LoTR, Racism & Historical Analologies

[Thanas]

I'm not going to bother bringing up the LOTR tangent again; the movie's relentless fan-whores will argue for it till they're blue in the face, and I've frankly had more than my fill in life of goddamned smug white people telling me I'm over-sensitive about race. However, on a slightly related racial issue:

I am not a fanwhore. In fact, I think aside from the first film, the latter two were pretty much mediocre.

Did you like Gladiator? Did you think the way the Germans were portrayed in there was racist? Or maybe we can agree that maybe, an analogy about Constantinople would not be valid without the arabian hordes?

[Darth Yan]

There was flack over the way Arabs were shown in the film (although it really wasn't to horrible, and in the only scene that could be interpreted that way they point out that everyone in the roman empire is like this regradless of race.) And Thanas, I have the exact opposite opinion as you. ROTK and TTT ruled, FOTR was good but not great.

[Bakustra]

I'm not going to bother bringing up the LOTR tangent again; the movie's relentless fan-whores will argue for it till they're blue in the face, and I've frankly had more than my fill in life of goddamned smug white people telling me I'm over-sensitive about race. However, on a slightly related racial issue:

I am not a fanwhore. In fact, I think aside from the first film, the latter two were pretty much mediocre.

Did you like Gladiator? Did you think the way the Germans were portrayed in there was racist? Or maybe we can agree that maybe, an analogy about Constantinople would not be valid without the arabian hordes?

How about the orcs, then? They are by far the most racist aspect of LOTR, to such an extent that Tolkien himself recognized the implications and sought to find a way to correct this. Furthermore, the descriptions used in the books of the Haradrim are themselves racist ("black men like half-trolls out of Far Harad with red tongues and white eyes"), and the fact that our heroes are entirely white, save of course for the overwhelmingly important figure of Ghan-buri-Ghan, who is himself a literal grass-skirted tribesman, whose entire tribal group speaks in a pidgin and whose instrument of choice is the drum. Granted, LOTR is less racist than many works of its time; after all, it shared an era with Hitler and the US Eugenics program. Tolkien himself would have been horrified to realize the racist implications, I am sure, given his remarks on anti-Semitism. However, this does not make any of its racist aspects or implications any less real.

Further, if it is an analogy about Constantinople, then where is Timurlaine? Where are the crusaders?

[Thanas]

How about the orcs, then? They are by far the most racist aspect of LOTR, to such an extent that Tolkien himself recognized the implications and sought to find a way to correct this. Furthermore, the descriptions used in the books of the Haradrim are themselves racist ("black men like half-trolls out of Far Harad with red tongues and white eyes"),

That description is no unlike that of "Barbarians" by many Roman writers.

and the fact that our heroes are entirely white,

Which must of course be racist and not have anything to do with the fact that Goths, Romans and Elves are not black per definition of being Goths, Romans and Elves? The orcs are also more in line with many Hunnish/Awar depictions.

Further, if it is an analogy about Constantinople, then where is Timurlaine? Where are the crusaders?

Because of course Byzantine history is all about those?

[Bakustra]

How about the orcs, then? They are by far the most racist aspect of LOTR, to such an extent that Tolkien himself recognized the implications and sought to find a way to correct this. Furthermore, the descriptions used in the books of the Haradrim are themselves racist ("black men like half-trolls out of Far Harad with red tongues and white eyes"),

That description is no unlike that of "Barbarians" by many Roman writers.

My point with the Orcs is that they are a species of pure evil. That is, regardless of their appearance (though that itself is another matter) still an incredibly racist idea, which is something that Tolkien himself recognized. Further, I was unaware that Roman writers were paragons of racial sensitivity, or that you can avoid charges of racist descriptions by calling upon the fact that people many years ago used similar descriptions.

and the fact that our heroes are entirely white,

Which must of course be racist and not have anything to do with the fact that Goths, Romans and Elves are not black per definition of being Goths, Romans and Elves? The orcs are also more in line with many Hunnish/Awar depictions.

Why do they have to be Romans and Goths exactly? Why is making one-to-one, simplistic equivalencies essential to the Lord of the Rings? Why must Tolkien's elves, which are distinct from Germanic ones in many, still abide to the Germanic concepts in others? Further, dwarves/dark-elves are described at times as being dark-skinned within Germanic myth, and yet Tolkien's are light-skinned. You ignored the caricatural aspects of Ghan-buri-Ghan, too, but those are merely a small part. The hunnish/awarish descriptions fall in line with Tolkien's description of them.

Further, if it is an analogy about Constantinople, then where is Timurlaine? Where are the crusaders?

