
Let me make the assumption, which seems plausible, that Peter Jackson et al aren’t active, super-hostile bigots. Indeed, I would imagine that they’d be disgusted and horrified by the reading given in that review or the thought that they were creating “White culture”. But clearly this is a bit of *white* culture, which is hardly suprising given it’s fairly fanatical devotion to the books. Let’s grant that Tolkien was of his time and place and, even if not manifestly noxious, subject to the corruptions of perspective of his age. Faithful rendition of his work would replicate those corruptions, regardless of the general sensibilities of the interpreters.
Of course, those who see a possible libertory (or simply other aspects) of the work, might choose *which parts* they are faithful to. That is, they might strive to bring the work closer to what it might have been without the distortions (as I am calling them ) of Tolkien’s racist clime.
For a strong rejection of the LOTR as racist, see
http://www.monkeyx.com/archives/000222.html
“”"For me the issue of racism never presented itself on my reading of LOTR and I’ve found the allegations somewhat funny. Even examined without the context of Tolkien’s own personal quest for a spiritual understanding which fought against the darkness of fascism in Euorpe at the time he wrote LOTR, it still stands out as a story of racial integration within my mind. The protaganists may be white in skin colour but they are literally of different races, forced to come together to thwart a greater evil which attempts to deceive, seduce and destroy them. If that’s not a model for noble multicultralism and plural values, I don’t know what is.”"”
The review goes on to identify Orcs (for example) with “monsters out of our nightmares ” (which makes genocide ok? Actually Tolkien is a bit better than this with the somewhat redemption of Gollum, and with the fact that Orcs are *created*, pretty much by torture). So, we get, again, that the struggle is internal, and thus *not* mappable onto real people or peoples. But one feature of much racist ideology is that the Other races *are* monsters, indeed, the monsters of our nightmares.
Note that the Vanguard review explicitly tries to block the multiculturalist reading *with* the analogy to the parts of the soul. I’m unclear whether this *partial* analogy of Monkey X is quite coherent or well motivated. I mean, the races are *literal* when we’re talking about the good races who work together in cross-cultural toloration (though note the fundemenal isolation of the groups, even with marriage, Elrond’s daughter is *lost* to the Elves forever, and not just eventually with her death!), but when we’re talking about the bad races who are completely evil and perfectly ok to slaughter, then it’s just a metaphor for evil in the soul.
Seems a bit weak. Striking thing is that both review strive to save Tolkien entire: He’s either a total White Supremcist who’s *apparent* deviations can be explained away, or he’s a total anti-racist, who’s apparent deviations can be explained away.
I find the quote from a letter of Tolkien rejecting the need to testify as to his non-Jewishness before getting German publication as some what ambiguous, rather than entirely excusing:
“”"”To set the record straight, the Professor wrote strongly in rejection of Nazi principles, going so far as to refuse the demands of a German publisher in 1938 who wanted proof that he was not Jewish. He risked the opportunity for the first German edition of The Hobbit because he objected so adamantly, saying to Stanley Unwin in a letter:
“Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Besttigung [German for confirmation]…. and let a German translation go hang…. 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.
Does that sound like a man who is racist? “”"”
Well, actually, it does to me. Not the worst sort and I’d want some more context. For example, is he rejecting “race-doctrine” entire, or just the specfically Nazi one? Why does he qualified the absence of Jewish blood as only not *necessarily* honorable?
These questions, even if affirmatively answered, aren’t meant to incite a LOTR burn fest, but rather to get a deeper understanding. In the end, I’ve come to dislike LOTR precisely for the overall mindset, even independant of the more overt racism, of the books, or perhaps, for the mindset that is needed to fully enjoy them. I suspect that a “purged and reformed” LOTR, recast to mitigate the racist and sexist elements (or the bits that are easily “misread” that way) just doesn’t make sense, at any level. Or rather it’d be such a different work for the influence or connection to be only opposition. I also suspect that such a thing would be unpopular.
Another thought, what would a pacifist LOTR look like? Is that even *conceivable*? How about a democratic (rather than a monarchical/aristocratic) one? Note that it has *some* pacifist elements (Frodo, in particular, becomes extremely adverse to killing) and a few democratic ones (hobbits in particular, tend eschew glory and militerism and statism, though they honor, even strongly, the king).
But the lessons can be read both ways in each case. Perhaps this *is* the clever bit. After all, Tolkien is fairly careful to mix triumph with sorrow, achievement with decline, honor with disappointment.
December 10th, 2002 at 5:54 pm
Damn, that VNN review is scary.
I’ll give you racist, and sexist too, but it still sure is a kick-ass book and movie!
Damn damn damn.
Somebody call Tom Joyner’s morning show– he’d love this for his “hidden racism” segment. Although, to be fair, this might be a little more serious than his usual fare… ie “Why is there vanilla coke… and cherry coke… but no CHOCOLATE coke?”
Seriously though, I’m halfway through reading the LOTR series to/with my 5 year old. We finished HP together and moved on to more hearty lit. I’m not gonna stop reading it to him, or not allow him to see the movie, but I will stop long enough to talk to him about the conotations of the color references.
I’ll save that talk for another day though- today being International Human Rights Day, and having just taken my little kindergartener to an anti-war pro-peace rally, I think that’s enough for the boy for one day!
Thanks for pointing this out and making me think. I don’t think you are necessarily “overreacting”, but I’m not going to be boycotting LOTR either.
December 10th, 2002 at 6:10 pm
Thanks for pointing this out and making me think. I don’t think you are necessarily “overreacting”, but I’m not going to be boycotting LOTR either.
Yep; as I said, I enjoyed the first movie: flawed but fun. I read the series when I was a little kid and would certainly not prevent children, if I had them, from reading it, but I would explain it to them. So, as I tried to say before, I’m not suggesting people boycott LOTR, simply think about the world it creates and commends.
December 11th, 2002 at 10:37 am
I’m actually sort of surprised that the PC Thought Police didn’t pressure the makers of the LoTR movies into casting a black Elf, a Jewish Hobbit or a Hispanic Rider of Rohan.
If this is truly the day and age of ‘multi-culturalism’ in which ALL cultures are equally represented, then I say that the LoTR is a beautiful piece of NW European culture.
Is the LoTR more racist than Israeli policies, the Nation of Islam or many Rap groups? Hardly.
December 12th, 2002 at 10:38 am
Only complete and impenetrable ignorance of the mythological traditions that insired LOTR can account for accusations of racism and sexism.
December 12th, 2002 at 3:34 pm
You totaly missed the point. The Lord of the Rings is ANTI- Racist.
The Elves and Dwarves distrust eac hother but over the course of the Books they become allys and friends. Look at how the realationship between Gihmley and Legolas are going to evolve over the movies.
Also there really weren’t too many people of color in pre-modern England that the fictional world of middle earth is based on. Yes there are defiantly people of color in England today but I don’t think so two thousand years ago.
December 12th, 2002 at 4:05 pm
Also Saruman, and Sauron were both white guys and Saruman was not dressed in black he was “Saruman the White”. Also the “black riders” were the old kings of man. All white men I might ad. So the lord of the Rings has multi racial Bad guys and well as multi racial Good guys. Also the Nation of Gondor is to the south as well. Considering the lord of the Rings was influenced by World War one the Orcs would be more influenced by Germany and France. Tolken was a professor of ancient English language and Africa really dosen’t factor in the equation. If you assume that everything remotely European is automatically racist than that in itself.
December 15th, 2002 at 5:27 pm
I get a weird feeling when I read comments concerning racism where the first reaction of the person commenting on someone’s response to a preceived racist slight is “over reaction”. The racist veiws of various “critically acclaimed”authors seem to magically find its way into their writing. I feel “over reaction” is necessary because unless you are a target of the blatently demeaning sterotypical work which finds its way into mass media, screaming “over reaction” has a very hollow ring. Imagine growing up in the United States during the later part of the 1800’s through 1965 as a black person. Take the same idea to Nazi Germany for a child of the Jewish faith. Watching a T.V. show or a motion picture where your race is considered a non-entity with almost zero representation, except for baffoons and maids or butlers has its effect on a youg black mind. It takes lots of positive reinforcement by parents, relatives, anybody, to overcome the effects of a society which is permeated with the idea that you as a black person have no future worth discussing. We must remember , no matter how subtle the racial slight, you will find that the author or screenwriter is a by-product of a institutionally racist environment.This is why politicians like Trent Lott make outragious statemnts concerning their good friend Strom Thurmond, and don’t see the problem until it blows up in their face. Trent grew up in segregated Mississippi, went to seregated Ole Miss, so in his mind he found himself at Strom’s party and thought he was attending a klan meeting. A sad state of affairs for one of the most powerful figures in the senate.
December 16th, 2002 at 12:28 am
I felt compelled to write as I’ve read LOTR many times as well as other works of Tolkien and on Tolkien himself and to brand his books and him as racist seems competely absurd.
