LoTR, Racism & Historical Analologies

[Bakustra]

To this discussion, you idiot.

Which is about racism, and how the heroes are a mixture of different races...oh wait...

In the face of a message that makes up a pretty big overall theme of the story, wrongly-derived implications are just that.

In fact, you don't seem to get that this is about the implications of a group of lightskinned people being associated with good, and all the darkskinned people being associated with evil.

And you're making the same damn stupid mistake the racists make. They see "brown people working for the bad guy, they must be evilz!" and run with that impression because they don't examine the material critically and realize, no, the brown people aren't evil, and the Fellowship makes pretty crappy rolemodels for budding young Neo-Nazis. You can't hold an author responsible for stupid people reading their work the wrong way and coming away with a bad conclusion, unless you want authors to hold the readers' hand for the entire way story, and I believe they already have children's stories for that.

Let's pare this this down to brass tacks. Do you believe that it is possible to have racism in a work without the conscious decision of the author? Do you believe that there can be such a thing as racist implications? I can predict your likely answer, but I want to be sure. If you answer no, then I think we will just have to agree to disagree, because it is impossible for you to understand my point without accepting modern literary theory to some extent.

Now, I find it interesting that you seem to believe that it's impossible for a work targeting racism to be racist itself.

Because racism, by its very definition, is about promoting one race as being superior over another. And if the crux of your book is about racial harmony in the effort of getting together to defeat evil, then it is not a racist book. Politically incorrect and/or racially insensitive, perhaps, depending on how you write it, but that's different than actual racism.

So racist stereotypes aren't racist as long as the book or work they appear in was targeted at racism? That is a curious definition of racism you are using, but it seems that you sincerely believe that it is impossible to be unconsciously racist. Again, we may have to agree to disagree, if we cannot agree on a common set of definitions.

No, I'm pointing out that the Appendixes should not have to make excuses for the story or carry the whole weight of the story upon themselves, and Tolkien did not think that they did so. The casual reader is not necessarily going to tackle the appendixes, nor would they be included in any movie adaptation. Therefore, they cannot be used to effectively justify the work. Got it?

Backtrack much? For someone going on about racism in the background of the story, your effort to now distance from the story's background, which effectively promotes a "racists are bad" message, is pretty funny. Whether or not Tolkien thought the book could be trimmed in translation is unimportant (unless you're now saying he trimmed those parts specifically because he didn't want that message in there), for a book which is already decidedly anti-racism, they are an extra cudgel for people who just don't get it.

And BTW, the story of the Kin-Strife appears in Appendix A, the one he didn't want lost in translation.

No, see, I'm talking about this from the perspective of how the story appears to people watching a hypothetical movie or reading the book for the first time. The background is part of the story, to be sure, but it cannot carry the whole of the book on its metaphorical back, nor can it justify the story. Further, when I say background, it is to differentiate it from your "it ain't Nazi propaganda" strawman, and to signify that it is not blatant within the story.

Proof?

Have you tried examining the quote in question?

degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

So what does this tell us?
A) Asians are, to Europeans, unattractive
B) Orcs are based in part on this, taken to extremes
A is Tolkien's acknowledgement of something we already know, that Europeans of that time were racist, but the fact that he distances himself with that qualifier means it's not necessarily a notion he supports, otherwise he would have just said so. If you're a racist, your probably don't word your sentiments as "Those Mexicans are, to Americans, dirty smelly job-stealers." B means that Orcs aren't meant to be a direct copy of them, but rather influenced in appearance in reference to European racism. It's no different than basing a fictional culture in part on a real-life culture, if it's not an attempt made to associate that culture by implication with your fictional race.

Prove it. I want proof from Tolkien's pen. How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?

There, now that I've gotten the desire to mock via mimicry out of my system, I still maintain that it is more likely than not that Tolkien was somewhat racist, given the times he grew up in. Of course, you will disagree to maintain your image of the man as a sainted figure, but oh well.

Wow. When confronted with a stereotype, just deny the stereotype even exists, especially in the case of a stereotype commonly known in Tolkien's day, and indeed beginning to pass into cliche. Wahey, but there's something vaguely like them in the folklore of England, so let's pretend the stereotypical aspects (which Tolkien added) don't exist so we can ignore uncomfortable aspects of our favorite books!

And I denied it...where? Pretty much the only thing about the Woses' (whose name is even a direct lift from the 'real-life' Woses) description that could be specifically related to Bushmen are grass skirts, and even Bushmen don't have a monopoly on that. Never mind the implication that you can now never show a primitive culture wearing grass skirts, otherwise it means you think Bushmen are an inferior race or some stupid schtick And forgetting again the fact that they are good guys and that their persecution is pretty much spelled out as being wrong.

They're still a fucking stereotype, no matter how much you play the "offended white guy card" at the thought that pidgin-spouting grass-skirted "primitives" might have become unacceptable.