Because of course Byzantine history is all about those?

If it is analogous to Byzantine history, then I presume that the War of the Ring would be associated with the various times Constantinople was in serious outside danger (though if you wish to argue that LOTR is an analogy to the Nika riots, feel free), and in one of these cases, they were saved by a foreign army. The crusaders, meanwhile, also represent a major part of Byzantine history. Of course, if you were considering Mordor to stand in for Sassanid Persia, then I don't see where Arab hordes come into play as allies of Byzantium's enemies. Further, how do the Corsairs of Umbar fit in? Is there an analogue for them within Byzantine history?

[Admiral Valdemar]

What was that about race?

[Thanas]

My point with the Orcs is that they are a species of pure evil.

And that description is directly contradicted in the light-hearted way in which they are described in the guard tower scene in the third book.

That is, regardless of their appearance (though that itself is another matter) still an incredibly racist idea, which is something that Tolkien himself recognized.

And if they were described as a "real" race, you might have a point. However, this is a work of fantasy. Is every work that has an antagonistic species racist?

Further, I was unaware that Roman writers were paragons of racial sensitivity, or that you can avoid charges of racist descriptions by calling upon the fact that people many years ago used similar descriptions.

Don't be an idiot, I never claimed any of that. I merely said that the description is well in line with the ancient stories which Tolkien used.

Why do they have to be Romans and Goths exactly? Why is making one-to-one, simplistic equivalencies essential to the Lord of the Rings?

Are you saying they are not analogues to historic things?

Why must Tolkien's elves, which are distinct from Germanic ones in many, still abide to the Germanic concepts in others? Further, dwarves/dark-elves are described at times as being dark-skinned within Germanic myth, and yet Tolkien's are light-skinned.

No, Tolkien's dark-elves are dark skinned. As for the myth, the Silmarillion makes extensive mention of dark dwarfs as well. That the movie chose not to follow the convention, is not the fault of the book. Note that Tolkien himself used Elben for Elves, which is of course the German word for Alb/Elves.

If it is analogous to Byzantine history, then I presume that the War of the Ring would be associated with the various times Constantinople was in serious outside danger (though if you wish to argue that LOTR is an analogy to the Nika riots, feel free), and in one of these cases, they were saved by a foreign army.

There are many times when the Byzantines/Eastern Romans were saved by barbarian armies. I myself have read comparisons to the battle of the Catalaunian fields (which might be the best one) to the many sieges of Byzantium. For example, the one were they were saved by the Bulgars. Or the one when the Awars were beaten back by the German foederati troops. Or Thomas the Slav etc.

However, my personal favorite has always been a mixture of the Catalaunian fields and of course the first siege of Constantinople.

Of course, if you were considering Mordor to stand in for Sassanid Persia, then I don't see where Arab hordes come into play as allies of Byzantium's enemies. Further, how do the Corsairs of Umbar fit in? Is there an analogue for them within Byzantine history?

Yes. The first siege of Constantinople. In it the Avars were joined by the Sassanid fleet (which utilized many corsairs) and slavs. Also, the Sarazens/Arabs had been allies of either Rome and Persia since the first century AD. They played a great role in every war the two nations fought with each other.

[Artemas]

Not to mention that the corsairs represent all of the lost Roman territory, now being used as a base for its enemies.

[Bakustra]

My point with the Orcs is that they are a species of pure evil.

And that description is directly contradicted in the light-hearted way in which they are described in the guard tower scene in the third book.

What? They torture Frodo and end up slaughtering each other in a major doublecross. That's not really implying that they have good sides at all.

That is, regardless of their appearance (though that itself is another matter) still an incredibly racist idea, which is something that Tolkien himself recognized.

And if they were described as a "real" race, you might have a point. However, this is a work of fantasy. Is every work that has an antagonistic species racist?

If they're inherently evil and sapient, yes. That is precisely my point.

Further, I was unaware that Roman writers were paragons of racial sensitivity, or that you can avoid charges of racist descriptions by calling upon the fact that people many years ago used similar descriptions.

Don't be an idiot, I never claimed any of that. I merely said that the description is well in line with the ancient stories which Tolkien used.

Lord of the Rings was written 70 years ago. Said travelogues were written almost 2000 years ago. I can't imagine why there might be differences in attitudes between the two periods.

Why do they have to be Romans and Goths exactly? Why is making one-to-one, simplistic equivalencies essential to the Lord of the Rings?

Are you saying they are not analogues to historic things?

No. I am saying that there is no need for an analogue to be an exact copy. Having groups reminiscent or symbolic of Goths and Romans without copying them in excruciating details still count as analogues.

