A debate on the cultural merits of Star Wars.

[NecronLord]

Tell him to shove his 'midichlorians are the cause' bullshit, all signs point to them simply being an indicator, since there are silicon-based sentient crystals who can use the force.

In the G-Canon?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Tell him to shove his 'midichlorians are the cause' bullshit, all signs point to them simply being an indicator, since there are silicon-based sentient crystals who can use the force.

In the G-Canon?

Why does it need to be G-Canon, it didn't specifically say that Midichlorians were the cause in the G-Canon.

[Civil War Man]

Star Wars, however, is free of much of this, and is by any reasonable standard, a much less racist/fascist/sexist (well, possibly not that last one, almost all of Tolkien's major female characters are stong in some way, from Éowyn to Galadriel, who 'off-screen' manages to blow up a large fortress) to various others in other books.) product.

Your statement is accurate without the parenthetical aside. I'll see your Eowyn and Galadriel and raise you Leia, Padme, Mon Mothma, Mara Jade, and a small army of female Force users ranging from Nomi Sunrider to Lady Lumiya. And let's not forget all the female bounty hunters such as Aurra Sing, Zam Wesell, and Sintas and Ailyn Vel.

[NecronLord]

Why does it need to be G-Canon, it didn't specifically say that Midichlorians were the cause in the G-Canon.

The G-canon is the cultural phonomenon, the EU is tacked on to that. Philosophers really aren't going to care about most of the EU. It may be canon according to lucasfilm's policies, but its cultural impact is totally insignificant in comparison. Your average person knows about Luke Skywalker. He doesn't know Mara Jade.

[NecronLord]

Your statement is accurate without the parenthetical aside.

Humm. Devil's advocate time...

I'll see your Eowyn and Galadriel and raise you Leia, Padme,

Who 'dies of a broken heart' when her man turns evil. Not a terribly strong female character. Indeed, she's only really strong in episode 2, where she moves the plot along. In number 1, she basically does what the Jedi say (not that this is unrealistic, mind you) and is basically a kid, in episode 3 she's pretty much as useless as a paper codpiece.

Mon Mothma,

A walk-on part, really. In the films, I'm pretty sure we're not even told that she's the leader of the alliance (at least, not now that she's been cut out of Episode Three... a piece I hope to see restored at some point) And we get no insight into her character in the films whatsoever, she delivers a few lines, then hands over the military planning to others.

Mara Jade,

Whom barely anyone has heard of. What with her not appearing in the films.

and a small army of female Force users ranging from Nomi Sunrider to Lady Lumiya. And let's not forget all the female bounty hunters such as Aurra Sing, Zam Wesell, and Sintas and Ailyn Vel.

Zam Wessel's the only one with any character in the films. If she even has a gender, she's certainly not a particularly indepentant or 'strong' character, basically being a go-between who Jango hires, then shoots. Sing's an extra and even I haven't a clue who those last two are, and I'm a geek. </Devil's Advocate>

More to the point, I'm not saying Lord of the Rings' female characters are stronger than Star Wars' (which would be totally surprising, given that Star Wars was produced 1977-present) I'm saying that Lord of the Rings' few female characters are generally depicted in counter-sterotype ways. It's more pronounced still in Tolkien's 'romantic' piece, Beren and Luthien, where the girl is the one who busts the boy out of Sauron's dungeons and beats the Dark Lord up. Lord of the Rings, despite a dearth of female characters, does depict those in it, with the exception of Arwen and similar extras, very much as being as capable as the men. The only way in which Lord of the Rings is sexist at all is that there's very few women represented in it, a flaw that lots of stories (including Star Wars) still have to a greater or lesser degree.

Lord of the Rings is racist (if not for the time it was written, and it certainly tries not to be) and socially hyper-conservative (though it's hard to do medieval fantasy that isn't, to be fair, and it often comes off as rediculous when people try), and religiously inspired (though see above, I'd take the All-Father over Jehovah and his clergy any day) but I don't think it is in any meaningful way sexist. Nor is Star Wars.

[Darth Wong]

Tell him to shove his 'midichlorians are the cause' bullshit, all signs point to them simply being an indicator, since there are silicon-based sentient crystals who can use the force.

Even if they were the cause, so what? They aren't exclusive to any race or species, so at worst, they're analogous to real-life individual genetic tendencies toward high intelligence or heavier musculature. I guess biology is "fascist" too.