I don't think anybody's claiming what your sentence currently says. All the overt racism in LOTR involves the Rohirrim (who mysteriously happen to be known for blond hair, persecuting on the basis of blood, and wantonly killing those they consider less than human. A marvelous coincidence.) in some way or another, or else is Elves and Dwarves.

Wow, so much wrong with this. They did not "persecute on the basis of blood" like some Aryan wannabes, their abuse of the Woses came in part because they did not understand them and thought them to be goblins. When they were shown the error of their ways, they became friends with them. Yes, that's a horribly racist message indeed.

What? I'm suggesting that the Rohirrim are potential analogues as a stereotype of Nazi Germany. I'm not accusing LOTR of promoting racism with this. This was part in jest, but the persecution on basis of blood would be the Dunlanders. After all, Helm Hammerhand strangled and murdered a man for being of Dunnish descent and doing something he didn't like. I'm sure this had no factor in the fact that the guy's son joined the Dunlanders to war against Rohan. In fact, relations are so sour that there are even ethnic slurs involved, though admittedly the Dunnish ones are not particularly intimidating, being essentially cries of "Blondy!" I find it interesting that you believe that hunting sapient beings like animals is a-ok if they are "evil", but I suppose that all orcs must have done something to deserve it, right? Finally, I doubt there was much intercourse between Druedain Wood and Rohan after that, given that the Druedain were given sovereignty and closed borders after the War of the Ring, but whatever makes you happy.

Now, I don't believe Tolkien was portraying any of this as a good thing, nor did he intend to necessarily portray the Rohirrim as universally good, contrary to the beliefs of Peter Jackson.

[Teleros]

Certainly I think Avatar can be viewed as having racist undertones ("poor non-white natives saved by white guy" and the various stereotypes that the Na'vi conform to, to give two examples I've seen brought up), but I'd be more willing to give it some leeway if it had been based on classic literature, simply because the original material came from a different time period. Not that that means I think LotR (book or film) is not racist, or does not have racist undertones or whatever, just that I'm willing to give it some leeway owing to the time it was written / books it was based on (and let's not forget that in the LotR movie it's not like Peter Jackson didn't excise the worst of the book). With Avatar though, it's being written today, in a much more sensitive climate with regards racism.

In addition to Valdemar's questions though, would your view of Avatar change if, for example, the blue alien Na'vi were replaced by, to take an example out of Pocahontas, Native Americans? Yes it's clear that the Na'vi represent a certain "good wholesome low-tech native" stereotype (or however you want to describe it) anyway... but would you view them & the movie differently if they were not, you know, giant blue people? And to link this back to LotR, what does this say about for example your views on elves & dwarves?

[Simon_Jester]

I am not saying that a work that features a monoracial cast is necessarily racist. I am saying that having a monoracial group of heroes and a multiracial group of villains is racist.

Do orcs count as a race for this purpose?
Would Lord of the Rings have been nonracist if all the good guys came from one monoracial bloc and all the bad guys came from another? That would give the villains a non-multiracial cast, but I find it hard to imagine it would be less racist.

Whoops, my apologies for using a comparison that directly encompasses the situation in LOTR and the strawman version people keep throwing at me. Next time I shall be sure to encompass all situations possible within fiction. Yes, that would also be racist.

Bakustra, I honestly do prefer not to make assumptions about what other people think on this forum. So sometimes I ask really obvious questions, just to make sure there isn't some subtle wrinkle of your position that I've missed. I was pretty sure you'd say this, because it is quite obvious... but I didn't want to take the chance of responding to something you didn't believe.

So. Monoracial good guys versus monoracial bad guys is racist. If so, then it's equally racist if we take the two sides and switch them: a movie about good humans fighting evil orcs is as racist as a movie about good orcs fighting evil humans. Still one monoracial bloc fighting another.

Or have I misunderstood you?

My god. With your post below, this becomes a thread trifecta! Ignoring what I actually said in favor of an easily torn-down strawman, denying arguments that nobody ever made, and declaring that you have the key to the symbolism in LOTR. Here, let me make this simple.

The use of black-as-a-negative to describe people gains overtones when you realize that they are aligned with the people who are described with black-as-a-skin-color, and so the two become associated within the context of the text.

And this association is pretty damn feeble in the context of Lord of the Rings. There comes a point at which "racist," which we normally use as a strong word of condemnation for things we think shouldn't happen, is the wrong word to describe a faint hint of subliminal negative associations that if you look hard enough can be found in bits and pieces of the text.

I defy you and Alyrium to prove that the Druedain are indubitably Neolithic-man inspired. I will admit that they are not necessarily Bushmen or Polynesians specifically, but they still are the European image of "grass-skirted primitives who speak solely in pidgin" and so I wanted to use examples of the people who the stereotype was applied against. They could be Tierra del Fuegians, they could be Andaman natives, but I sincerely doubt that there is evidence that Neolithic European man wore grass skirts. You might have a point, but it becomes drowned in the presence of the grass fucking skirts.