Why must Tolkien's elves, which are distinct from Germanic ones in many, still abide to the Germanic concepts in others? Further, dwarves/dark-elves are described at times as being dark-skinned within Germanic myth, and yet Tolkien's are light-skinned.

No, Tolkien's dark-elves are dark skinned. As for the myth, the Silmarillion makes extensive mention of dark dwarfs as well. That the movie chose not to follow the convention, is not the fault of the book. Note that Tolkien himself used Elben for Elves, which is of course the German word for Alb/Elves.

What? His dark elves are never described as dark-skinned, and neither does the English Silmarillion use "dark" to describe the skin color of dwarves as well. Further, though his elves share a name, they share little else with the ones of Northern European legend, barely sharing an appearance.

If it is analogous to Byzantine history, then I presume that the War of the Ring would be associated with the various times Constantinople was in serious outside danger (though if you wish to argue that LOTR is an analogy to the Nika riots, feel free), and in one of these cases, they were saved by a foreign army.

There are many times when the Byzantines/Eastern Romans were saved by barbarian armies. I myself have read comparisons to the battle of the Catalaunian fields (which might be the best one) to the many sieges of Byzantium. For example, the one were they were saved by the Bulgars. Or the one when the Awars were beaten back by the German foederati troops. Or Thomas the Slav etc.

However, my personal favorite has always been a mixture of the Catalaunian fields and of course the first siege of Constantinople.

Ahh. Well, then, I concede this point on the analogical grounds.

Of course, if you were considering Mordor to stand in for Sassanid Persia, then I don't see where Arab hordes come into play as allies of Byzantium's enemies. Further, how do the Corsairs of Umbar fit in? Is there an analogue for them within Byzantine history?

Yes. The first siege of Constantinople. In it the Avars were joined by the Sassanid fleet (which utilized many corsairs) and slavs. Also, the Sarazens/Arabs had been allies of either Rome and Persia since the first century AD. They played a great role in every war the two nations fought with each other.

Thank you for the clarification; I was unaware of the role that the Arabs played prior to the hegira and spread of Islam. The corsairs themselves are actually the remnants of Gondorians obsessed with maintaining pure Numenorean blood, so an analogue for them would have to be Byzantine/Greek in composition.

[Night_stalker]

Nah, the Gondorians always struck me a analgoue for the Roman Empire, so I guess you could call the Haradrim, Corsairs, and Rhun troops as Carthage mercs, which actually would make sense.

[Thanas]

What? They torture Frodo and end up slaughtering each other in a major doublecross. That's not really implying that they have good sides at all.

They are characterized as dark forces, evil incarnated....and then they serve as comic relief due to sheer incompetence. How anyone can see them as a depiction of any "natural" race is a bit unclear to me.

If they're inherently evil and sapient, yes. That is precisely my point.

Good luck then, you just declared nearly all major work of fiction which uses the concept of evil and its followers as racist. It is not as if this is the same as our own world, where evil is not a natural force and does not exist per se. Unlike in Tolkien's world.

Lord of the Rings was written 70 years ago. Said travelogues were written almost 2000 years ago. I can't imagine why there might be differences in attitudes between the two periods.

It fits well within the historical context he was drawing from. You have no point here.

No. I am saying that there is no need for an analogue to be an exact copy. Having groups reminiscent or symbolic of Goths and Romans without copying them in excruciating details still count as analogues.

Good thing Tolkien did not copy them in excruciating detail then, only parts of their mentality.

What? His dark elves are never described as dark-skinned

Conceded, my mistake. I got something mixed up.

neither does the English Silmarillion use "dark" to describe the skin color of dwarves as well.

Tolkien uses "swarthy", doesn't he? I always took that to mean they had a darker skin than the usual elves/humans.

Further, though his elves share a name, they share little else with the ones of Northern European legend, barely sharing an appearance.

Point is, they are drawn from a northern european legend. Which does not have any spirits of dark colour in them.

The corsairs themselves are actually the remnants of Gondorians obsessed with maintaining pure Numenorean blood, so an analogue for them would have to be Byzantine/Greek in composition.

Easy to do, for example any usurper which had fleet support.

[Bakustra]

What? They torture Frodo and end up slaughtering each other in a major doublecross. That's not really implying that they have good sides at all.

They are characterized as dark forces, evil incarnated....and then they serve as comic relief due to sheer incompetence. How anyone can see them as a depiction of any "natural" race is a bit unclear to me.

They're not really a depiction of a race, but rather soldiers in time of war, according to Tolkien himself.