[Darth Ruinus]

Who 'dies of a broken heart' when her man turns evil. Not a terribly strong female character. Indeed, she's only really strong in episode 2, where she moves the plot along. In number 1, she basically does what the Jedi say (not that this is unrealistic, mind you) and is basically a kid, in episode 3 she's pretty much as useless as a paper codpiece.

In Episode 1 she personally leads that group to go and capture the Viceroys. That seems very strong for me, especially since before that she had lived a sheltered life in the Palace.

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

[Adrian Laguna]

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

In the Metal Gear Solid universe, The Boss gave birth sometime during Operation Overlord, in the field, during a firefight. Apparently her combat prowess was so awesome and vital they couldn't hold her deployment until after the child was born. In fact, Lyndon B. Johnson outright tells Nikita Khrushchev that, "She was the one who lead us to victory in that war."

[Darth Ruinus]

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

In the Metal Gear Solid universe, The Boss gave birth sometime during Operation Overlord, in the field, during a firefight. Apparently her combat prowess was so awesome and vital they couldn't hold her deployment until after the child was born. In fact, Lyndon B. Johnson outright tells Nikita Khrushchev that, "She was the one who lead us to victory in that war."

Do you seriously mean to say that because a legendary hardened soldier can give birth on the battlefield, so can a former queen that occasionally fought?

Still, this doesnt change the fact that Padme was also a strong female.

[Darth Wong]

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

In the Metal Gear Solid universe, The Boss gave birth sometime during Operation Overlord, in the field, during a firefight. Apparently her combat prowess was so awesome and vital they couldn't hold her deployment until after the child was born. In fact, Lyndon B. Johnson outright tells Nikita Khrushchev that, "She was the one who lead us to victory in that war."

What the fuck does this absurd wankery have to do with anything? Ooooh, there's an inhumanly tough female character in a videogame!!!! Is that supposed to prove something?

[Peptuck]

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

In the Metal Gear Solid universe, The Boss gave birth sometime during Operation Overlord, in the field, during a firefight. Apparently her combat prowess was so awesome and vital they couldn't hold her deployment until after the child was born. In fact, Lyndon B. Johnson outright tells Nikita Khrushchev that, "She was the one who lead us to victory in that war."

The antics of a warrior woman from a universe with spell-slinging vampires, cyborg ninjas, walking tanks that shoot nuclear missiles, chaingun toting Eskimo shamans, and astronauts with flamethrowers have precisely what relevence to a discussion about comparatively ordinary warrior women from other universes?

[NecronLord]

In Episode 1 she personally leads that group to go and capture the Viceroys. That seems very strong for me, especially since before that she had lived a sheltered life in the Palace.

I'd forgotten that. Of course, the Jedi were basically calling the shots there until they went off to deal with Darth Maul. (Again, realistic...)

In Ep 3, she's pregnant, what do you want her to be doing? Running around shooting people?

Aside from the point that I'm not really serious (hence the 'devil's advocate' and the smilies...) No. But I would have been much more impressed with her if she'd died because of some funky Sith voodoo rather than apparently dying of a broken heart when she has childen to look after. I felt that line really was quite unnecessary; it works better if Vader actually does kill her.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Here are some of morthaur[/b]'s replies to my post. I'm too tired right now to go through them and reply at great length, but it appears that he's not as imbecilic as that Drax character. I'll let better minds than mine brainstorm over my response:

This has never been the core theme of the franchise.

Maybe not, but it sure rises to the top for a lot of folks!

The original Star Wars was made before any familial relations in the story line were decided on.

Hmm, not to hear Lucas tell the tale! But it hardly matters, since it was clearly worked out before the second film was made, and has been a central feature of the entire franchise.

Furthermore, had a 'race of genetically-superior supermen' been on Lucas' mind, he'd probably have made the Skywalker clan a, you know, race. It might very well be an 'elitist' myth, but it's messianic and not fascist. Think of King Arthur and Mordred rather than some absurd conception of a super race (the Jedi aren't a race; they're the interstellar equivalent of the Knights of the Round Table).

I use the term 'race' loosely, which should be obvious given that the Jedi come from any number of species! But there hardly seems a better equivalent, and viewing them as mere 'knights' is definitely misleading, given that they are genetically superior. That is, these people can only become knights because they are biologically more fit than other people.

I again direct you to Warhammer 40,000 for an example of a 'racially-based' franchise; and I find it absurd to regard even that as an example of 'fascist propaganda'. Both series hearken back to the ancient romance, not to the 'Myth of the Twentieth Century'.