I gathered that we are looking at ‘Racism’ from the white/black perspective but yet I cannot see any material within the books to back up this ludicrous statement.
There are many races within Middle Earth as many of you know but to those who don’t here are some:
1. Hobbits
2. Humans
3. Elves
4. Dwarves
5. Wizards
6. Orcs
7. Goblins
8. Uruk Hai
8. Demons(Balrogs,Nazgul(wraiths)etc.)
9. Trolls
10.Ents
11.Monsters(Giant Spiders,Wyverns,Dragons,the Watcher in the water outside the Mines of Moria)
12.Animals(land,sea and air)
While possibly not stating all the races I’ve categorized all the others as “Monsters”. If anything to describe the book as racist one could only look at it in the following context:
The following races of “Middle Earth” were at war with one another. The races of dwarves,elves,wizards,humans,ents and hobbits were collectively opposing the orcs,goblins,trolls,monsters,wizards,demons and renegade humans’.
There were possibly no black peoples of the ‘human race’ within Tolkiens World of West Middle Earth. Tolkien in writing LOTR, basing them on norse & celtic mythologies probably never felt the climate was ever hot enough for the black peoples of the human race to have developed. From what I remember West Middle Earth was a gloomy place with a temperature more like Britain & N.Europe and nowhere like the Africas/Americas or Antipodes.
We all adapt physically to the climate we grow up in and our genes are passed on to our postdecessors. There are no ‘black peoples’ in the mythologies of Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. If my memory serves me correctly none either in the Celtic mythologies also a part of Tolkiens Middle Earth. Some may have noticed that I have said WEST Middle Earth. If any of you Tolkienites remember the LOTR was set in West Middle Earth just look at the maps. If there were black peoples then they may not even have been known about as after all people thought the world was flat until Christopher Columbus discovered the world was round! Some people in the Northern hemisphere had never seen a black man let alone didn’t even know of the existencee of Africa.
I wonder what Tolkien would have said to these alegations? I would also like to have asked him myself why there were no black peoples in middle earth? There probably were but not in West Middle Earth as the climate didn’t suit them.
Then again there probably were but in another part of Middle Earth all with it’s own problems,completely new species and races never heard of and many problems to deal with.
Tolkien brought the races of middle earth to unite together to combat an evil foe.
The two towers has nothing to do with the war against Islam but as many know the encroachment upon people of industrialisation and the damage it would do to the earth and to family life. He wrote it to express his fears and Mordor symbolised the menace of the Nazi regime and the persocution of peoples.
His experiences in the First World War and to be precise The Battle of the Somme scarred him for life and I’m sure his life was never the same afterwards.
It is true that Tolkien grew up in a predominately if not all ‘White Britain’. His birth and most of his early life was at the ending of the British Empire. His ideals and loves were old fashioned as many would describe but Tolkien’s work was never ‘Racist’
The book should never ever be looked upon as ‘Racist’ in the dicussion between black and white. The word ‘Racist’ should never be used in the discussion of black and white. Racism occured in the book but as the ways afforementioned.
People are prejudiced towards one another in this world but we are all brothers and sisters under the sun. The many peoples of the world; white, black, asian, middle eastern, oriental aboriginal, south seas etc,etc, have all done countless bad things to one another over time. But we must not dwell and live in the past. We must move on and learn from it and build a better place to dwell.
Peace
December 19th, 2002 at 1:34 pm
Of course LOTR is racist. As others have noted, there are ample hints of this sort of prejudice in the description of the “fantasy” races — Elves, Dwarves & Hobbits on the Good side, Orcs, Goblins & Trolls on the Evil side — but I’m almost inclined to give Tolkien a pass on these. (Almost. Those “slant-eyed devil” descriptions of the Half-Orcs are undeniably odious.) But he was, after all, describing a mythological era, an “alternate past” for Western Europe, and one that was coming to an end, at that. Pretty soon, all the mythy folk would exit the stage, leaving humanity to fend for itself.
Tolkien’s descriptions of Our Heroes’ human adversaries, however, jibe quite neatly with the hallucinatory racist dogma of the Nazis. The Southrons and Easterlings represent Africans and Asians, and are presented as fiendish barbarians who are either inherently corrupt or dupes of Sauron. The treatment of the aboriginal Pukel-men (grass skirts?!?!), in addition to being a dull spot in the narrative, is patronizing, noble-savage drivel.
In the years since I read the books as a pre-teen, I must have suppressed this hateful material. I re-read the saga after watching the first movie, and found myself cringing at the depictions of these “exotic” peoples. I’m morbidly curious as to how Jackson will handle these cultures, or whether he’ll just toss them onto the cutting room floor in the name of streamlining the story. There is an Oliphaunt in the trailer, though. Those better be Orcs on its back!
December 20th, 2002 at 12:43 pm
Tolkien may have had some “environmental” rejudice as was common in those days amongst just about everyone, but he was no racist…
To support my assertion I shall offer the following correspondence (dated July 25, 1938) by Tolkien in regards to Allen & Unwin’s negotiation of publication of a German translation of The Hobbit with Rutten & Loening of Potsdam, who inquired whether Tolkien was of “arisch” (aryan) origin:
“I must say the enclosed letter from Rutten and 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 Bestatigung (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 any Jewish blood as necessarily honorable; 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.
“You are primarily concerned, and I cannot jeopardize the chance of a German publication without your approval. So I submit two drafts of possible answers.”
Of the two drafts mentioned by Tolkien, only one was preserved in the Allen & Unwin files (it is unclear which version was finally sent), from which the relevant excerpt was as follows:
“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 none 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. My great-great-grandfather came to England from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject - which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forebear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.”
All of this and more (including some highly critical comments of South African society) can be found in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter (published by Houghton Mifflin).
Best,
Dave
December 20th, 2002 at 4:14 pm
“…”environmental” prejudice as was common in those days amongst just about everyone…”
That’s a fair characterization about the kind of broad stereotyping that occurs in LOTR — which, in today’s context, looks racist. I’m by no stretch of the imagination a Tolkien scholar, just a fan of the books. That he explicitly rejected racism in his “real life” doesn’t surprise me a bit. Having read his letter to the Reich, I’m sure he didn’t actually believe that people with different melanin levels from his were somehow inferior. That he chose certain language and imagery to evoke evil is not surprising, given the prevailing views on race in his day. (Still… grass skirts!?!?!)
December 23rd, 2002 at 3:03 pm
Maybe it’s just cause it was written by a white guy. And…that’s his point of view. Everyone’s entitled to their own view aren’t they? Yeah…i’m purty sure they are.
December 29th, 2002 at 4:32 pm
Kendal,
You might be one of the most ridiculous people I have ever heard of. The villains in LOTR are dressed in black and shaded darker because they are more mysterious that way. When we go to the movies, it’s that fear of the unknown. I know of plenty of people who were white who were villains: Freddy Krueger (sounds kind of German to me), Mike Meyers (Halloween), or even Richard M. Nixon in Stone’s Biographical Pic. You’re the kind of person who complains that blacks don’t get enough rolls, or that when they do, they’re stereotypical. But then when they get a roll and get whacked in something like Halloween, you suppose they got it because they are black. It’s absolutely crazy. You know, there’s a great picture out now about how the blacks and the Irish got pushed around: Gangs of New York. You know, the Irish had more people wiped out by the Famine than the Jews did during the Holocaust. WHat’s more, we had the Brits block food from us, and they’ve oppressed us in the North. Why have we prevailed and why are you talking about something as trivial as the FILM LIGHTING/COSTUMES of a goddamn HOBBIT? It’s nuts. By the way, I’ve learn to get over the fact that people think I am a drunk because I am Irish, or that people expect me to talk like the damned mick on the Lucky Charms box. A bit of advice: it’s not about race and there are other people in history who’ve been screwed to. SO what I say to you is lighten up. Use your powers for good not evil. Eventually, you’ll be able to see that life isn’t as bad as you make it. It’s AMerica, be happy. We have it better than anyone in the World.
December 30th, 2002 at 6:59 am
I’m surprised that I haven’t heard/read more commentary similiar to yours. I’m a great Tolkien fan from my childhood and I do love the spectacle of the movie. They did a wonderful job bring the books to life — BUT! — I do feel myself getting uncomfortable at the relentless depiction of white/light skin = good; black/dark skin = evil.
The discussion does not need to be focused on whether Tolkien wa racist or not, it doesn’t really matter what he was. What matters is the work itself and the way it depicts the big themes of good and evil.
What I think about is how would I react to the film if I was not familiar with the story and I was a black man? I would see several races of light skinned people, the “purest” and most beautiful of which happen to be the fairest, most “aryan” looking race, the Elves, all who represent what’s good and moral in the world being threatened by and doing battle with “evil” races - all of whom are dark skinned and generally have African features - i.e. broad noses, dark eyes, kinky hair, etc.
If I was a black child seeing this movie how would it effect me? Would I still be able to enjoy it? Would it instill in me a subtle or not too subtle sense of self-loathing? Would I start internalizing this view of light = good and dark = evil?