So... the grass skirts drown out all possibility that (like PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK) the Druedain might come from European mythology rather than from 18th and 19th century racial stereotypes. Right.

Also, I find it interesting that you would defy me or Alyrium to prove a negative: to prove that there is no possibility that the Druedain's portrayal was influenced by nonwhite Stone Agers.

But if you prefer, then suddenly even the token non-white characters vanish, to make the cast even more Wonder Bread in makeup!

This is foolish, Bakustra. You can't have it both ways. If making the characters nonwhite turns them into offensive racial stereotypes, then making the characters white can't be cause for offense on grounds of "Oh, well, I'm offended that you didn't make them nonwhite!"

[Murazor]

Prove it. I want proof from Tolkien's pen. How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one?

There, now that I've gotten the desire to mock via mimicry out of my system, I still maintain that it is more likely than not that Tolkien was somewhat racist, given the times he grew up in. Of course, you will disagree to maintain your image of the man as a sainted figure, but oh well.

Found something relevant to this discussion in Letters:

29 From a letter to Stanley Unwin 25 July 1938
[Allen & Unwin had negotiated the publication of a German translation of The Hobbit with Rütten & Loening of Potsdam. This firm wrote to Tolkien asking if he was of 'arisch' (aryan) origin.]
I must say the enclosed letter from Rütten 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 Bestätigung1 (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 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.
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.

30 To Rütten & Loening Verlag
[One of the 'two drafts' mentioned by Tolkien in the previous letter. This is the only one preserved in the Allen & Unwin files, and it seems therefore very probable that the English publishers sent the other one to Germany. It is clear that in that letter Tolkien refused to make any declaration of 'arisch' origin.]
25 July 1938 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford
Dear Sirs,
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 Flindustani, 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 in the eighteenth century 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, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this son 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.
Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its suitability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.1
I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and
remain yours faithfully
J. R. R. Tolkien.

Had the man racist attitudes as a consequence of being a person of his time and age? Perfectly possible, I reckon, and LotR can be interpreted that way. Did Tolkien consider racism and xenophobia as negative qualities? Reading this, it seems obvious that the answer is yes.

[Bakustra]

Firstly, fuck you for associating me with open_sketchbook. That is particularly aggravating, annoying, and insulting for somebody who argued against his moronocity.

I didn't associate you with him. I associated him with hellish art control and both of you with underestimating the morality and intelligence of the audience. If you wish to dispute that, perhaps relying on the actual narrative of the films instead of, you know, subliminal coincidental associations, might be a better way to go about it?

So, wait, let me ask you the same question. Do you believe it is possible for something to contain racist implications? Note that I have not actually argued that LOTR will make people racist, or whatever arguments you assume me to be making. I highly doubt that LOTR will tip things one way or another for people, I doubt that people will notice it unless they spend time thinking about the book (your eternal enemy, exegesis in action I suppose), in short, your attempts to associate me with elitism are rather ineffective and do nothing about my belief that you presume your opponents to be monolithic.

Boy is my face red.

Secondly, my point is that by having the set-up that I have described many times over and will not describe again, we have an implied message of "monoracial good, multiracial bad" as well as associating nonwhites with evil. Meanwhile, you find it impossible to read what I am saying, which is that there are racist implications, not that it is "categorically racist" or "like The Triumph of the Will" or whatever you drooling slime-molds vomit out next in order to avoid addressing my actual argument. I am not saying that it is necessarily reprehensible, but that it has racist elements to it, which is something that should be acknowledged rather than justified or avoided by putting one's hands over one's ears and singing "la-la-la". Also, I have produced a potential solution that shouldn't offend your delicate sensibilities about "political correctness": changing the makeup of Gondor to be multiracial. Now, I am being optimistic here, since people have shown that they are so emotionally invested in the whiteness of Gondor that they consider such an idea butchery, but I have a right to.

Pahahah. Yeah, that's it. I definitely have "something to lose" by Gondor having a bunch of dark skinned people in it. Like, uh... I don't know? What the Hell would I even lose? Implied, coincidental racial issues from the real world that neither the author nor director intended when crafting a world of fantasy? I even already said that I wouldn't care if they had done it that way, for all your complaining about not reading the thread. I wouldn't have cared, but I don't think it was necessary to make it not racist anymore than a school full of white kids needs a black one to be not racist.

So, how does it feel to have people conflate the arguments of other people with your own? Is it a pleasant feeling?

Meanwhile, so many people have bitched about altering the racial makeup of the cast as "butchery", and you have been whining about how altering the racial makeup would be the result of "political correctness", so I put two and two together. Happily, they did not make four in this instance. However, once again I feel that we are talking past one another. Perhaps we should both learn not to presume that everybody shares our opinions of literary theory, but if we want to turn this into "author's intent" versus "death of the author", well I suppose I would be willing to discuss that.