If they're inherently evil and sapient, yes. That is precisely my point.

Good luck then, you just declared nearly all major work of fiction which uses the concept of evil and its followers as racist. It is not as if this is the same as our own world, where evil is not a natural force and does not exist per se. Unlike in Tolkien's world.

What? There are a great many works of fiction that don't single out specific groups as irredeemably and inherently evil, and yes, any that do are, in point of fact, racist. Would you defend a fantasy novel that depicted all women as inherently evil from cries of sexism on these same grounds? This is an extreme example, of course, but that is the point; there is little difference whether a fictional creation is inherently evil or a real one. Both are racist in attitude.

Lord of the Rings was written 70 years ago. Said travelogues were written almost 2000 years ago. I can't imagine why there might be differences in attitudes between the two periods.

It fits well within the historical context he was drawing from. You have no point here.

So we are to presume that Tolkien deliberately adopted these for what purpose? This is omniscient narration, not the personal reminisces of a character? Further, is there a pattern of adopting similar Roman travelogue aspects in LOTR?

No. I am saying that there is no need for an analogue to be an exact copy. Having groups reminiscent or symbolic of Goths and Romans without copying them in excruciating details still count as analogues.

Good thing Tolkien did not copy them in excruciating detail then, only parts of their mentality.

So are you conceding that skin color is not an essential aspect to an analogue?

What? His dark elves are never described as dark-skinned

Conceded, my mistake. I got something mixed up.

No problem. That's a very common mistake.

neither does the English Silmarillion use "dark" to describe the skin color of dwarves as well.

Tolkien uses "swarthy", doesn't he? I always took that to mean they had a darker skin than the usual elves/humans.

Swarthy is also used to describe Aragorn, too, and Aragorn is indisputably light-skinned. Swarthy appears to mean tanned in the context of LOTR, oddly enough.

Further, though his elves share a name, they share little else with the ones of Northern European legend, barely sharing an appearance.

Point is, they are drawn from a northern european legend. Which does not have any spirits of dark colour in them.

Snorri Sturlusson's svartalfar, who are described as "blacker than pitch" while his ljosalfar are "brighter than the sun".

[Mystikal]

The fact that the extended cut of the film includes a scene where Faramir acknowledges their humanity hardly nullifies the accusation that the Men of Harad are a caricature of Africans. Oooh, they admit that the enemy is human!

Ok, apparently someone else already responded to this so I apologize before hand if it seems a bit harsh and hateful, but I would like a response to it anyways and the moderators opinion on the matter. Also, some help on multi-quote funtion would be nice.

Ok, dude, WTF?

The Africans known to ride into battle upon elephants were Phoenicians who migrated from the mideast. Not Black.

And also, unless you have been looking at history with race blinders, historically, the Arab/Berber people have been rivals of other people for a long time. Europe was, for centuries, at conflict with either itslef which was regional, and guess what? Many races are regional. The blatant racism isn't what you think it is. If you show a Western/Northern European power against a Southern or Eastern one, if you do it accurately there will be differences in appearances. Same shit if you do Greek vs Persian. Most Persians looked more akin to Arabic peoples, Afghanis, Steppe Tribes, etc than they looked southern european.

People from different regions tended to look different. Gasp! Before mass global transit was possible, people tended to just trust those who looked the same because it was liely they were related or had relative sthat were related. Gaps! What, you thought race just happened at random? If you breed with people in a given area and those people tend to associate with only each other or other people in a specific region, there will be cultural-behavioral and physical traits that distinquish them. Gaps!

So I must ask you, why are you focusing on the race and not where they are intended to be from and what culutres they are intended to depict? No, fuck that, why are you so focused on race? It is a depiction of a time when racism was less about hatred and more about sticking with those who looked and talked like you, had similar customs, and were thus more easily relatable. Back then, culture killed more than cooperated and most of the time you would stick to what you knew and people who had a lot in common. Back then, your culture was likely the only one you even knew existed, much less accepted.

I don't accusations of Racism flying about in relation to modern times but its a depiction of a more brutal, and harder time. It is ridiculous to apply our standards to a depiction of an era where you could die from so many things that people just hardened themselves against death itself. It is ridiculous to apply our modern day standards where a lot of times it truly was kill or be killed, when being blindly loyal to a king or a master was a far better propsect than being free. Because atleast you knew you had a meal and had protection. You are comparing modern day sensibilities, which are infinitely possible because of our living standards, to a depiction of an era which was VERY FUCKING BRUTAL. Sticking with recognizable and familiar was a matter of life and death back then. Being proud of your own culutre above someone else was natural and just how it was. This applied to everybody, not just da evil whiteman.