Something is amiss in Middle Earth and despite my love of the material, it makes me uncomfortable.
I’m glad that this discussion is taking place.
Rbt
January 2nd, 2003 at 11:53 am
Tolkien was a genius, and his LotR trilogy a true magnum opus. Quibbling over whether they are racist or sexist is not germane: Do you like the books or not? If you perceive them as poltically incorrect, don’t read them anymore! Read other works that reaffirm your own political beliefs. Of course they won’t be anywhere near as good!:) Either accept the work on the artist’s terms or don’t: don’t arrogantly deconstruct a book that you couldn’t conceive of writing yourself.
January 2nd, 2003 at 7:50 pm
‘The Lord of the Rings’ is a complex work, which inherits many British Imperialist assumptions, while also displaying Tolkein’s distaste for the race-hate politics of the Nazis, as his famous letter indicates. It is deeply ambivalent about race, seeming to be deeply racist at times and powerfully liberal at others. Perhaps that is part of its fascination. However we do have to acknowledge that Tolkein draws on nineteenth century Aryanism in the portrayal of the Riders of Rohan. The story of the fair haired riders who displaced the dark ‘wild men’ derives from the story of the ancient Aryan conquest of the Daysu (from which we get the very word ‘Aryan’), which was important in British Imperial India. This is why Tolkein says he is not Indo-Iranian. He is ridiculing the Nazis misuse of the term ‘Aryan’, which has nothing to do with not being Jewish (as they meant), but derives from word ‘Iran’ (which is a variant of the word Aryan), in particular the ancient sub-group of the Iranian ancestor-population who invaded India with the horse - hence Indo-Iranian.
That said, this idea of an heroic superior horse-culture is the foundation of the Aryanist myth, and the book is suffused with it. What’s more, the slimy, untrustworthy, ring-hoarding character Golum clearly derives from traditions of anti-semitic caricature. His name derives from the Golem of the Cabbala, and his original name Smeagol is seemingly intended to sound Judaic.
Indeed the plot of the book is derived from Wagner’s ‘Ring of the Nibelung’, and explicitly Aryanist text suffused with the assumption that there are innately superior and inferior types of individual.
Tolkein should not be denigrated nor idealised, but we have to acknowledge that there are deeply problematic elements to the book. These cannot be reduced to the fact that he used the traditional black=bad, white=good opposition, which certainly has a very long history that long precedes its application to race.
January 2nd, 2003 at 9:21 pm
Tolkien explicitly stated that Wagner’s Ring had no influence on him whatsoever. Gollum’s name clearly derives from the sound he made, not the Golem of Semitic myth which was actually a beneficent creature that protected Jews from their enemies. As for Smeagol sounding Jewish: that’s a stretch. I think we would all be well served to idealize the fact that one man produced a work that transcends all categories of fiction, and has become recognized as truly great literature; and we should denigrate those lazy sophists who make inane assertions based upon their own interpretations, and not that of the author’s intent. To use an arboreal analogy that Tolkien no doubt would approve of: They can’t see the forest for the trees!
January 3rd, 2003 at 11:31 am
You are the lazy sophist. I get the impression you have no knowledge of what I am talking about, or what Tolkein was referring to in his letter.
Wagner’s ‘Ring’ cycle is a huge influence on the ‘Lord of the Rings’. Tolkein might have denied it till he was blue in the face, but the similarities are massive. Only someone with a blinkered view of cultural history could deny the huge connection between these sagas about struggle over a ring of power, dwarfs and other creatures interacting with men, forests filled with their own life etc etc etc. The more detailed similarities are legion.
Gollem’s name is not derived from the noise he makes, both the noise he makes and the name are derived from Tolkein’s mind, which is influenced by his profound knowledge of philology. This includes plays on lots of words and typical word-formations derived from various linguistic traditions. The snivelling hoarding character Gollum epitomises is strongly related to nineteenth century anti-semitic imagery. Of course he isn’t Jewish, any more than the Niebelungs are Jewish. But their portrayal draws on on that imagery.
Of course this does not make Tolkein a racist, only people who react with a near hysterical desire to stamp on any suggestions of negativity do that, by over-simplifying the point. There is complex cultural history lying behind the creation of the “Lord of the Rings” that includes nineteenth century philology, race theory and mythography, among many other things.
“The Lord of the Rings” is not generally ‘recognized as truly great literature’. Many literary critics consider it to be bomastic trivia. Sadly, people who defend it like a cult only confirm that view. Admirers of Shakespeare have no problem with discussing the portrayal of race in his works, because his status is accepted. They don’t have to believe that everything Shakespeare wrote is wise and noble. The sooner Tolkein fans take that view, the more likely it is that the value of their hero’s writings will be fully accepted.
January 3rd, 2003 at 7:36 pm
I’ll take your ad hominem in the spirit of friendship. So you know Tolkien’s mind better than Tolkien himself? My, I am envious of your ability. The Ring tetralogy and LotR were both inspired by Norse myths, so a certain degree of similarity is not unusual. But Tolkien did not recapitulate Wagner at all. Even had he, no musiclogist has conclusively proven the Ring to be anti-Semitic, beyond mere conjectures as to Alberich conforming to a Jewish stereotype. And Wagner was avowedly racist and anti-Semitic. So if he, Wagner, didn’t transmit his racism into the Ring, how do you argue that Tolkien, a friend and admirer of Jews, did into LotR? And since Wagner’s beliefs, odious as they appear to modern eyes, don’t vitiate his works, why would Tolkien’s “subconcious racism” (as you seemingly intimate) vitiate his? Your thesis is spindly. And Gollum’s name coming from some anti-Semitic recess of Tolkien’s mind? Again, that prodigious talent of yours resurfacing. Re: LotR as literature: give it fifty years or so. Let the current crop of literati expire, and their snobbery and bias along with them. The work is deeply intellectual, and richly textured (even you, one would hope, wouldn’t deny that), two features that suggest great longevity. Don’t over-analyze LotR for some phantom subtext of racism and anti-Semitism. You won’t find it, and your arguments in favor will be so absurd as to be laughable. .
January 9th, 2003 at 6:15 pm
After standing in line for more than an hour and paying 12$/ticket (in Europe) we finally got our tickets to see the great LOTR, The two towers.
We where full of anxiety when the day finally came.
But instead of seeing the overrated film we where expecting, we where met by three hours of racism.
All the heroes are white and blond with green or blue eyes. Everytime a villain appears, he/she happens to have dark hair and dark eyes. Some other examples are the good “white” wizard who fights Saruman. Saruman also has dark eyes and black hair in his beard , Rohan’s sneaky traitor has black hair (and doesn’t wash it either).
The orchs look almost like really ugly african men.
What will happen in The return of the king? Will Peter Jackson make Frodo and his pals put on white hoods and start burning crosses?
January 12th, 2003 at 12:37 am
It’s a fantasy epic, not
a social research paper!
Where is the proof that the
story is racist? I’ve
read that the fact that
the Orcs are dark
makes the story racist.
However, the dark apperarance
of the Orcs has nothing to do
with real humans in real time;
they are mutant creations
of Sauron meant to be dark
so they blend in with
night in which they ride.
Furthermore, the Orcs can be
compared to the
Steel Helmets or the SS,
Nazi thugs and shock troops
whose function it was
to ensure the suucess
of Hitler. The Steel Helmets
and SS clad in black and
silver, just as the Orcs and
Uruk-Hai do, with the aim
of ensuring Sauron’s
success. The wizard Saruman
can be a metaphorical
figure for the Nazi
scientists ie Mengele
who were consumed with both
self ascendence and creating
super powerful forces to
carry out the aims of the higher
power (Hitler and Sauron).
The people reading racism into
LOTR are as sad and pitiful as
those who say Ozzy Osbourne’s
song “Suicide Solution” is a
command to end one’s life
when it is not.
The story was intended as a
fantasy or mythological tale
inspired in part by the myths of
both the Celts and the Teutons
and the work of Tolkien’s
imagination. Anyone who thinks
it is connected to our modern
world is sadly mistaken.
January 13th, 2003 at 5:35 pm
Kendall Clark’s rant above
was nothing short of laughable.
He did not address the post above
about the pshychological
components of darkness.
There is a certain rationale
behind that-kids and even some
adults have a sense of
uneasiness or phobia
about night or darkness. In
myths, the Grim Reaper
appears in a black robe and
armed with a dark grey scythe.
Vampires appear at NIGHT and are
often dressed in some black or
dark grey cape or trenchcoat.
As I wrote before, the SS and the
Stormtroopers clad in black
and grey and police SWAT units
dress in such garb. Why?
Two reasons. One, they often
operate at night or in darkness(like
Orcs) and want to fade into the
surroundings (in snow, they often
wear white in order to blend into
the snow). Two, it is for psych
reasons. They know that wearing
bold garb strikes certain
impressions and associations
in others and they wish to convey
such impressions.