Speaking of rights, your final sentence indicates you are on the verge of shrieking about how you have a right to be racist and no political correctness police can take that away from you.

Why should I even respond to the conversation when you're ready and willing to dictate my own thoughts and speech for me? Oh sorry, comparing you to open_sketchbook is so un-called for, isn't it?

Because you're a sucker for accusing minorities about being oversensitive to racism? Because you were complaining about the dread PC police infringing on artistic freedom, which is a bizarre thing to say when replying to me? Because you can easily dish out aggravation and smug superiority, but when somebody turns it on you, you turn out to have a glass jaw?

Oddly enough, nobody is telling you "stop that" or saying "don't enjoy the movies or books". I'm not going to embark on an Annie Wilkes-esque plot to chain you to a desk until you stop whining about how the PC Police are infringing on your right to write racist stuff in the name of art. Nobody is. Nobody.

Blah blah blah. I'm not saying that, I'm mocking the arrogant liberal paternalism. I'm as much of a Nietzschean overmang that detests the common fool as anyone, but the difference is I don't think that the creators were underestimating them as much as you are. I think they crafted a work of fantasy and assumed that you and I could tell the difference between a bunch of heroic white people fighting evil that contains various different coloured humanoids and actual racist content. Like I said from the beginning, the racist interpretation is an eisegesis by over-sensitive types with an agenda, be they KKK recruiters or lesbian feminists or Mike. I put it to you that a black person can identify with only white people running from the nazgul as much as a white person can because of human kinship, interestingly, the exact same kinship that marks people as "good" within the narrative instead of evil, and the same kinship that allows good to prevail.

Compared to that... the coincidence of white people in medieval europe as a condemnation of the character of the setting seems weak and contrived oversensitivity.

Wow. You seriously think I was arguing in favor of censoring works to remove any potentially objectionable content, or that I'm an elitist trying to crush the common man? I don't care just what outdated 19th century philosophy you subscribe to, and I think that you're jumping the gun massively in favor of presuming that any opponent of yours must hold beliefs you find abhorrent. In this case you are right, because I object to the idea of authorial intent as the only valid interpretation, or even as a trump card, when it comes to study of literature. Unfortunately, I don't hold to smug elitism (the smuggery is an affectation when dealing with the smarmy), so it's not for the reason you apparently believe.

Meanwhile, you don't seem to get why minorities could possibly be offended by a middle-class white guy saying that clearly they are being oversensitive because he isn't offended, and therefore nobody should be offended. That is exactly what you're doing, although you justify it via literary theory. This is not going to impress anybody nor mollify them. Finally, I find it odd that you seem to believe that it's impossible for something to contain multiple implications, but I should expect that from somebody who holds to author's intent.

[Channel72]

So why is it necessary for a film adaptation to adhere strictly to this?

It's not strictly necessary. But why is it necessarily bad?

Also, Miyazaki films and the Mahabharata don't, say, associate white people with absolute evil, funnily enough. Maybe that's why people aren't criticizing them? If LOTR was all-white, then the associations we are bringing up will vanish altogether.

The point is that all of the racial implications in LotR are, as Rye puts it, eisegetical. There's nothing in the story that suggests the human component of Sauron's forces is inherently inferior or evil; it's directly stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. The fact that they are darker-skinned is merely a reflection of the fact that they are "far-off peoples" from a European perspective. Don't forget it was also a Gondorian who was originally so selfish as to keep the Ring for himself, rather than destroying it. In fact if LotR can be accused of anything, it's speciesism against humans. Tolkien suggests that all humans are so corruptible, power-hungry and weak as to be unable to withstand the tempting allure of the Ring.

[Teleros]

In fact if LotR can be accused of anything, it's speciesism against humans. Tolkien suggests that all humans are so corruptible and weak as to be unable to withstand the tempting allure of the Ring.

Definitely true, especially having read the Silmarillion as well. Generally the noblest / greatest / whatever-est humans have been those who've had dealings with the Elves (the more the better, and half-Elven ancestry is a major plus too). The trouble of course is that most (all?) of said noblest humans tend also to be white, although at least there's the excuse of an external force being the cause of this.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Definitely true, especially having read the Silmarillion as well. Generally the noblest / greatest / whatever-est humans have been those who've had dealings with the Elves (the more the better, and half-Elven ancestry is a major plus too). The trouble of course is that most (all?) of said noblest humans tend also to be white, although at least there's the excuse of an external force being the cause of this.

You know... Sauron being right there in an area where the humans are ethnically white.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, I honestly do prefer not to make assumptions about what other people think on this forum. So sometimes I ask really obvious questions, just to make sure there isn't some subtle wrinkle of your position that I've missed. I was pretty sure you'd say this, because it is quite obvious... but I didn't want to take the chance of responding to something you didn't believe.