I do not, in any way, see 'propagandistic' qualities in either series. Lucas is clearly building upon classic mythical elements, present in nearly every human culture. The fact that they are somewhat authoritarian and élitist probably has more to do with our natures than anything else!

But regardless, I do not even hold the series in a derisory light on account of those elements; I'm certainly not defending the whiny critics who think Lucas is trying to corrupt the youth, or some such nonsense. By the same token, I see no reason to overlook his own authoritarian sympathies and the general outlook of the characters in his universe.

And, of course, you're entirely right about the Jedi - which is one of the main points of the Prequel Trilogy. They had grown stagnant. They had become complicit. They were too involved in Republican politics. They were so terrified of disorder that they had let their guard down.

One can only hope that Luke did better in resurrecting the Jedi order. Since he clearly idolises the original so much it seems as though--romantic love exempted--he is set to repeat the same mistakes. At least, that's how the novels have been turning out.

It's not as if philosophers are any less cloistered, for that matter.

Heh. One of the reasons I love Nietzsche so much. Reminds me not to take myself too seriously, and that my life should reflect my philosophy (life being more important than philosophy).

Then there is the fact that billions of deaths are ultimately irrelevant in the face of a single act of love for one's biological progeny! The forgiveness of Vader for so little is a slap in the face to the survivors of two decades of brutality, and again places the Jedi on a higher moral plane than the rest of galaxy's mere mortals.

Nietzsche would call that ressentiment. Why shouldn't an individual be forgiven if he's genuinely repentant?

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that in practice, but I like it. I think it's to be seem as rather more a matter of justice. I would have no problem with forgiving someone, but think of the message it sends to society as a whole. "We can forgive him absolutely" would be commonly read as "We forgive him because he's a Jedi". That, of course, would be ressentiment, but the rulers of Men cannot very well expect the 'mob' to be sophisticated enough to let it go... Society is not run according to the rules of philosophers, after all...

Why is it that the plucky band of freedom fighters can't defeat the monolithic and patriarchal forces of evil in twenty years? Because they don't have their own super-man warrior! The Jedi are no less fascistic than the Sith, in their insistence on being in the right, knowing what's best, arguing that their powers give them special rights & responsibilities, etc. At best you can call them benevolent oligarchs, but there's just nothing of the genuinely democratic in Lucas's vision.

I refer you again to the Knights of the Round Table. It's not as if Lucas endorsed any political viewpoint in the series. It was never intended to be anything more than a romance-fantasy in space. You have to remember to keep it on that level for it to work.

David Brin - the author responsible for The Postman - once wrote an essay espousing this same point of view you do. And he failed to remember that Star Wars is a fantasy in every sense of the word - it has knights, it has dragons, it has wizards and princesses being held captive in a tower. This isn't fascist; it's romantic, it's provincial, and it's almost unfortunate that we today can't tell the difference between the two.

Totally agreed, but then, I am fully aware of the Campbellian elements in the storyline. It's just that such things are, on a certain level, pretty fascistic. Think about it for a second: hierarchy as the natural order? great power in the hands of the few? divine right of kings? What would that possibly mean for people to-day?!

It's not as though we cannot tell that it's a fantasy story: it's that high fantasy itself is, from a certain (political) point of view, a deeply disturbing genre. It speaks to all the worst (and some of the best) in the human imagination, and that's exactly the territory that the fascists exploited. Look carefully at the Hitler myth and you will see Campbell there, too.

If there are indeed any sinister patriarchal themes in the series, it's simply because that's the nature of the romantic beast, and these themes are just as present in The Lord of the Rings.

Of course they are, and for all of the same reasons: both the inspirational mythic archetypes, and the authoritarian politics of the authors. Tolkien's conservative Christianity was only slightly better disguised that C. S. Lewis's was. But again, remember that I'm not trashing Star Wars or Lord of the Rings; I've been playing D&D for 20 years--I love fantasy!

I'm reminded very much of Star Trek fans who laud their own series for 'gritty realism!' and 'philosophical acumen!' while forgetting just how absolutely boring Star Trek really is.

Star Trek really is a pile of crap; I hope they finally let it die so that Hollywood can get to making some good science fiction.

[Teleros]

A few thoughts on Morthaur's replies...