The post to which Mr. Clark was
responding to wrote that darkness
in literature or films often have
nothing to do with ethnicity but
archetypes. The Orcs are not
human creatures nor are they meant
to be conveyed as Earthlings but
rather mythological and archetypal
beings in the forms of beasts
that serve a certain function in
the story. Many villainous
beings in myth have both animal-like
appearances and clad in bold garb-
Medusa, the Minotaur, the Boars
faced by Hercules, Modred, the
minions of Loki, the Hell Hounds,
werewolves, vampire bats and so on.
As I stated above, LOTR is FANTASY and
should be taken as such. People
who are trying to read something into
it that is not there (Tolkien himself
said it’s NOT allegory; it’s
a story based on his fascination
with mythologies and English language)
are people who likely cannot
make a name on ideas and creativity
like Tolkien so they have to tear
him down to build themselves up.
As far as the film versions, they
are entertaining but they lack the
depth and richness of the books.
January 13th, 2003 at 5:54 pm
Kendall Clark’s rant above
was nothing short of laughable.
He did not address the post above
about the pshychological
components of darkness.
Sure I did, I said it was nonsense.
More importantly, as subsequent discussion here has shown, the problems with Tolkien’s work have less to do with the original author’s claims (about light and dark) and more to do the biologicization of difference, which is among the most dangerous ideas of the modern age. This idea underlies biological racism and should not get a free pass, especially in a work as popular as Tolkien’s.
You suggest that somehow the naturalness of people’s reaction to light and dark is a justification of cultural works based upon it. I reject that idea. There is a good deal of flex in human nature, a good deal of human nature which we successfully ask ourselves to resist, overcome, or ignore. Why not this reaction to light and dark? (That’s assuming, which I think is a mistake, that this reaction is universal and thus a part of human nature. I do not know of surveys of human cultures which suggest that it is that widespread. I suspect it is Western-specific, which again makes it fair game as to whether it influenced or was influenced by the West’s history of racist ideology.)
The post to which Mr. Clark was
responding to wrote that darkness
in literature or films often have
nothing to do with ethnicity but
archetypes.
“often” is not the same as “never”; sometimes this pattern of attraction-revulsion which you call an ‘archetype’ is racially implicated. How else are we to figure out when it is and when it isn’t except by talking about it? The defenders of Tolkien who’ve posted here don’t so much argue that the racist reading of his works is wrong as that it’s illegitimate, a much more difficult point to argue it seems to me.
January 13th, 2003 at 11:06 pm
Mr. Clark
I am going to ask you ONE TIME to
show me, with EVIDENCE from the
BOOKS about the allegations
of the biologicization of diffrences.
If you are just pulling assumptions
from air (which I believe) or are
basing your assumtions on the
films, I know that it’s
nonsnense.
I wrote before, the story is
FANTASY and has little, if ANY
semblance to real life. Some
of the figures look a certain way
ie fair skineed because it is based
on or inspired by myths
of Celts and Teutons, who are
fair skinned.
My argument about light and dark, which
you read some notion of racism (you’d
probably think Ozzy’s “Suicide
Solution” is loaded with subliminal
messages as well) is based on this:
Youths when they are camping in the
woods or walking to/fro at night
tend to get uneasy. This is because
in the woods, there are things like
mosquitos, wild animals ie bears
or loose dogs, and also just the
feeling of not being able to see
clearly. Also, people fear walking to/fro
at night because of the fear of
stalkers, rapists, or poor lighting
being part of the cause of
an accident. It has nothing to
do with race or ethnicity but
one’s internal phobias based on
legitimate concerns (when I walk
across the campus at night after work,
I am uneasy. Why? Because the
incidents of mugging and
auto theft occur primarily during
NIGHT).
Quote ONE point about the books that
show racism. If you cannot, I’ll
know as a certainty you are
a charlatan who makes a lot of noise
but fails to validate their claims
and people like that are those who
cannot make their name on their
own merit so they engage in smear
attacks and blanket generalizations
in order to build themselves up.
January 13th, 2003 at 11:43 pm
“I suspect it is Western specific…”
God help me! You SUSPECT? You admitted
that you knew of no survey of
various cultures to see if it was
widespread. What does that mean? No
such survey exists, a survey has been
taken and is shown as a Western
specific mentality or that you have
failed to actually do your homework?
In the books, the Orcs are described more
along the lines of the predator
of the 1987 Arnold Schwarznegger
movie, meaning they have a certain
animal/fish like appearance and
this is I reiterate because of
the manipulations of Sauron.
Maybe the idea of fear of the dark
is not a cultural thing or a psychological
thing but maybe it is the reaction
of certain individuals to the night
or the wilderness and should be
considered on an individual
case type of basis.
Lastly, why is there even a
sociological discussion about
a work of FANTASY FICTION?
This is as bad and outright assinine
as the claims that HARRY POTTER
is a story about Satan worship
and evil in disguise. Why can’t
we just enjoy the works of
Tolkien as he meant? If it offends
you, I would like to borrow a
phrase from Larry Flynt: DON’T
READ IT! But, don’t shove
nonsense down everyone’s
throat and tell them it’s
a serving of Belgian waffles.
Sell that elsewhere ’cause
we’re full up on crazy here.
Lastly, to suspect is one thing.
To ascertain by use of evidence
is another. God help me! I do
not want to lose my rights
because someone suspects or believes
something because that is the
road to a Stalinist Russia or
a 1930s Germany in which
someone perceives a wrong
and in the process of
dealing with it causes
the destruction of a nation
or the isolation and
closednes of a society.
January 14th, 2003 at 1:00 am
I am going to ask you ONE TIME to
show me, with EVIDENCE from the
BOOKS about the allegations
of the biologicization of diffrences.
The more preferred term is biological determinism, I think. If you’d look back at some of the comments which have been made here, you’ll see several examples of Tolkien’s biological determinism. It’s not the sort of claim that one warrants by pointing to single quotes; it is, rather, a kind of deep assumption which informs the entire work.
I’m sorry you are so troubled by people criticizing Tolkien’s work, but criticism is inevitable in such a popular work.
I wrote before, the story is
FANTASY and has little, if ANY
semblance to real life.
I don’t understand what difference you think this is supposed to make. So Tolkien wrote a fantastical story in which biological determinism plays a fundamental role. Biological determinism is still a very dangerous idea, one which ought to be carefully scrutinized.
My argument about light and dark, which
you read some notion of racism (you’d
probably think Ozzy’s “Suicide
Solution” is loaded with subliminal
messages as well) is based on this:
Hmm, you seem terribly confused. I did not write the original article (which I did post onto this web site) claiming that LOTR is racist primarily because of its light-and-dark thematics. I thought it was an interesting post, worth noting here, but that doesn’t mean I endorse its every claim. I’m sorry that you can’t understand this. (I am the person who thinks LOTR’s sexism and biological determinism make it a deeply problematic work.)
and people like that are those who
cannot make their name on their
own merit so they engage in smear
attacks and blanket generalizations
in order to build themselves up.
This pointless blather; even if it were a true depiction of my psychology, so what? That wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the more interesting question of the structure and assumptions of Tolkien’s work.
January 14th, 2003 at 1:29 am
“I suspect it is Western specific…”
God help me! You SUSPECT?
Yes, I try to carefully distinguish what I know, from what I surmise, suspect, guess, or intuit. Why is that a problem?
You admitted
that you knew of no survey of
various cultures to see if it was
widespread.
Uh, it’s your claim, and you expect me to validate it for you? Aren’t you the person who’s ranting and raving in every post about people backing up their claims. But somehow you’re an exception to that rule? How convenient for you.
What does that mean? No
such survey exists, a survey has been
taken and is shown as a Western
specific mentality or that you have
failed to actually do your homework?
Here’s what it means; and I’ll go very slowly this time so you can follow along. I have spent a lot of time studying other cultures, formally, as part of my education (as part of a undergraduate and graduate degrees, I’ve studied anthropology, history, philosophy, world religions, psychology, and several other fields, in both Western and Eastern, ancient and modern cultures)… I mention this in order to point out that, while I have never explicitly examined the light-and-dark question, my suspicion, based on my education and study, is that it is not, as you implied earlier, a universal constituent, either of human nature or all human cultures. It is not, contrary to your claim, an archetype in the sense of being a universal human thematic.
My hunch — and it is merely a hunch, however well informed by education and some experience — is that the light-and-dark thematic is specific to the West. (In fact, I’ll go further and suggest that, at least as Tolkien received it through Indo-European sources, it is probably locatable in ancient Greek, specifically Platonic thought; though it may be have existed earlier…)
I do not know of any anthropological studies which suggest that it is universal (that is, I don’t know of any evidence which would require me to withdraw my suspicion that this thematic is Western-specific), and I am in some position to know whether such studies exist (especially since I have studied other cultures in which the thematic, which you claim to be universal, is either precisely reversed or is missing altogether).