So. Monoracial good guys versus monoracial bad guys is racist. If so, then it's equally racist if we take the two sides and switch them: a movie about good humans fighting evil orcs is as racist as a movie about good orcs fighting evil humans. Still one monoracial bloc fighting another.

Or have I misunderstood you?

No, you have not, and I apologize for any shortness of tone. I am frustrated by people repeating the exact same misinterpretations of my posts over... and over... and over. That got out a little. I'm sorry.

My god. With your post below, this becomes a thread trifecta! Ignoring what I actually said in favor of an easily torn-down strawman, denying arguments that nobody ever made, and declaring that you have the key to the symbolism in LOTR. Here, let me make this simple.

The use of black-as-a-negative to describe people gains overtones when you realize that they are aligned with the people who are described with black-as-a-skin-color, and so the two become associated within the context of the text.

And this association is pretty damn feeble in the context of Lord of the Rings. There comes a point at which "racist," which we normally use as a strong word of condemnation for things we think shouldn't happen, is the wrong word to describe a faint hint of subliminal negative associations that if you look hard enough can be found in bits and pieces of the text.

So what word would you prefer to use? Further, if you admit that the association exists, than there is really no further point to this tangent, as we do not disagree.

I defy you and Alyrium to prove that the Druedain are indubitably Neolithic-man inspired. I will admit that they are not necessarily Bushmen or Polynesians specifically, but they still are the European image of "grass-skirted primitives who speak solely in pidgin" and so I wanted to use examples of the people who the stereotype was applied against. They could be Tierra del Fuegians, they could be Andaman natives, but I sincerely doubt that there is evidence that Neolithic European man wore grass skirts. You might have a point, but it becomes drowned in the presence of the grass fucking skirts.

So... the grass skirts drown out all possibility that (like PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK) the Druedain might come from European mythology rather than from 18th and 19th century racial stereotypes. Right.

Also, I find it interesting that you would defy me or Alyrium to prove a negative: to prove that there is no possibility that the Druedain's portrayal was influenced by nonwhite Stone Agers.

Interesting. It's almost as though literary theory, residing on subjective impressions, is not something that can be definitely proved (unless you're Rye). Furthermore, it's the grass skirts. The pidgin. The drums. The darts. All these lead me to believe that they are, in fact a stereotype. Tolkien may have intended this, he may have decided to blend the legends in question with other concepts, but those are irrelevant to the question of whether they fit the stereotype.

But if you prefer, then suddenly even the token non-white characters vanish, to make the cast even more Wonder Bread in makeup!

This is foolish, Bakustra. You can't have it both ways. If making the characters nonwhite turns them into offensive racial stereotypes, then making the characters white can't be cause for offense on grounds of "Oh, well, I'm offended that you didn't make them nonwhite!"

No, I'm pointing out that making them white removes any presence of non-white heroic characters, so it doesn't do anything about my central argument and the broader implications. Sure, it alters an annoying stereotype, and that's good. I'm not offended that they're nonwhite, just pointing out the implications that your argument would have.

So why is it necessary for a film adaptation to adhere strictly to this?

It's not strictly necessary. But why is it necessarily bad?

I don't know. You tell me why associating multiculturalism with evil may not be something filmmakers want to go for.

Also, Miyazaki films and the Mahabharata don't, say, associate white people with absolute evil, funnily enough. Maybe that's why people aren't criticizing them? If LOTR was all-white, then the associations we are bringing up will vanish altogether.

The point is that all of the racial implications in LotR are, as Rye puts it, eisegetical. There's nothing in the story that suggests the human component of Sauron's forces is inherently inferior or evil; it's directly stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. The fact that they are darker-skinned is merely a reflection of the fact that they are "far-off peoples" from a European perspective. Don't forget it was also a Gondorian who was originally so selfish as to keep the Ring for himself, rather than destroying it. In fact if LotR can be accused of anything, it's speciesism against humans. Tolkien suggests that all humans are so corruptible, power-hungry and weak as to be unable to withstand the tempting allure of the Ring.

Nowhere is it stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. That is literal eisegesis, since you are reading things in that are in no way there. Going on about how "white people are evil too", meanwhile, leads me to believe that this thread is caught in a cycle of people repeating the same arguments until they lose interest or one side collapses. The point is that we have heroic and villainous lightskinned characters, but no heroic darkskinned characters.

[Teleros]

Definitely true, especially having read the Silmarillion as well. Generally the noblest / greatest / whatever-est humans have been those who've had dealings with the Elves (the more the better, and half-Elven ancestry is a major plus too). The trouble of course is that most (all?) of said noblest humans tend also to be white, although at least there's the excuse of an external force being the cause of this.