What, you think the persians thought highly of Greek culture? No, you either thought that the enemies culutre, and by extent people, was weak and pathetic or barbaric and uncivilised. It went every way, not just Whitemen hating non-whites. What do you think the Chinese Emperors thought of the British before the Opium Wars?



This reminds me, I can't stand movies that make it seem like Whites are the only perpetrators of Racism and Bigotry. It's not only false for today but it is especially false back in antiquity and even as recent as pre-1800s.

Ok, apparently someone else already responded to this so I apologize before hand if it seems a bit harsh and hateful, but I would like a response to it anyways and the moderators opinion on the matter. Also, some help on multi-quote funtion would be nice.

[Thanas]

They're not really a depiction of a race, but rather soldiers in time of war, according to Tolkien himself.

So what does this have to do with racism?

What? There are a great many works of fiction that don't single out specific groups as irredeemably and inherently evil, and yes, any that do are, in point of fact, racist. Would you defend a fantasy novel that depicted all women as inherently evil from cries of sexism on these same grounds? This is an extreme example, of course, but that is the point; there is little difference whether a fictional creation is inherently evil or a real one. Both are racist in attitude.

If it was explicitly stated that these are not natural creations, not women and if it even uses a different word to describe them and that they are a race specifically engineered for those traits - then I would argue that this is not racism since our values and the values of that universe are different. It is not like Tolkien is racist - in fact the success of the hero's is due to them embodying so many different traits.

My point is - once you accept that evil is a real force, then yes, there is no problem with a weapon being considered evil.

So we are to presume that Tolkien deliberately adopted these for what purpose? This is omniscient narration, not the personal reminisces of a character?

Because he liked to draw from history, as was common that time? And if you take the character's perceptions, there is the quote from Faramir of course.

Further, is there a pattern of adopting similar Roman travelogue aspects in LOTR?

I really do not know, beyond the military stuff I have not looked for coincidences.

So are you conceding that skin color is not an essential aspect to an analogue?

If you are using historical analogues, of course. If you see a Romanesque empire and suddenly you get chinese people in legionary's armor, it will put you off.

Swarthy is also used to describe Aragorn, too, and Aragorn is indisputably light-skinned. Swarthy appears to mean tanned in the context of LOTR, oddly enough.

I am not going to read through a three volume work to check this, so I'll take your word for it. That said, the dwarves we meet in European sagas are not dark-skinned.

Snorri Sturlusson's svartalfar, who are described as "blacker than pitch" while his ljosalfar are "brighter than the sun".

That is an icelandic saga, which has little in common with the germanic mythology Tolkien drew from.

[Big Orange]

The Haradrim could be seen as comparable to the Islamic Moors from the Umayyad Caliphate, who were effective enough to go in as far into Western Europe as Tours, in AD 732, where they were finally repelled by Christian Frankish warriors who could be seen as stand-ins for the Rohirrim (except the Franks fought largely on foot and the Moors were the cavalrymen). But Islam and Christianity do not apply to Tolkien's setting; in Middle-Earth the regular humans do not seem to have a concept of religion and are never observed worshiping in religious buildings (though the Western men have tombs and burial mounds, they don't have temples). Then there are the Easterlings (who are analogous to the Huns and Mongols).

And having read all of Tolkien's books and seen the trilogy, the Orcs are much more like the working class English people in terms of their speech and culture, which speaks of snobbish prejudice on Tolkien's part, and are also more comparable to H.G. Wells' Morlocks from The Time Machine. The Orcs and Elves are direct descendants to the ogres and fairies or demons and angels archetypes.

And yes, black comedians seem to be too focused on race and skin colour, using it as an awkward one trick pony. Another example of a racially insensitive "comedy" is White Chicks (2004). Also The Nutty Professor (1996) is good example of a movie featuring an attractive love interest to a black protagonist who is of mixed race. And ABC;s FlashForward, despite being a guilty pleasure TV show, seems more progressive than US movies in general, with a female lesbian protagonist and a mixed race couple (with the male partner being an Asian dude who doesn't know martial arts and is an average FBI agent).

[Bakustra]

So what does this have to do with racism?

They're not intended to stand in for any race in particular, unlike the Hobbits for Englishmen and the Rohirrim for the Anglo-Saxons and so on.

If it was explicitly stated that these are not natural creations, not women and if it even uses a different word to describe them and that they are a race specifically engineered for those traits - then I would argue that this is not racism since our values and the values of that universe are different. It is not like Tolkien is racist - in fact the success of the hero's is due to them embodying so many different traits.

