Bakustra wrote:
Now, I think that you can find a conscious message about shedding prejudices with Legolas and Gimli, but that is still only one part of a massive book, and it certainly does not negate the other aspects of the book.
You mean like how the Haradrim are still only one part of a massive book, and certainly does not negate the other aspects of it?
LotR wasn't meant to be a huggy-feeling "lets all get together" kind of book, but the message of cooperation certainly plays out a much bigger role throughout the story than "Tolkien (subconsciously) hates brown people."
Yes, this truly connotates a veritable multiplicity of ethnicity, if I may use Schoolhouse Rock as my muse. Keep in mind that even if we use your idea that people will immediately grant elves and dwarves as being different races on visual impresssion, looking on the grander scale, we find that Gimli is the sole dwarf, and Elladan, Elrohir, and Legolas the soles elves, at the Pelennor. The rest of the elves and dwarves were fighting their own battles, to be sure, but this is not the grand clash of multiculturalism against evil that you claim, even going by your definitions.
It does actually, since race and racism are defined by more than just the tone of one's skin. But it seems you're shifting the goalposts here. I was not aware that a requirement for multiculturalism was that everyone gets a slice in the final battle, even if it's just a token role (if you really want that, there's always the Battle of the Five Armies
). Yes, many are fighting their own battles, but it's still part of a larger combined war effort, and the main focus is still on representatives of each race working together on a special mission to win the war.
Further, on the visual front, we see a uniformly white army against a uniformly non-white army. And you claim that there are no racial implications involved in this?
So there's no implications at all to a multi-toned (and in the film, entirely non-white) horde attacking a monoracial group, with the monoracial group being portrayed as heroes and the multi-toned as villains?
Wrong, there are white villains in the films. 1) Saruman 2) Dunlanders 3) Corsairs were all light-skinned. The Easterlings might have been too, the few times we see them they're mostly covered in armor, and the facial close up showed IIRC more tannish skin. Meanwhile in the book the good guys are not all lilly-white, they have their "swarthy" folk as well:
Behind [Forlong the Fat] marched proudly a dusty line of men, well-armed and bearing great battle-axes; grim-faced they were, and shorter and somewhat swarthier than any men that Pippin had yet seen in Gondor
So it is still more of multi-racial group vs. multi-racial group conflict, now with even more token colored people.
Anyways, I've said before over...and over...and over...why the implications aren't there. At this point I'd rather not keep repeating myself. If people are getting the wrong message from a piece of work for the wrong reasons, then I'm sorry, there's only so much an author could do. Perhaps Tolkien could've done more, but then that was never a concern for his time, and I trust most educated adults to understand the difference between the two.
So you decide that racism is too charged a word. Then you decide that "politically incorrect" is a good replacement. Have you been living in a cave for the past forty years? "Politically incorrect" is itself a highly charged word, but what it usually signifies is racial or sexual edginess and/or racist/sexist material that uses the term as a shield to defend itself. Neither is really appropriate for these parts of LOTR. Racially insensitive, meanwhile, is frankly weaksauce and not really appropriate for anything beyond the unfortunate descriptions of the Druedain and the men of Far Harad. I prefer "racial implications" or "racist elements" or "racist aspects", since I do feel a qualifier is necessary when describing these parts.
Except racially insensitive pretty much exactly describes what's going on. It is neither deliberate, overt, covert, or in any way keeping with the expressed opinions of the author or general message of the work. Saying there are "racist aspects" or such gives the impression that parts of the book express an opinion of racial superiority and/or inferiority, which is something that simply doesn't show up anywhere and gives an inaccurate impression.
They only appear alongside said monsters, which are not inherited from ancient mythology, unless you have some kind of lost codex that describes the "bandit ORC, who lurk in mountain caves and robs those who cross their claimed passes" or similar depiction. Meanwhile, describing the heroes as multi-ethnic is fine unless you're looking at the visual parts. Meanwhile, I do feel, as did Tolkien, that free will is incompatible with the idea of inherently evil species, and thusly consider the orcs to have undesirable implications in their current incarnation.
Except Orcs are based on ancient mythological monsters like ogres, goblins and trolls (the latter of which
do show up in the book), ancient mythology which only becomes connected to racial theories because racists like stealing from history to prove themselves right. Plus I find it funny you don't consider it multi-ethnic unless someone's skin tone is darker. And while yes, he did struggle with the concept, it is still in the book and its basis is still on mythology, not racism.
Okay. The point here, which is one that you have not grasped, is that these are all aspects of a stereotype. This stereotype, dating back to at least the time of Tolkien's birth, was that of the "savage" from a remote land, usually diminutive, clad in grass skirts or other tropical attire, carrying a blowgun, and speaking only in broken English, if at all. Drums, meanwhile, are stereotypically associated with "primitives" all around the world, but especially with these same groups. If you were unfamiliar before, and it has fallen out of style recently, thank Varda, then now you know. While all of these elements
It seems you left off the end of a sentence. And the point which you have not grasped is that many of these aspects are not specific to one stereotype. Cavemen did play drums, they did have poisoned weapons, the only thing we can't say for sure is language (since obviously it didn't survive) and possible grass skirts (ditto). So is it possible, looking only at those elements, to paint a picture of a Bushman et cetera. But taking their description in as a whole, the far more likely image is one of a Neanderthal or other proto-man which served as a basis for legends about "woses."
I'm sure they have creams for that now.
The way this discussion keeps circling the same points over and over, I'm reaching for the Private Stock.
The context of this is Gondor giving the Rohirrim Calenardhon. The Dunlanders claim some of the land is theirs. The Rohirrim kick them out, and this triggers a series of wars, which culminate in Helm killing a Rohirrim lord of Dunnish descent on suspicion of treason. This triggers another war led by the guy's son, which then is so destructive as to essentially end the wars until Saruman starts demagoguing in Dunland. Frankly, nobody comes off well in this exchange.
The Orcs are mythological monsters, who everybody treats as inherently evil and shoots first before asking questions never. I wonder why there could be hostilities there- even between Misty and Grey Mountains tribes who have no allegiance to Sauron and the rest of the world. For that matter, Thorin thought that he could talk the Great Goblin into letting them go in The Hobbit, and had they not had Orcrist, it might well have worked.
See, the thing is is that there can't be friendship if one side wants the other to leave them alone, so describing their post-war relationship as friendship is pretty odd.
Yes, a history of conflict leads to bad blood between two groups. What exactly is the argument again?
And if you can find an example of Orcs living in harmony with...anyone, really, then I'll give you a cookie. They are tools that sometimes gets loose and cause trouble. That Thorin thought he could negotiate just means they have a reasoning capacity, one which has been twisted by malevolent forces but there none the less.
And not killing people anymore and listening to their wishes is far better in terms of friendship than what happened before.
Aside from the grass skirt, that reads nothing like a stereotype of those people, and more like a Dwarf or Caveman.