You know... Sauron being right there in an area where the humans are ethnically white.

If you're referring to the external force I mentioned, I was thinking more along the lines of the Elves. The ethnically white humans happen to end up settling down where most of the Elves are, with the result that they get the benefit of being next door to Tolkein's favourites.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Definitely true, especially having read the Silmarillion as well. Generally the noblest / greatest / whatever-est humans have been those who've had dealings with the Elves (the more the better, and half-Elven ancestry is a major plus too). The trouble of course is that most (all?) of said noblest humans tend also to be white, although at least there's the excuse of an external force being the cause of this.

You know... Sauron being right there in an area where the humans are ethnically white.

If you're referring to the external force I mentioned, I was thinking more along the lines of the Elves. The ethnically white humans happen to end up settling down where most of the Elves are, with the result that they get the benefit of being next door to Tolkein's favourites.

Either way.

[Simon_Jester]

...So. Monoracial good guys versus monoracial bad guys is racist. If so, then it's equally racist if we take the two sides and switch them: a movie about good humans fighting evil orcs is as racist as a movie about good orcs fighting evil humans. Still one monoracial bloc fighting another.
Or have I misunderstood you?

No, you have not...

OK. That being the case, what happens if we shoot a movie about, say, the Ethiopians defeating the Italian Army at Adowa? We cast actual Ethiopians (or other dark-skinned actors who look like Ethiopians) as the Ethiopians. We cast white-to-swarthy-white actors as the Italians.

Is there a way to escape racism in this movie, other than by introducing ahistoric-looking characters from other continents into the story?

So what word would you prefer to use? Further, if you admit that the association exists, than there is really no further point to this tangent, as we do not disagree.

I'd say the association is so weak that calling it "racist" dilutes the term. I'm not really sure what word to use; I'm sorry.

This is foolish, Bakustra. You can't have it both ways. If making the characters nonwhite turns them into offensive racial stereotypes, then making the characters white can't be cause for offense on grounds of "Oh, well, I'm offended that you didn't make them nonwhite!"

No, I'm pointing out that making them white removes any presence of non-white heroic characters, so it doesn't do anything about my central argument and the broader implications. Sure, it alters an annoying stereotype, and that's good. I'm not offended that they're nonwhite, just pointing out the implications that your argument would have.

Since my argument also includes the observation that the reason all the protagonists are white (along with many of the antagonists) is that the story is about battles fought in a North European ur-world against supernatural enemies... I don't think the implications matter as much as you think they do.

Nowhere is it stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. That is literal eisegesis, since you are reading things in that are in no way there. Going on about how "white people are evil too", meanwhile, leads me to believe that this thread is caught in a cycle of people repeating the same arguments until they lose interest or one side collapses. The point is that we have heroic and villainous lightskinned characters, but no heroic darkskinned characters.

Yes, because we have no darkskinned characters to begin with, except for a bunch of generic extras from beyond the known world that Sauron somehow managed to rope into fighting for him.

[Formless]

OK. That being the case, what happens if we shoot a movie about, say, the Ethiopians defeating the Italian Army at Adowa? We cast actual Ethiopians (or other dark-skinned actors who look like Ethiopians) as the Ethiopians. We cast white-to-swarthy-white actors as the Italians.

Is there a way to escape racism in this movie, other than by introducing ahistoric-looking characters from other continents into the story?

You know, there is a difference between portraying another ethnicity/fantasy race as the enemy of the protagonists and outright demonizing an enemy apparently due in part to their race. LotR crossed that line when they brought in the Orcs and made them evil not by association with the enemy, but simply by being the creations of the de facto villains. If you don't want to call that racism, fine, but if that doesn't have bigoted implications I don't know what does.

[Bakustra]

...So. Monoracial good guys versus monoracial bad guys is racist. If so, then it's equally racist if we take the two sides and switch them: a movie about good humans fighting evil orcs is as racist as a movie about good orcs fighting evil humans. Still one monoracial bloc fighting another.
Or have I misunderstood you?

No, you have not...

OK. That being the case, what happens if we shoot a movie about, say, the Ethiopians defeating the Italian Army at Adowa? We cast actual Ethiopians (or other dark-skinned actors who look like Ethiopians) as the Ethiopians. We cast white-to-swarthy-white actors as the Italians.

Is there a way to escape racism in this movie, other than by introducing ahistoric-looking characters from other continents into the story?

Sure there is. Don't portray either the Ethiopians or Italians as being servants of a supernatural evil. Don't portray them as stereotypes, and avoid making one side full of evil people and one side full of good people. Within the context of LOTR, the idea of a clash between cultures is racialized by the fact that the one side is associated with supernatural good and the other with supernatural evil. Had this not been in place, then the associations would have been minimized.

So what word would you prefer to use? Further, if you admit that the association exists, than there is really no further point to this tangent, as we do not disagree.