I said I suspected these things because I have neither the time nor the inclination to research the matter fully. Which, despite what you seem to think, does not disqualify me from offering an opinion as to the question — especially since I clearly marked it as an opinion.
If people were required to say only things which they knew to be true (as opposed to suspected or intuited or guessed or surmised to be true), then there would be a lot less conversation about a great number of important and trivial matters.
You, for example, might be entirely silenced by such a requirement.
Why can’t we just enjoy the works of
Tolkien as he meant?
Because they aren’t enjoyable? Because no author ever has the final word about the meaning of her or his work?
If it offends you, I would like to borrow a
phrase from Larry Flynt: DON’T
READ IT!
Enjoyment and offense are not the only two possibilities, surely. What if it merely worries me that such an influential work may help legitimize the idea of biological determinism? Is that legitimate under your regime of permissible topics of conversation?
I suggest that you take your own advice; if this discussion of Tolkien’s work offends you, you can stop reading it at any time.
But, don’t shove
nonsense down everyone’s
throat and tell them it’s
a serving of Belgian waffles.
You’re rather an excitable person. I really, really want you to explain to me how offering one’s opinion on a web site constitutes “shoving nonsense down everyone’s throat”?
Lastly, to suspect is one thing.
To ascertain by use of evidence
is another.
Yes, of course. Who suggested otherwise?
God help me! I do
not want to lose my rights
because someone suspects or believes
something because that is the
road to a Stalinist Russia or
a 1930s Germany in which
someone perceives a wrong
and in the process of
dealing with it causes
the destruction of a nation
or the isolation and
closednes of a society.
Heavens but you are very excitable. I sorta love the fact that mere discussion on a web site bothers you so much that you think its very existence puts your “rights” in danger. All that and you worked in references to “Stalinist Russia” and the Nazis too. You lose overreacting nutbag style points, however, for failing to say anything about “political correctness”…
January 14th, 2003 at 1:12 pm
Where is the “biological determinism”
in LOTR? The orcs are creations
of INDUSTRY. The work in part
is a critique of mass industrialization;
Tolkien was known as somewhat
of a technophobe and in the story,
all that is bad has nothing to do
with some form of biology but by
arbitrary industrial manufacturing.
I’m going to make this very simple for
you (I know you are an American and
Americans are not the brightest bulbs
in the box when it come to
things beyond their own little
enclaves of know-how, believe me.
Only in America does record burning
and book burning occur as a matter
of course). The idea of the story is
not allegory, it is not parallelism,
it is not supposed to be a book
about biological determinism or
about race and politics, it is
a story about a mythical
land that does not exist
but in imagination and myth
and is about the concept of
good versus evil and evil
not being a byproduct
of biology or genetics or
some sort of inherent physical
trait but the inherent interpersonal
corruption that is the consequence
of the lure of absolute power
which is caused by mass production
and arbitrary creation.
It is my opinion (please note) that
you operate from a paradigmatic
or theoretical set of
assumptions into which you
place everything you see or observe.
You interpret things based on
your worldview of the world of
humans in actual time rather
than the context they are meant
to be placed in.
For example, I’ve reiterated the story
is a fantasy inspired by myths
and historical epics. In Tolkien’s
time and place, he was a white
middle class Englishman fascinated
with the myths of both the English
and the Celtic/Gaelic peoples.
He was telling a story loosely
based on the histories of
England, Scotland, Ireland and
Scandinavia.
The claims of sexism are on shaky
ground. While the heroes
are primarily male (once again,
the myths of the Isles do have
predominantly male heroes),
Eowyn of Rohan in the book THE
RETURN OF THE KING nearly
dies while clashing with
a Rider of Mordor and the
beast he rides on because
she wishes to face a battlefield
finale with her brother and
her uncle rather than be a mere
shieldmaiden. Also, it is
Galadriel, the Elf-Queen who
equips Frodo with the phial
and elven brooch that will
allow him to meet his charge
of destroying the Ring.
You are undoubtedly an expert
in all the fields you have
studied. But, you are no
mythologist or literist.
If this was a panel debate strictly
on the merits of the works of
J.R.R Tolkien, I can safely say
I would be the victor. There is
no proof, express or implied of
the claims of biological
determinism or racism. The
claims of sexism may have
merit but Tolkien was writing
in a particular time and within
a particular context so the
sexism is more a consequence
of his time and the history
which inspired his story
rather than deliberate.
BTW, since I am too small to
play NCAA or NFL football,
is that a form of biological
determinism? Or is that
physical/physiological determinism?
I am averaged size but am not
of the size to compete at that level.
January 14th, 2003 at 10:35 pm
Kendall Clark finds the work “problematic.” Well, Mr. Clark, that puts you squarely (and familiarly, one guesses) in the minority. I don’t care if Tolkien had said that the orcs were modeled on “American Negroes,” the book is still great. And sexist? Reread the friggin’ thing before you go making that assertion. Look up who kills the Chief Nazgul. Just because it isn’t “The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood”, is it sexist. Oh yeah, and you find it’s potential influence “worrisome.” Join the club, pal. I find many books’ influence potentially worrisome, but I don’t counsel people to not read them. Let people make up their own minds. You want to attack books that no one should read, why not start with everything written by Jacques Derrida?
January 15th, 2003 at 1:06 pm
Cynic,
Thank You. Mr. Clark has failed
basic English/reading comprehension
standards. He says that the
“racism” is based not on
any specific quote or
phrase but a “deeper meaning
or reading.” Sounds very
much to me like people who
claim Judas Priest and Slayer
have “subliminal” messages
to commit suicide or murder
in their songs. Just does
not hold water.
When writing or commenting
on any work of fiction,
non-fiction or even
social sciences, the writer
must cite a quotation or
paraphrase a piece, give
a page number, an author/
title or at least insert
footnots and endnotes
to which the reader can
refer and can verify those
claims. This means that
the writer is following
standard English essay writing
form and failing to do so
will often cause a student
to be marked down.
Mr. Clark has been asked to
provide the evidence to
support his claim ands he has
only retorted that the burden is
on the “defenders” of
Tolkien. No, the burden is
ALWAYS upon the accuser.
Cynic is correct. People
need to read the books for
themselves and decide
for themselves rather
than let an armchair
pseudo-intellectual
rattle on about how
the books are “problematic.”
Mr. Clark, on all points of
debate and grammar, you FAIL
as far as I am concerned.
You also prove an axiom once
given me by an educator: Americans
are high on self-importance and
low on substance. Particularly
the intelligentsia and media
of the United States. I
mean no offense to other
Americans like Cynic
but American intellectuals
and pundits do make that
axiom just a bit more
substantial than not.
January 16th, 2003 at 5:28 pm
by r kadar at December 30, 2002 06:59 AM
I’m surprised that I haven’t heard/read more commentary similiar to yours. I’m a great Tolkien fan from my childhood and I do love the spectacle of the movie. They did a wonderful job bring the books to life — BUT! — I do feel myself getting uncomfortable at the relentless depiction of white/light skin = good; black/dark skin = evil.
The discussion does not need to be focused on whether Tolkien wa racist or not, it doesn’t really matter what he was. What matters is the work itself and the way it depicts the big themes of good and evil.
What I think about is how would I react to the film if I was not familiar with the story and I was a black man? I would see several races of light skinned people, the “purest” and most beautiful of which happen to be the fairest, most “aryan” looking race, the Elves,
=====
I’m a black man who hadn’t read the book before seeing the movies. I’m not totally unfamiliar with fantasy/euro mythology themes though, since i live in Canada, a country whose culture is primarily western.
I’d point out that the elves aren’t really the most aryan since they are not humans to begin with. The Rohan people on the other hand look very much like a prototypical northern european people (humans).
all who represent what’s good and moral in the world being threatened by and doing battle with “evil” races - all of whom are dark skinned and generally have African features - i.e. broad noses, dark eyes, kinky hair, etc.
========
Just who has kinky hair in that movie ? People always mention the uruk-hai’s dread locks but their hair is not kinky ! It just looks like the dirty,unwashed,unkempt hair of a brunette white guy. Their facial features aren’t especially african and they surely don’t remind me of any black people
or even of racist caricatures. They just look like black skinned monsters, that’s all.
The huruk-hai sort of look like gorillas in fact. Like them, they have straight hair (unlike africans) and they have pretty much the same facial structure and colour.
If I was a black child seeing this movie how would it effect me? Would I still be able to enjoy it? Would it instill in me a subtle or not too subtle sense of self-loathing?
================
I’m pretty certain that i’d have thouroughly enjoyed the movies even 15 years ago when i was a child. There might be some very sensitive children whose self esteem would be shattered by such movies but i wasn’t one of them , thank god. I watched all kinds of garbage as a kid, even tarzan ! Now that’s a racist movie ! Yet, i and the other kids didn’t take it seriously and we knew damn well that the africans depicted in the movie were unrealistic bullshit (I was living in africa at the time).