My point is - once you accept that evil is a real force, then yes, there is no problem with a weapon being considered evil.

The point is that his orcs, from the evidence presented within the Lord of the Rings, are not mere weapons or golems. They have free will and the capacity to rebel. That is the central problem that Tolkien had with the orcs, and one that he never really resolved, in particular since any attempts to make them automata fly in the face of all the infighting and other signs of free will. However, I believe that this is purely a philosophical difference at this point.

Tolkien, meanwhile, I would say is likely at least somewhat racist, given the contents of some of his letters, but in an unconscious and controversial way.

So we are to presume that Tolkien deliberately adopted these for what purpose? This is omniscient narration, not the personal reminisces of a character?

Because he liked to draw from history, as was common that time? And if you take the character's perceptions, there is the quote from Faramir of course.

Sorry, I miswrote that. I meant that my quoted passage isn't characters' personal views, but those of an omniscient narrator. In addition, I remain unconvinced that this excuses the description.

So are you conceding that skin color is not an essential aspect to an analogue?

If you are using historical analogues, of course. If you see a Romanesque empire and suddenly you get chinese people in legionary's armor, it will put you off.

I think we may be operating off of different definitions of analogue, then.

Swarthy is also used to describe Aragorn, too, and Aragorn is indisputably light-skinned. Swarthy appears to mean tanned in the context of LOTR, oddly enough.

I am not going to read through a three volume work to check this, so I'll take your word for it. That said, the dwarves we meet in European sagas are not dark-skinned.

True.

Snorri Sturlusson's svartalfar, who are described as "blacker than pitch" while his ljosalfar are "brighter than the sun".

That is an icelandic saga, which has little in common with the germanic mythology Tolkien drew from.

It's still northern European in origin, and Tolkien at the least drew much of his dwarves (like their names) from the Eddas.

And having read all of Tolkien's books and seen the trilogy, the Orcs are much more like the working class English people in terms of their speech and culture, which speaks of snobbish prejudice on Tolkien's part, and are also more comparable to H.G. Wells' Morlocks from The Time Machine. The Orcs and Elves are direct descendants to the ogres and fairies or demons and angels archetypes.

So's Sam Gamgee, one of the main characters. Tolkien's Orcs are working-class English in their speech (I don't know where you're getting culture from, unless you have some very strange ideas about what lower-class English culture is like) because they are inspired by soldiers he knew in WWI and the general dehumanizing effects of war. Meanwhile, you clearly don't get the point of The Time Machine and the Morlocks.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not going to bother bringing up the LOTR tangent again; the movie's relentless fan-whores will argue for it till they're blue in the face, and I've frankly had more than my fill in life of goddamned smug white people telling me I'm over-sensitive about race. However, on a slightly related racial issue:

I am not a fanwhore. In fact, I think aside from the first film, the latter two were pretty much mediocre.
Did you like Gladiator? Did you think the way the Germans were portrayed in there was racist? Or maybe we can agree that maybe, an analogy about Constantinople would not be valid without the arabian hordes?

What are you talking about? The Germans were barely seen in Gladiator, but in the few minutes they were onscreen they seemed to come off reasonably well. A few thousand fighting rabble at the edge of a forest, shouting war cries and trying to defend their homeland from Roman invaders. How is that a racist portrayal? The only individual German we met was Haaken, and he came off reasonably well too. He wasn't a coward, and he held a grudge against Maximus for a while but came around. The Germans in Gladiator did nothing particularly evil, or savage.

As for LOTR, why do you keep thinking it's about a particular city? The point is that it was consciously intended as a mythologized past for western Europe, which had a long history of fighting enemies in the east. The Haradrim, the men of Ruhn, the Corsairs, the Orcs, all happen to be neat geographical and military analogues for the various eastern and African peoples that the Europeans fought and hated in real-life. Pure coincidence, according to the LOTR apologists, with no real analogue intended. I say "horseshit", particularly since Tolkien openly intended it to serve as mythology for Europe.

But hey, if your defense is going to be "the analogy isn't utterly perfect in every way", go right ahead and pretend that proves it means absolutely nothing.

[Edi]

Are you misreading what Thanas said, Mike? Yes, the LOTR peoples of the east are analogous to real historical enemies of Europe. What I see in his argument is that without the actual analogous elements being present, the analogy would not be valid. But since they are there, the Haradrim, the Easterlings, Khandians etc, it is a valid analogy. If you removed one or two of those, it would not alter much of anything, since there would still be hordes of enemies coming from the east.

[Rye]

What was that about race?