I'd say the association is so weak that calling it "racist" dilutes the term. I'm not really sure what word to use; I'm sorry.

That's fine; I think that this is an area that we can safely agree to disagree on.

This is foolish, Bakustra. You can't have it both ways. If making the characters nonwhite turns them into offensive racial stereotypes, then making the characters white can't be cause for offense on grounds of "Oh, well, I'm offended that you didn't make them nonwhite!"

No, I'm pointing out that making them white removes any presence of non-white heroic characters, so it doesn't do anything about my central argument and the broader implications. Sure, it alters an annoying stereotype, and that's good. I'm not offended that they're nonwhite, just pointing out the implications that your argument would have.

Since my argument also includes the observation that the reason all the protagonists are white (along with many of the antagonists) is that the story is about battles fought in a North European ur-world against supernatural enemies... I don't think the implications matter as much as you think they do.

Okay, but then we have the problem of associating specific races with said supernatural enemies. This is something that ideally should and could easily have been corrected in the film edition. I mean, had the Haradrim and Easterlings been off-screen in the backstory, or else neutral in the Gondor-Mordor conflict, then there would be almost no implications. Had Gondor been described as being ethnically mixed, there would be fewer implications. If rebel Haradrim or Easterlings had shown up to join the forces of Gondor; then we would have had far fewer implications as well. These are not, I would say, massive flaws, but are niggling ones, in particular since they are so easy to correct in any filmed version.

Nowhere is it stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. That is literal eisegesis, since you are reading things in that are in no way there. Going on about how "white people are evil too", meanwhile, leads me to believe that this thread is caught in a cycle of people repeating the same arguments until they lose interest or one side collapses. The point is that we have heroic and villainous lightskinned characters, but no heroic darkskinned characters.

Yes, because we have no darkskinned characters to begin with, except for a bunch of generic extras from beyond the known world that Sauron somehow managed to rope into fighting for him.

Exactly. There are villainous extras, but no heroic extras, no neutral extras, and no real characters period.

[Channel72]

Nowhere is it stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. That is literal eisegesis, since you are reading things in that are in no way there.

It was my understanding that Sauron summoned and controlled these people through some form of supernatural mind-control. How else was he recruiting them? Did he send Orc recruitment officers or something? Anyway, I'll concede this point to you unless someone more familiar with Tolkien can help me out here by providing evidence that Sauron was using some form of mind control to recruit the "Easterlings" and other humans.

Going on about how "white people are evil too", meanwhile, leads me to believe that this thread is caught in a cycle of people repeating the same arguments until they lose interest or one side collapses. The point is that we have heroic and villainous lightskinned characters, but no heroic darkskinned characters.

I think everyone understands your argument. You're saying that the juxtaposition of all-Caucasian protagonists versus non-Caucasian antagonists is subtly racist, even if Tolkien himself was not a consciously racist man. However, it appears to me that you're simply not processing the counter-arguments here. Your allegations of subtle racism are a huge stretch considering that:

1) There is not necessarily any connection between the skin-color of the humans in Sauron's army, and the fact they were fighting for an evil antagonist. Since the whole saga basically takes place in a mythologized Medieval Europe, the fact that Sauron's minions were darker skinned is probably simply a reflection of the fact that these people were supposed to be from "far-off lands" from a European perspective.

2) Since light-skinned humans are often portrayed in a very negative light, your allegations of subtle racism are difficult to uphold. We basically have a story that includes: A) Evil light-skinned characters, B) Good light-skinned characters, and C) Evil dark-skinned characters (who have a very peripheral role in the overall story). Therefore, the fact that we don't have Good dark-skinned characters as well is barely worth mentioning. You already admitted that you have no problem with other epics like The Mahabharata which have A) Dark-skinned protagonists and B) Dark-skinned antagonists, but no light-skinned characters at all; this implies you'd have no problem with LotR if we only had A) Good light-skinned characters and B) Evil light-skinned characters.

So basically, your allegations of racism rest on nothing else other than the fact that LotR happens to include C) Evil dark-skinned characters, who are barely relevant to the overall story, and probably just represent nothing more than men from "far-off" lands. Given all this, it's hard to be impressed by allegations of implied racism here.

[Bakustra]

Nowhere is it stated that Sauron controls them supernaturally. That is literal eisegesis, since you are reading things in that are in no way there.

It was my understanding that Sauron summoned and controlled these people through some form of supernatural mind-control. How else was he recruiting them? Did he send Orc recruitment officers or something? Anyway, I'll concede this point to you unless someone more familiar with Tolkien can help me out here by providing evidence that Sauron was using some form of mind control to recruit the "Easterlings" and other humans.

He did so via religious missionaries and wars of conquest by those groups he managed to subvert. Keep in mind that he had thousands of years without any real opposition in Middle-Earth.