You seem to be very disturbed by the fair skin, blue eyes, etc
The very notion of white people finding fair skin, blue eyes, blond hair very attractive DOES NOT offend me. Why wouldn’t they ? I find it quite normal for northern europeans to see beauty in those traits because that’s what a very large proportion of their population looks like anyways
Would I start internalizing this view of light = good and dark = evil?
-
I certainly didn’t.
Something is amiss in Middle Earth and despite my love of the material, it makes me uncomfortable.
–
I don’t lose sleep over any of this.
LOTR is a product of northern european culture and makes most sense in that cultural context.It doesn’t have to apologise to me for being eurocentric.
That’s ok with me even if my own culture is not included . I hope similar movies get made about african myths..
January 27th, 2003 at 6:38 pm
“You will unite or you will fall.” This about sums it up, folks!
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien is to me, the greatest literary masterpiece of all time. As a fantasy story-writer, it is sometimes very discouraging and terribly daunting to follow in the footsteps of Tolkien. However, let us remember that Tolkien’s primary goal was to be a great storyteller…and that he was. This is a great work of fiction and the characters visualized are fictional. There can be no assumptions made of racism in this work. All characters have their strengths and their weaknesses. All characters are bound by the fate of the ring and can easily give in to its evil power. Whatever physical descriptions given to the characters of this fictional work were of Tolkien’s creation, and not intended in any way to be racist. This is such a ludicrous accusation that I encourage all of you to read or re-read this story and experience its beautiful message of hope to ALL peoples of Middle Earth. This is a story of good versus evil and involves many different and diverse cultures coming together to fight against this evil. And this, in reality, is also our fight. Until we, as a people on this earth unite and overcome the deep-rooted psychological and social issues of racism and prejudice against one another for whatever reason, there will be those who continue to see racism in everything imaginable. Let this story be a light to you, especially in these troubling times, when all other lights go out.
January 28th, 2003 at 11:26 pm
I haven’t read most of the thread, but i have read the article and some of the first points made. It has probably been brought up already, but I would like to talk about ‘dark’ and ‘light.’
Traditionally, dark and black have been associated with evil, even in cultures that never had contact with African civilizations. It had nothing to do with anyone’s skin colour. Light and white has usually been associated with good etc. in the same circumstances. As someone brought up earlier, what are children more afraid of, the dark, or the light? This is a primal instinct, not something that has been taught. In the dark, one cannot see. This would create fear, of course, because people are afraid of the unknown. In the light, one can see - and although one can see horrible things - there is less of the unknown. It is easy for me to see why dark and black are associated with evil for reasons that have nothing to do with any other person beyond yourself. As well, black and white are virtually the most contrasting colours that there are. In a story, there needs to be conflict, and what represents conflict better than opposites? To get to the point - Tolkien would have to choose one colour to be good and one to be evil, and why not follow non-racist tradition. To be politically correct? This is not the way a book should be written and I think it was perfectly reasonable, and not in any way racist the way Tolkien used black and white or light and dark in his book, and the same goes for the movie.
January 28th, 2003 at 11:35 pm
As for the dark skin = bad, white skin = good…
I dont think tolkien used that at all. Tolkien’s elves were probably white, but so what… That was probably how he pictured them… Saruman was a villain who was white… Orcs are grey-demon like things which dont even really resemble humans that much. I dont think the book or movie makes that connection even in any remote way. I think some people have over-reacted, maybe justly, because of other things done to them or their kin that were actually racist. But I still do not think LOTR is racist in any way whatsoever to black people.
January 29th, 2003 at 9:42 am
The term “orc” is derived from
ogre, a term applyed in early
Northern European/Atlantic
myths thate refers to
animal or demon like
creatures possessing
some degree of
superhuman strength.
As portaryed on film,
they are greyish/
silver and look
like rodents on
steroids wearing
NFL fan makeup.
The claims that LOTR
is racist are on
shaky merits.
Tolkien as a
professor and
expert in
Anglo-Saxon
English history
and literature
and a mythologist
was basing his epic
on the myths of
the North Atlantic
and often in
those myths ie
Beowulf or
the myths of
the Irish
Fenians, the
villains are
demon-like
beings who
are grey
or earth
toned and
possess a
great deal
of strength.
These stories
came about LONG
before any
Northern European
presence in Africa
and Asia and
before Northern
Europe even became
Christianized.
Tolkien was basing his
epic on the inspiration
of the past myths as
well as a desire to
create a contemporary
mythology for the
English and the
English speaking
cultures reflecting
his creative genius
and his love of
story.
I cannot see the
racism in the story
and nobody thus far
has been able to
substantially
support that thesis
with evidence from
the LOTR books and
without that, the
claim is just
poppycrock.
February 19th, 2003 at 1:46 pm
This is bullshit, I’ve read most of your stuff, and it’s good but this is crap. Look, for one thing black shouldn’t be accosiated with Africans or African-Americans, they have brown skin. Black represents darkness, and darkness represents evil. Do you want the bad guys in LOTR to be giddy little Leporchans jumping around? Or should they have pink colors, and blonde hair, and not wage war. No, they shouldnt. That wouldn’t work. You are over reacting, this is in no way racism. There is sexism in the books, which I am opposed to, but I love the books.
February 23rd, 2003 at 3:16 am
The attitudes here amazed me. Kendall gave his (I assume Kendall is male?) opinion of the movie and of the book. It is a valid opinion to him. I happen to agree with that opinion.
What I find interesting is how badly others want to prove him wrong; going so far as to insult him for his misunderstanding of the book, his misunderstanding of Tolkien, and it seems his misunderstanding of the world in general. Apparently in their opinion he is not as smart or his opinions are not valid because they disagree.
When I find people who are so threatened by another persons opinions, I always wonder if it is purely defensive that the need to justify their enjoyment of something that is not really socially acceptable and they just don’t want to admit it to themselves.
Here in Columbia, SC there is a restaurant chain that flies the confederate flag, post literature in the restaurants that demonstrate that blacks are inferior and that slavery was actually good for African Americans. Those who are attacking Kendall remind me of the customers who eat in these restaurants and see nothing wrong with it. They just enjoy a good meal and ignore the political statements. Closet racists?
If you liked the movie, fine, enjoy it; just don’t expect those of us who found it troubling to have to like it too.
I was enjoying the movie even thought I noticed from the beginning that there were no minority actors. This all came to a head for me when Snow White arrived in the movie and was lighted in such a way as to enhance her projected whiteness. This is the point where I really started to dislike the movie and is probably the moment when I decided not to see the sequels. My feeling is that the directors/producers had to go out of their way not to hire any minority actors, and if they could do this, then they could also live without my $45.00+ (refund for this movie and no purchase of tickets for the next two + popcorn, soda, etc.)
This is a work of fantasy, and IMO if you can conceive of a mythical creature such as fairies, then I see no reason that one or two of them could be portrayed by non-white actors - we would have still understood that this is a morality play of good vs evil without the racial overtones. Critics of this opinion would say that this is not being true to the writer I say who cares. He wrote his books at a time when racism was a normal and socially accepted view of the majority races. I don’t think that these racist views should be tolerated and promoted today.
The book may be racist, but I can overlook that by saying it is a product of its times, the modern movie has no excuse for its blatant racism.
February 26th, 2003 at 12:18 pm
To the most recent poster,
Has he ever read Beowulf, the
Elder Eddas or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?
In those books, are there African, Asian
or Arabic personalities or dramatis persoane?
Since it was those works that inspired THE
LORD OF THE RINGS, it is absurd to suggest
that the casting staff should have
included a minority actor. The story takes
place in a land resembling EUROPE. Would
it be logical to suggest that if the film
SHAKAZULU is remade that Jeremy Irons
or Liam Neeson be cast as one of the
Zulus or one of the African protagonists?
If THE GODFATHER is remade, do we
have Samuel L. Jackson as Vito Corleone,
Jet Li as Lucca Brazzi and Edward James
Olmos as Tom Hagen? Where does it end.
Furthermore, NOBODY has prduced ONE shred
of evidence that the book is racist. Where
in the text can I find this racism? Give
me ONE quotation, one passage, one word,
anything. People making claims without
one iota of evidence have NO intellectual
credibility WHATSOEVER and should be disregarded
prima facie or on general principle.
As far as the films staying true to the books,
that is a GOOD thing. If people don’t
like the books or the movies, it is a free
nation and there are choices and I encourage
people who do not like something to
exercise their rights of selection and
seek forms of enjoyment that are not
offensive to their very minute sensibilities.
February 27th, 2003 at 6:19 am
I’m astonished by the silliness of much of this debate. A while back I posted some comments about Tolkien’s letter to the German publishers - in which he says he is not ‘Aryan’, pointing out that his ancestors did not speak Hindustani, Gypsy etc. Apart from infantile rantings from someone called ‘cynic’ there was no response to the point about what Tolkien was on about, and what it meant for his fantasy-epic. The point is that Tolkien is well aware what the word ‘Aryan’ actually means. He would be thoroughly familiar with the story of the Aryan peoples a horse-culture that invaded India in 1500BC, giving rise to the Indo-Aryan languages (Hindustani etc). He was also well aware that the Gypsies originated from these Indo-Aryan peoples, who then migrated into Europe: making a nonsense of the Nazi assertion that Gypsies were NOT ‘Aryan’. He is joking about the Nazi misuse of the term ‘Aryan’.