But there hardly seems a better equivalent, and viewing them as mere 'knights' is definitely misleading, given that they are genetically superior. That is, these people can only become knights because they are biologically more fit than other people.

I think "symbiotically" superior is about the best you can get here, not "genetically", as midichlorians aren't AFAIK a part of your own genetic make-up.
Also, if they are biologically "more fit" than other people, is that a problem? We choose our athletes on the same principle, we require our real-life police to pass certain standards of physical and mental fitness: are the Jedi not a continuation of this system?

Think about it for a second: hierarchy as the natural order? great power in the hands of the few? divine right of kings? What would that possibly mean for people to-day?!

For the first two I think that humans do tend to gravitate towards both hierarchies and a powerful elite - perhaps they are the natural order, at least to an extent. Consider how you can find heirarchies in practically every part of society, or how few people are involved in the decision-making in the USA (or UK, or EU, or wherever) - and what the realistic chances are of turfing them out in an election are. So I'm not convinced these two points are as problematic as you make them out to be.
As for the divine right of kings, I'm not convinced about that. The Jedi in the Galactic Republic answered to the Senate (or at least the Chancellor) and undertook missions for them (eg TPM). I'm not sure about the Jedi in the EU though (haven't read much of it TBH), but if you look at the one Force user who did try to claim some sort of divine right - Palpatine - he got nailed in the end for it. If anything, the audience will pick up on the message that things like the divine right of kings are outmoded and wrong.

[Kurgan]

Can someone explain how Lord of the Rings is "racist"?

[Teleros]

In short, ugly, evil orcs v handsome, whiter-than-white elves et al. Standard fairytale stuff in other words.

[Ender]

Can someone explain how Lord of the Rings is "racist"?

Well, the dwarves are a pretty transparent take on jews, right down to the writing being based off theirs.

[Teleros]

Can someone explain how Lord of the Rings is "racist"?

Well, the dwarves are a pretty transparent take on jews, right down to the writing being based off theirs.

Writing aside (don't know anything about it), are they? Always struck me as your classic fantasy dwarf really... maybe I've just been brought up surrounded by D&D, Warcraft etc though ...

[Darth Wong]

Can someone explain how Lord of the Rings is "racist"?

Well, the dwarves are a pretty transparent take on jews, right down to the writing being based off theirs.

Writing aside (don't know anything about it), are they? Always struck me as your classic fantasy dwarf really... maybe I've just been brought up surrounded by D&D, Warcraft etc though ...

Of course they're "classic fantasy" dwarves; the whole genre is based off of LOTR. But the underlying thinking is from the early 20th century, when even most "civilized" and "enlightened" people subscribed to the notion of Western European genetic, moral, and cultural superiority.

[Tiriol]

Can someone explain how Lord of the Rings is "racist"?

Well, the dwarves are a pretty transparent take on jews, right down to the writing being based off theirs.

Personally they reminded me more of Finns than anything else, although I can see how a caricature of Jews can be seen in Tolkien's Dwarves. Terry Pratchett's dwarfs provoked similar reactions, although the Jews who made the comparisons were content and even pleased with it, according to The Art of Discworld.

[Darth Wong]

But there hardly seems a better equivalent, and viewing them as mere 'knights' is definitely misleading, given that they are genetically superior. That is, these people can only become knights because they are biologically more fit than other people.

Mathematicians and scientists are drawn from the top percentile of intelligence among humans. In short, they are biologically more fit than other people. Does this mean that mathematics and science are "fascist"? According to this imbecile's logic, it does.

By the same token, I see no reason to overlook his own authoritarian sympathies and the general outlook of the characters in his universe.

The Jedi have no authority! What part of this does he not understand? They're public servants, like the US Marshalls. Did they once take it upon themselves to try and overthrow Palpatine because he was corrupting the Empire? Yes. But any responsible civil servant might try to do the same, if confronted with someone who is trying to pervert a democracy into a dictatorship.

It's not as though we cannot tell that it's a fantasy story: it's that high fantasy itself is, from a certain (political) point of view, a deeply disturbing genre. It speaks to all the worst (and some of the best) in the human imagination, and that's exactly the territory that the fascists exploited. Look carefully at the Hitler myth and you will see Campbell there, too.

Is this the same guy who is praising LOTR? Because if it is, then this is a truly spectacular display of logical inconsistency. There is simply no way for any rational person to conclude that Star Wars is more fascist or authoritarian or racist than LOTR, and if he's going to blast the entire Fantasy genre, he can hardly excuse LOTR.