SHE was 6 feet of Black Dynamite, HE was a short Hasidic Jew... (NSFW)

As for the orcs being racist... they were tortured lily-whitey elves originally, meaning their problems (since Tolkein apparently hated the idea of an evil race) are mostly down to their traumatic creation and conditioning. Saruman the White was one of the main antagonists. The main antagonist had no corporeal form. As a ghost myself, I find this kind of racist, but having bound all my malice and hatred up in one ring and hoping to come back one day to rule everyone, I can understand where Tolkein and Jackson were coming from.

One thing the films definitely had was hair folliclism, where the closer to God you were, the straighter your hair was. When Gandalf dies and comes back, apparently the Maiar gave him straighteners.

As for Transformers, the heroic military guys were an all colours PC unit, though the leader was the white one.

[Bakustra]

As for the orcs being racist... they were tortured lily-whitey elves originally, meaning their problems (since Tolkein apparently hated the idea of an evil race) are mostly down to their traumatic creation and conditioning. Saruman the White was one of the main antagonists. The main antagonist had no corporeal form. As a ghost myself, I find this kind of racist, but having bound all my malice and hatred up in one ring and hoping to come back one day to rule everyone, I can understand where Tolkein and Jackson were coming from.

I'd like to point out that Tolkien's own view was that, as it stood, the orcs in LOTR were inherently evil and irredeemable, and he sought to correct this towards the end of his life in a planned revision to LOTR. Meanwhile, the "orcs-as-altered-elve" is an in-universe theory, and Tolkien had a number of different origins of the orcs that he was considering, such as altered humans, altered animals, and lesser spirits, as well as combinations of these. However, the orcs are clearly genetically altered, rather than being merely "tortured and conditioned", since they are shorter than humans or elves, and their differences breed true. Meanwhile, what do Saruman and Sauron have to do with this, apart from a false equivalency and some bad jokes? Nobody was talking about either and nobody was accusing Tolkien of being an Imperial Wizard of the KKK or voting BNP.

[Rye]

I'd like to point out that Tolkien's own view was that, as it stood, the orcs in LOTR were inherently evil and irredeemable, and he sought to correct this towards the end of his life in a planned revision to LOTR. Meanwhile, the "orcs-as-altered-elve" is an in-universe theory, and Tolkien had a number of different origins of the orcs that he was considering, such as altered humans, altered animals, and lesser spirits, as well as combinations of these. However, the orcs are clearly genetically altered, rather than being merely "tortured and conditioned", since they are shorter than humans or elves, and their differences breed true. Meanwhile, what do Saruman and Sauron have to do with this, apart from a false equivalency and some bad jokes? Nobody was talking about either and nobody was accusing Tolkien of being an Imperial Wizard of the KKK or voting BNP.

Because not only is there the theme of a diverse set of species, let alone races working together promoted as a good thing, but the actual antagonists, the indisputable evil in the story, are either industrialists just as white as the heroes or are vengeful disembodied gods. The forces that the hobbits et al have to overcome are as diverse and fantastic as you can really expect and you do have to read the racism into it rather than out of it. It reminds me of the "racism" of having all black zombies in Africa in RE5. At some points in the events of a plausible medieval world, people are often going to be one colour, and maybe the good guys are going to be the colour of the culturally dominant race in reality.

[Gil Hamilton]

I think the issue is that Tolkien made the Men of the East inherently wicked. Remember why the Numenoreans and their descendents were so noble and pure; according to Tolkien, it's because they lived close to the Elves and by extension the Valar. Without that influence, they'd have been inherently wicked too. The Men of Harad, the Men of Rhun, et cetera, never lived with the influence of Valinor, and thus were wicked, prone to betrayal (famously in the case of the Easterlings), and naturally under the influence of Sauron in exchange for petty trinkets.

I'm not surprised that Mike's hackles are all sorts of raised over it, when you then consider that all the races of men that were separated from Valinor (God) happened to represent North Africans (Haradrim), Mongols (Easterlings), Barbary Pirates (the Corsairs of Umbar), et cetera, while the ones that were capable of good and righteousness were all descendent from a race that Tolkien REPEATEDLY goes out of his way to describe how fair their complexion is (the Numenoreans) are their enemies. Sure the men of Gondor get described as swarthy, but Tolkien as keeps bring up as fallen fair and away from their Numenorean roots. Naturally, someone who is much closer to the seven foot tall white Numenorean superman ideal (Aragorn) saves them and is their true king, leading them back to righteousness.

Oh, and the less said about Ghan-buri-Ghan the better. Jackson made a good decision to drop that entire subplot.