My point is that LOTR is a book that is filled with references to the Aryan concept. But they reflect the British Imperial tradition and Indological scholarship at the time. This is wholly different from Nazi Aryanism. The Riders of Rohan who displace the dark people of the hills are based on the original Aryans displacing the ‘dark’ aboriginal Dravidians - something that is obvious to anyone who reads British histories of India at this time.
The general opposition of light and dark is neither universal in a simple sense (as some claim here) or derived from Platonism, as a previous poster claimed. It comes from the Indo-Aryan cultural tradition that evolved into Iranian Zoroastrianism and then into Manichaeism. It is also found in the characterisation of the Dasa - the enemies of the Aryans, who are described as black in the Rig-Veda. In Tolkien’s day these were equated with the dark-skinned Dravidian peoples of India. In the Rig-Veda they are typically equated with demons.
In other words we have a model of the way dark non-human demon-like creatures emerge in British Indology as part of the Aryan-myth making tradition, derived from the horse-worshipping invaders of the Indus Valley and Iran.
How this got transformed into the belief that Aryans were Germanic North-Europeans is a complex story, but it was central to the linguistics, race-theories and archaeology of Tolkien’s youth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As a student of Germanic myths Tolkien was thoroughly familiar with the proposed connection between the Indo-Aryans and the Pagan Germanic peoples. His model of the world of the LOTR is derived directly from these theories, or rather from with his own personal take on them.
This includes the general light-dark opposition, the portrayal of the Rohan riders are fair, tall heroic etc, and the demonisation of their dark enemies as sub-humans. Whether we get distressed by this a ‘racist’ or not is up to us. I think it is far more complex than that, as it is bound up with Tolkien’s interest in the process of myth-making. LOTR is in many ways a response to the myths of the Nazis from a British Imperial tradition - but one that has become rather disillusioned by Imperial power. The Hobbits living in a fantasy-version of Surrey are unhappy about having to leave home and encounter alien peoples. When they do so they encounter peoples who are clearly innately different from one another, and enemies who are irredeemable evil who may be killed at will and without compunction. Indeed the must be treated ruthlessly. We can take that metaphorically (they represent ‘dark’ desires that must be repressed) or literally (they are bad people who should be annihilated). The problem with mythic thinking is that it allows us to interpret it either way, and that goes back to the original mythic mind-set that Indologists attempted to read from the Rig-Veda. It also takes up the proto-medieval literature in which Tolkien was expert, and the later medieval allegorical tradition that Lewis knew so well.
In order to fully understand the mythic world of LOTR we need to understand all this, and to work out how Tolkien’s exploration of myth works in the book, and for its readers. But we can’t dismiss the powerful tradition of race-theory that was commonplace at the time, and thoroughly implicated in thinking about how myths were formed.
February 28th, 2003 at 5:33 pm
Paul,
In what sources or footnotes as
written by Tolkien or his son
Christopher Tolkien, who
edited and completed his father’s
histories of Middle Earth does
he refer to the Indo-Aryans
who displaced the Dravidians?
I really want to see evidence
as laid out FIRSTHAND by the
author or the editors and not
second and thirdhand
interpretations based on
personal ideologies or hearsay.
Now, were there early medieval clashes
between dark skinned peoples and
light skinned peoples? Yes. The
wars on the northern borders
of Italy between the Romans
and the various Gothic and Germanic
tribes is one example and also of
the clashes in modern Northumberland,
UK between the Romans and 2 Celtic tribes,
the Picts and Scots. In this case, the
Romans (who were dark complected and
dark haired) were the imperialist
aggressors while the Picts, Scots
and Britons were the peoples
who had inhabited the British Isles
for a number of years before the
arrival of the Romans. While the
Britons became Romanized and
relied on Roman protection,
the Scots and Picts resisted
Roman incursions.
When the Angles and Saxons arrived, they
fought first against the Picts and
Scots but would later conquer the
Britons but also the Roman remnants
in Britain (the Angles and Saxons
had encountered the Romans prior to
arriving in Britain).
The core of the issue is that LOTR should
be judged upon its own merits and
not on interpretations of other histories
or mythologies which may have influenced
the story to a degree (Beowulf and
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are 2
such examples as well as Bede’s
histories and Hollinshed’s
works). Once again, where are
the footnotes and references
by Tolkien himself or his son
or his editors that his works
were somehow an updated version of
the Rig-Veda? Where is the solid
evidence in form of memoranda,
references, endnotes? If none
exists and this is all speculation
based upon personal interpretation,
then the case has already been won
and lost for all intents and purposes.
In a court of law (which both English
and American societies are based upon),
this case would be closed and won by
the defenders of LOTR because
hearsay and say-so is NEVER admissable
and that is all the detractors have
brought thus far: Speculation, supposition,
interpretation, the “deeper reading/
subliminal message” argument, etc.
The defending position has pointed to
the author’s academic career and
specialty, his own words as laid
forth in the foreword to LOTR,
the histories of the clashes between
the Romans and the Celts of North
Britain and the works that can be
referenced-Bede’s ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH NATION,
THE ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE,
BEOWULF, and to a degree
the ELDER EDDAS.
Now is the time to prove the opposite
assumption or let the curtain fall.
February 28th, 2003 at 6:47 pm
Firstly, the Picts were not Celtic. There is no reason to believe that their language was even Indo-European. The Scots were Celtic. They came from Ireland to what became known as ‘Scotland’ after the Romans had left, so your claim that “the Scots and Britons were the peoples who had inhabited the British Isles for a number of years before the arrival of the Romans” is simply false.
Secondly, you seem to think that the truth about the meaning of a work of art or literature is to be derived from what is written is someone’s footnotes. But footnotes are simply one person’s explication. Research and analysis can always change the picture. That what progress in knowledge is all about. It’s not about parroting what someone say in footnotes, especially if they are written at a time when the word ‘Aryan’ was so completely associated with Nazis that it would be deeply embarrassing to suggest a connection with it.
Thirdly, where did I say that LOTR was an “updated version of the Rig-Veda”?! That would be a truly bizarre claim. Have you ever read the Rig-Veda?! If it’s an ‘updated’ anything, it’s an updated version of the Nibelung Sagas, Eddas etc. But it’s not really that. Its derived from the emerging tradition of ‘fantasy’ literature (represented by Howard’s Conan and other examples in the 30s) interconnected with the then dominant migrationist models of ancient cultural history and linguistics. These are then articulated by Tolkien’s story-telling powers ands his moral values. Doubtless the latter was affected by many things, including the horrors of Nazism.
Fourthly, why do YOU think Tolkien mentioned Hindustanis etc in his letter to the German publishers — what explanation do you have?
Finally, why do you think I am attacking Tolkien? Why the defensiveness?
March 2nd, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Paul,
According to ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA, 1998
edition, the Picts, though of enigmatic origins,
apparently spoke a language that is
considered to be part of the Celtic family
of languages. In the same
encyclopedia, it lists the Pictish language
as a Celtic language and under the heading
for Celtic languages, Pictish is listed as
a sub-category of Celtic dialects that had
some British/Welsh trappings.
According to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History,
the Picts came from Scythia, which is
assumed by the footnotes to mean
Scandinavia but Scythia according to
ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA cooresponds to
SE Europe in modern Romania and Hungary,
suggesting that the Picts may have
originated from this region between the
Danube and Don Rivers.
The reason I am adamant about footnotes
and firsthand info is because analysis
and reserach based on other sources
are more or less say-so based on
individual opinions whereas the
footnotes and endnotes and appendices
are direct explantions of an author’s intent.
For example, most people think Ozzy
Osbourne’s “Suicide Solution” is about
suicide but on hearing the song
and reading Osbourne’s notes about
the song, one would understand the
song is actually about alcoholism
(his own addictions and the tragic death of
his friend Bon Scott of AC/DC). But, based
on the assumption of analysis and research
of work by people other than the author
or creator leaves any reader or listener
with some skepticism because it is an
opinion and just because some attorney once
thought the song was about suicide
does not make it so. Just because some
idiot in London and a few in the states
think the story has racial overtones
does not make it so because I have read the
story and the appendices and the
histories of Middle Earth and nowhere
in the works themselves are there any
references to race, culture, etc and
in Tolkien’s biographies, he himself
says that while stories such as Beowulf
influenced him, he wanted to create his
own story.
As far as his references to actual Aryans,
he was making fun of the sheer ignorance
of the Third Reich and ridiculing their
assinine race policis, telling them
precisely what an Aryan was and how
it had scant to do with the Nazis’
concepts of the blond, blue eyed
Germanic demi-gods as propagated by
the Nazi regime.