[NecronLord]

Tolkien's dwarven writing, given on the front of many editions of his books, is in no way based off either Yiddish, Hebrew, or any other 'jewish' language. The dwarvish script is blatantly based off norse runes. If anything, I'd say the script used by the almost universally good elves, has a closer relationship to the hebrew alphabet. Tolkien's dwarven language has a very small vocabulary (as it is basically secret, he wrote very little in it, beyond a few place names) which he seems to imply (though I can't say) has some kind of 'semitic' basis. Lost on me, though, I've never heard of anywhere in Israel going by the name of Kara-kra-Zing, or something like that, which seem to be the dominant sounds in his dwarvish language. In any case, their language is easily as much Norse as it is Jewish. They don't sit too well together in the mind of an anti-semite.

The dwarves aren't all that much like Anti-Semite-Charicature-Jews, at least, not by any design of Tolkien. He didn't actually change his dwarves much at all, while his elf-wank is to a fair degree his own work, though it's influenced by concurrent trends in their depiction, his dwarves are pretty classic.

Tolkien does, in one of his interviews, liken them to jews because they're a scattered people with insular habits, but most of their traits certainly come from archetypical western mythological fashion. He codified the reason for this comparison in a letter with "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue....." Which seems fair enough, to me at least, these are traits that jewish culture had for a very long time, as the dwarvish culture did. Tolkien certainly wasn't anti-semitic, he was quite eager to dress down the nazi who wrote to him to confirm his non-jewishness (based on his name) for publication of The Hobbit in Germany. Anti-Semitism was something he was aware of and did disapprove of and his response to being asked if he was 'an aryan' ran to the effect of a short letter as follows...

"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."

Furthermore, the dwarves, if they are in some way 'Jewish' are not portrayed negatively; they make up the majority of the heroes in the Hobbit, for example. While they lust after gold, this is a trait they share equally with the 'whiter than white blonde (:roll:) elves, who in The Hobbit are explicitly said and shown to be just as greedy, lay seige (bloodless) on the dwarves to try and get their gold, once Smaug is killed, though both humans, dwarves, eagles and elves unite later when attacked by orcs. Thranduril, Legolas' daddy, in the Hobbit, is supposedly so egotistical that he is constantly annoyed that he doesn't have as much gold as other elven kings. Dwarves resist mental domination, generally (though it's less extreme than elves) oppose the forces of evil more than humans, are extremely industrious (they built Khazad-dum, and that was just one of many huge underground bunkers) more skillful than both elves and men in some areas, are physically tough, brave, and powerful warriors. If they're meant to be a charicature of anyone, it's a pretty flattering one, and they're over eighty percent of the protagonists in one of the two books that really form the main Tolkien canon.


The racism that is present is more subtle than 'Lolz, Ferengi are J00z.' One example is the way vaguely pseudo-arab cultures are depicted as basically all being servants of Sauron, something which he later modified somewhat, as he contemplated the topic more, in some of his last comments and writings, suggesting that there had been rebellions against the Dark Lord, and two of the five wizards (Morinehtar and Rómestámo being the last names given for them, Rómestámo being literally 'East-Helper or East-Uprising') sent there as Gandalf and Radagast were for the West, to aid in their own struggles against the Dark Lord, uprisings which are implied to have contributed significanlty to the success of the war in the book, but in the original book, aside from a few comments from Faramir, to show his sensativity and wisdom, they are pretty treated as orcs.

Which brings me to orcs, but frankly, I don't see how that's terribly racist; expendable evil minions often look ugly, and until such time as humans decide to overcome a preference for pretty people, I won't expect that to change. I wouldn't really credit that orcs are racist any more than the whining that the Neimodians are meant to represent japanese businessmen. As far as I know, the only real people he compared orcs to were actually the British (and given that he was fanatically patriotic and authoritarian...) Army.

There's even a good sub-race of men briefly featured (and mercifully cut from the film) in Return of the King who are basically as ugly as orcs, but on the other side and by the elves counted among the 'noble and righteous' men just as much as Aragorn's ubermensh, Drúedain as opposed to Dúnedain.