TL:DR version:
Tolkien's set up: White people and the descendants of those white people are the ones capable of good, because they lived around God. Colored folk didn't live around God, therefore automatically are working for the Devil. The Devil sends Colored Folks to rape and pillage the White Folks, which they do because they are wicked. White folks are saved by their very whitest member. Hurray, Good triumphs over Evil. Somewhere in there there is a guy in a grass skirt going "Booga booga!"

[Darth Wong]

Gee, I guess the LOTR apologists can congratulate themselves for pointing out that LOTR is not a perfect racist screed like Mein Kampf. Once again, I guess I'm just the oversensitive person from an eastern ethnic background, and the smug white people have to remind me of how I'm just oversensitive to something that they can clearly see to be insignificant.

[Bakustra]

Because not only is there the theme of a diverse set of species, let alone races working together promoted as a good thing, but the actual antagonists, the indisputable evil in the story, are either industrialists just as white as the heroes or are vengeful disembodied gods. The forces that the hobbits et al have to overcome are as diverse and fantastic as you can really expect and you do have to read the racism into it rather than out of it. It reminds me of the "racism" of having all black zombies in Africa in RE5. At some points in the events of a plausible medieval world, people are often going to be one colour, and maybe the good guys are going to be the colour of the culturally dominant race in reality.

All of whom are white, except the token grass-skirted, pidgin-spouting primitives and the tree people. Meanwhile, the actual diversity in skin tone comes from Sauron's forces encompassing Central Asians (orcs, Wainriders, Balchoth), Middle Easterners and North Africans (Near Harad, Harondor, Harad), Subsaharan Africans (Far Harad), Eastern Europeans (Easterlings), and whatever the hell the Variags of Khand are. Oh, wait, he also coopted white racists into his forces, surely that negates the message sent by having a uniform army against a multicultural army (indeed, every battle in the War of the Ring save Dale consisted monoracial forces on the side of the West against the multiracial forces of Sauron. Nothing unpleasant in these implications, no sir!

In any case, your point about RE5 illustrates perfectly what Darth Wong is saying. Are you blind to any of the implications of having a white hero fighting black villains? Now, the thing here is that there are two parts to this. If you want to set a story in Africa featuring African villains, then you should try to avoid evoking images of imperialism, by not having a white protagonist standing lone against the forces of "the Dark Continent", as Capcom did by including Sheva as a playable character and sidekick. Of course, she was noticeably lighter-skinned than the African enemies, falling into another problem. Regardless, if you have a monochrome heroic side versus a colorful villainous side, something is going to have to change, because of the implications involved. Tolkien might not have (and probably didn't) seen the full implications, because of the time he was writing in, and I am sure that he would have altered LOTR if he had become aware.

Gee, I guess the LOTR apologists can congratulate themselves for pointing out that LOTR is not a perfect racist screed like Mein Kampf. Once again, I guess I'm just the oversensitive person from an eastern ethnic background, and the smug white people have to remind me of how I'm just oversensitive to something that they can clearly see to be insignificant.

I personally think that Tolkien simply was unaware of the implications involved in LOTR's racial situation, mainly because he was firmly anti-Apartheid and anti-Nazi, both publicly and privately. He certainly became aware of the implications surrounding the orcs, and tried to correct those in the later years of his life. On the other hand, was he personally racist? Well, yes, judging by his letter on the appearance of orcs where he says they resemble "the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types" (letter 210, 1958) after a fairly insensitive description. The earlier description of "black men like half-trolls from Far Harad with red tongues and white eyes" also calls to mind racist caricatures of Africans. This is really no surprise for someone of the same generation of Lovecraft and Hitler, and indeed Tolkien was far less racist than either, but still probably racist by our standards.

[Edi]

Gee, I guess the LOTR apologists can congratulate themselves for pointing out that LOTR is not a perfect racist screed like Mein Kampf. Once again, I guess I'm just the oversensitive person from an eastern ethnic background, and the smug white people have to remind me of how I'm just oversensitive to something that they can clearly see to be insignificant.

I hope this is not aimed at me, since I do not dispute the points you are making. I acknowledge them, but at the same time I can also see the angle e.g. Thanas is coming from.

Sure, when viewed against the backdrop of Christian mythology and the history of white colonialism, it looks exactly as bad you describe.

If on the other hand you look at it from the backdrop of Norse mythology, Beowulf and related legends, which it draws heavily from, it's very different, since in those contexts the East/West divide was rather less important than North/South. In that context the racism angle hardly exists, but I suppose you can also chalk that up to Nordic societies at least having been so homogenous for so long that we don't even have a suitable frame of reference.