I do not think you are attacking Tolkien.
Rather, I’m just asking for evidence.
Secondly, I am throwing the gauntlet
to those who are attacking him
and making outrageous claims. If they
cannot put up, then they best shut up.
March 3rd, 2003 at 7:44 am
No one knows what the Pictish language was. Some think it was Brythonic (i.e. Ancient British), which is a form of Celtic - different from Gaelic Celtic. I assume that’s what you mean by ‘British/Welsh trappings’. Welsh and Breton are the surviving Brythonic languages.
But others don’t agree. It has often been argued that they were pre-Indo-European speakers, surviving from before the Celtic migrations. That’s a minority view now. However, in Tolkien’s day it was much more common. Bede’s writings tell us nothing. They amount to sheer fantasy as far as the origin of the Picts is concerned. Nevertheless, the supposed Scythian connection was used in debates in the period of Tolkien’s youth to suggest connections to the PIES (Proto-Indo-Europeans), which was all part of this debate about ethnic origins and languages.
I can’t comment on the meaning of Ozzy Osbourne! However, saying that the story of LOTR has racist overtones is an interpretation of the evidence of the text itself. You seem to hold what is known as the ‘intentionalist’ position that what an author wanted to say - or even says he wanted to say - is what he did say. But the book is full of attitudes that Tolkien may have taken for granted or been only half aware of without thinking they were problematic at the time. This is true of ‘fantasy’ literature in general. The Klingons in Star Trek were originally made to look like ‘Eastern’, Mongol-warrior types, since Genghis Khan was the popular image of an aggressive barbarian. As the series progressed, they were made to look less like an actual ethnic group. But they still retain elements of that.
I don’t understand what you mean when you say ‘nowhere in the works themselves are there any
references to race, culture, etc’ But all these different groups look different, have different lifestyles, values etc.. Is that not what in the real world we mean by ‘race and culture’. The issue is how the portrayal of the imaginary peoples and beings in LOTR relates to actual peoples in the real world - both in history and today.
March 3rd, 2003 at 12:34 pm
What I meant by no references to race/culture
was that Tolkien does not make
any connections with cultures or
languages in real time or in the
real world.
The Orcs are actually silver or greyish/
green and made to look like
classical ogres as portrayed in
Teutonic poetry such as BEOWULF.
Bede’s writings are not archaelogical or
cultural but theological but his
mention of the Picts is used as
a backdrop of the arrival of
the Angles and Saxons and it was
supposed that the Picts may have
originated from the North Sea region
at one point though like you said,
it is hard to know where they
came from.
As far as relation of peoples in fantasy
to people in real time and in the real
world, I think that is a stretch. The
story is not allegory or sociology. His
portrayal of Orcs and bandits were not
meant to convey a sense of real world
peoples but mythical beings who are
either created by magical manipulations
and mass assembly or people who
are tempted and seduced by evil
(the wild men, the Gondorians in the
form of Isildur and Boromir and
some of the elvic like peoples on
the borderlands of Mordor). I think
works should often be analyzed by
the contexts and the intentions of
the author rather than trying to
superimpose our own biases on
them. Then again, each of us is
different and we all will take
certain things as we interpret them.
I just believe that the allegations of the
story as racist are seriously flawed.
I think we have debated this issue to its
maximum. Let’s move on.
Thanks.
May 15th, 2003 at 7:06 am
Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is an epic tale set in a different time,a different place,with characters of different backgrounds..it is all fictional.People all over the world enjoy this novel Lord of the Rings and the films based on Tolkiens books.I enjoyed it,the films and reading the books.It took me on an adventure into Middle earth and the things going on there,almost it even seemed real to me,but its not real.It took one writer to write this novel.And never did i feel there was racism present.It is the fight between Good and Evil not by skin colours.Black and darker colours in tradition symbolise coldness,fear and gloom,peril and evil.White is the colour in most traditions that symbolizes goodness,light,purity and warmth.People when they read /see Lord of the Rings they see in it what they like and can say whatever they want about it.I certainly dont go seeing a LOTR film or read the books to try and look for any thing that would prove the novel to be racist.Racism never entered my thought when i visually saw the first two films.I was so immersed in the story, the humble lives we read(and also see the film)of the hobbits who loved to eat,and drink and be merry.The friendship between Sam Gamgee and Frodo through thick and thin,as well as Merry and Pippin who go along on this journey.Gimli,had shown so much distaste towards Legolas,and elf..and in the end it is Gimli and Legolas who become good friends,they had set aside their differences and accepted eachother.LOTR is an adventure,and is the fight between good and evil.Like in the real world between cops and robbers.Skin colour is not the issue this is wot i believe unless you make it or want to make it an issue then it is if that is what you want to see or believe.What colour is Sauron?does anyone know what colour Sauron is underneath that black armour?..He wasnt always evil he grew deceitful and wanted more power and it led him to betray the forces of good.This sounds like Lucifer to me.Sauron also deceived the 9 kings and they became his slaves and evil as he was.Saruman,one of the Maiar sent down by the Valar to help the people of Middle earth fight Saurons evil forces(but not permitted to fight directly himself against Sauron)ended up betraying the Valar and the side of Gandalf and those who were against the evil deeds of Sauron.Saruman was a white wizard who was higher in rank than Gandalf whom was called Gandalf the Grey.I enjoy this story so much.People worldwide enjoy this story and see what they want to see and think what they want to think about as i say again..It is a story between good and evil..not by skin colour or race..I wouldnt want Sauron to gain dominion over the middle earth.He brings fear and evil and sense of dread..and it is by his evil deeds not by any skincolours or whatever..this is my epic opinion of LOTR..everybody else has got theirs.
June 6th, 2003 at 8:06 am
I think that this writer may have not picked up on somethings in the Books. Its not entirely clear if he actually read the books in detail.
If you indeed want to draw any conclusion about the colour of the skins of the people in middle- earth and their alignment with good or evil (which I think is quite absurd as it is), you would realize that there are other colours and statures of man present on the side of good, demonstated by the varied groups forming alliances such as - The Prince Imrahil, whose men all had black hair -The wild men of the forest, and the exiled Riders of Aragorns kin, the sea-men of Ethil.
The “black captain” refers to the leader of the ringwraiths (lord of the nazgul) as does the “black gate” refer to the Gate of Mordor. And Dark Riders or Fell Riders is just another term for the Nazgul. Much like the word ‘dark knights’ in other Fiction may represent a knight of evil, Tolkien made heavy use of metaphors. He made heavy use of the dark/light contrast in his book, but all characters were complex and many lay somewhere in shades of grey.
Not only that, but Tolkien was a christian, and was also interested about, and knowledgeable in, other cultures and languages. But mostly, the Lord of the Rings is about love, the struggle overcome doubt and despair in the face of evil, courage over tragedy as well as hope and healing.
Its very clear when you read the book. It is almost impossible to miss unless you totally ignore the character development (85% of the book)and skip to the action (15% of it).
It was a thought provoking article anyway
Cheers
June 6th, 2003 at 8:35 am
By the way, I’m a Australian-born Chinese and I know first hand what being on the wrong end of racism is like. Even with my experiences, I feel very strongly against any form of Racism.
After having read all the comments saying “Lord of the Ring has rascist themes” makes me feel a bit sick, actually. Talk about discrimination.
September 9th, 2003 at 11:29 pm
sorry wrong web site i’m looking for womens rights and colonisation and relations
November 2nd, 2003 at 4:00 pm
Why dont you people who go on about the film being rascist just get a life and accept that it is a film and im sure many black, asian and oriental people were working to make LOTR.It goes like this and has been since humans were first around, black/dark= fear,evil and darkness, your not going to have evil orks prancing around with magic wands in angel white dresses are you? It just doesn’t bring out the primitive association people (of all races) have with black.Black has been seen in this light by europeans for centuries and was even at a time when europeans didnt even Know that black people existed, so its part of our culture, like tails such as Saint George and the dragon the dragon was dark and george was white. Its not rascist its culture and human nature, black= bad and white=purity and god. As for the sexist issue…why would woman want to be involved in such a battle filled, aggressive and gory film? Now that wouldn’t be very lady like would it?
December 2nd, 2003 at 6:54 am
Well, blacks have dark skin, and the bible associates darkness with Satan, so does this mean that the bible is racist? Are lightbulbs racist too, because they project light? Is every child afraid of the dark because of preconceived racial prejudices? What about people who wear black at funerals, is that racist too? If you’re going to write a novel using European myth as part of the background, the majority of the characters will be white. If If I wrote a book using African myth as an inspiration, wouldn’t it be kind of stupid to populate it with white characters?
December 11th, 2003 at 8:08 pm
The level of ignorance, arrogance and misinformation it contained by some of the above posters is extreme.
The color Black has not always been considered ‘evil’. That’s not “just how it is” in the real world. Do some research before you take it upon yourself to post some silly decree or declara