'Nay, nay,' said Elfhelm, 'the enemy is on the road not in the hills. You hear the Woses, the Wild Men of the Woods: thus they talk together from afar. They still haunt Drúadan Forest, it is said. Remnants of an older time they be, living few and secretly, wild and wary as the beasts. They go not to war with Gondor or the Mark; but now they are troubled by the darkness and the coming of the orcs: they fear lest the Dark Years be returning, as seems likely enough. Let us be thankful that they are not hunting us: for they use poisoned arrows, it is said, and they are woodcrafty beyond compare. But they have offered their services to Théoden. Even now one of their headmen is being taken to the king. Yonder go the lights. So much I have heard but no more.
[...]
There sat Théoden and Éomer, and before them on the ground sat a strange squat shape of a man, gnarled as an old stone, and the hairs of his scanty beard straggled on his lumpy chin like dry moss. He was short-legged and fat-armed, thick and stumpy, and clad only with grass about his waist. Merry felt that he had seen him before somewhere, and suddenly he remembered the Púkel-men of Dunharrow. Here was one of those old images brought to life, or maybe a creature descended in true line through endless years from the models used by the forgotten craftsmen long ago.

Now they certainly qualify as a racist charicature in someone's book! What with communicating with drums, using poisoned arrows, and wearing grass skirts (!) and while they're distinctly useful (ever wonder how Théoden and his minions got past the Witch King's rearguard and managed to flank-charge his entire army? These guys lead them through a pass unknown to anyone else in order to do so) 'good guys,' they're not particularly flattering to the cultures they're very obviously based on.

Which is a fair enough example of how Lord of the Rings is racist. While it tries not to be, and even tries to carry a distinctly anti-racist message (with one of the plot themes, expressed primarily by Gimli and Legolas eventually getting on, improving relations between their cultures, and men, for that matter, and also in the way the abovementioned Drúedain are ignorantly persecuted by local men, which Aragorn later bans) being the overcoming of racial predjudice, it doesn't do it very well by modern standards, simply because the author wasn't (at least at the time, see the comment about his near-deathbed elaboration of the Southron/Eastron backstory) entirely aware of some of the racist attitudes he used in his writing.

Where Tolkien was aware of racism, he depicted it negatively. The thing is, simply because of the style of the times, and the archetype he was working with, you get racism anyway. It's rather like the fact that when I stub my toe, I still shout 'Jesus Christ' even though I'm fully aware that he doesn't exist; it's a holdover of culture and upbringing I'm not aware of when I do it. It's definately racist, but it's unconciously racist.

[RogueIce]

The forgiveness of Vader for so little is a slap in the face to the survivors of two decades of brutality, and again places the Jedi on a higher moral plane than the rest of galaxy's mere mortals.

Except no one but Luke seemed to forgive Vader, you dumb shit.

Amusingly enough, while the EU does indeed indicate that whatever forgiveness Vader may have received was solely from his own two children, it also has an example of forgiveness of some mass-murdering Dark Side user who later goes on to be respected and all that shit: Kyp Durron.

Unless there is some part of the EU I missed, he basically gets totally forgiven for everything he did, including blowing up the entire Carida system (didn't he also toast a few other Imperial systems as well?). Granted he almost died destroying the Suncrusher and all that shit, but Vader did die saving his son, while also killing the Emperor but it's not like anyone outside of Luke seems to suddenly see him as a standup guy because of it (even those who did know, I think, though the EU doesn't seem to dwell on that point).

I do find it amusing that the movies get crap for doing something they didn't, though the EU (thank you, Kevin J. Anderson) goes ahead and does it.

[Pelranius]

Tolkein also ripped into ideas about racial purity, as with the Kinslaying of Gondor and the King's Men in Numenor. And the Black Numenoreans, who served Sauron.

Strangely enough, there were also Woses (or their relatives) who had come to Numenor as well. They left with the Elendili once the King's Men went to ascendancy, IIRC (unfortunately, I don't have UT or Peoples of the Middle Earth with me right now). The chapter from the UT dealing with the Woses also makes them to be more advanced in the First Age than what was shown in RotK. (Possible parallels to REH's Picts? Tolkien said he rather liked the Conan stories)

I personally never really got the impression that the Haradim were vaguely based on the Arabs. I thought them to be Carthaginian in a fashion (must be those elephants and Umbar). The Variags, judging from their name, seemed to be Caucasians. The only part that seemed to smell of racism to me was the description of the "troll men" with black skin, red tongues and white eyes.

[NecronLord]

Well, the 'villainous' men are largely based on various non-europeans, complete with a mongol horde. While Gondor has egyptian influences, it generally comes across as very European.