Going on about how "white people are evil too", meanwhile, leads me to believe that this thread is caught in a cycle of people repeating the same arguments until they lose interest or one side collapses. The point is that we have heroic and villainous lightskinned characters, but no heroic darkskinned characters.

I think everyone understands your argument. You're saying that the juxtaposition of all-Caucasian protagonists versus non-Caucasian antagonists is subtly racist, even if Tolkien himself was not a consciously racist man. However, it appears to me that you're simply not processing the counter-arguments here. Your allegations of subtle racism are a huge stretch considering that:

1) There is not necessarily any connection between the skin-color of the humans in Sauron's army, and the fact they were fighting for an evil antagonist. Since the whole saga basically takes place in a mythologized Medieval Europe, the fact that Sauron's minions were darker skinned is probably simply a reflection of the fact that these people were supposed to be from "far-off lands" from a European perspective.

2) Since light-skinned humans are often portrayed in a very negative light, your allegations of subtle racism are difficult to uphold. We basically have a story that includes: A) Evil light-skinned characters, B) Good light-skinned characters, and C) Evil dark-skinned characters (who have a very peripheral role in the overall story). Therefore, the fact that we don't have Good dark-skinned characters as well is barely worth mentioning. You already admitted that you have no problem with other epics like The Mahabharata which have A) Dark-skinned protagonists and B) Dark-skinned antagonists, but no light-skinned characters at all; this implies you'd have no problem with LotR if we only had A) Good light-skinned characters and B) Evil light-skinned characters.

So basically, your allegations of racism rest on nothing else other than the fact that LotR happens to include C) Evil dark-skinned characters, who are barely relevant to the overall story, and probably just represent nothing more than men from "far-off" lands. (Really, there's no particular reason why Sauron couldn't just as easily have recruited white people.) Given all this, it's hard to be impressed by allegations of implied racism here.

1. You manage to elucidate my point, but then dodge altogether here. It doesn't matter what they represent; these are implications, not deliberate racial propaganda. Tolkien's intentions don't alter the problem of associating multiracialism with evil via making the forces of evil multiracial and multicultural.

2. This isn't an accusation of "subtle racism". This is an argument that there are implications in making all the non-white people associated with evil, something that including evil white people does not magically alter. If there were good non-white people to complete all four quadrants in this scenario, then the problem would vanish. Yes, making LOTR all-white would remove the racial implications. Well-done to you for figuring that out.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, there is a difference between portraying another ethnicity/fantasy race as the enemy of the protagonists and outright demonizing an enemy apparently due in part to their race. LotR crossed that line when they brought in the Orcs and made them evil not by association with the enemy, but simply by being the creations of the de facto villains. If you don't want to call that racism, fine, but if that doesn't have bigoted implications I don't know what does.

I'm trying to probe the boundary here.

Because there are the Haradrim, who are one of the major supports for racism in Tolkien because they are both dark-skinned and "the enemy." They are clearly a stand-in for a culture that really exists, and can be taken as commentary on that culture (those cultures). Racist commentary.

And there are the orcs, who are one of the major supports for racism in Tolkien because they are "the enemy" by nature. Any civilized being of any race or species would oppose an orc, because they are monstrous parodies of nature animated by the malicious spirit of an evil god. Which can be taken as a support for the abstract concept of racism: the idea that people break down into distinct subspecies, some of which are inherently better than others.

So on the one hand we have a "real" race of people who are clearly humans (dark skinned "foreign" humans). And on the other we have an intrinsically evil race.

The problem for me is that the intrinsically evil race isn't real, and the real race isn't intrinsically evil. That weakens the "racist message" to the point where I'm not sure it meets reasonable standards of what "racism" is. Especially when it's coupled with the "everyone pulls together to defend Middle-Earth against the evil god" aspect, with such strange and foreign allies coming into play (though many of those allies are supernatural... but then, so are the orcs)

Sure there is. Don't portray either the Ethiopians or Italians as being servants of a supernatural evil. Don't portray them as stereotypes, and avoid making one side full of evil people and one side full of good people.

But in that case... is a movie that portrays the heroic Ethiopians defending their homes from colonial oppression as racist as a movie that portrays the heroic Italians being overrun by savages? Because most people would say "no," just given the historical context.

Again, I'm trying to probe the boundaries of your definition of racism in art, to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Within the context of LOTR, the idea of a clash between cultures is racialized by the fact that the one side is associated with supernatural good and the other with supernatural evil. Had this not been in place, then the associations would have been minimized.

Thing is, the Gondorians aren't clashing with the Haradrim culture; they're just clashing with a bunch of individual Haradrim. Who, for all we know, are mercenaries, or Mameluke-style slave soldiers, or weirdos who like to fight too much to stay at home (as the Vikings were to Norse culture). They're just people Sauron brought into his army somehow; there's no evidence that they represent some kind of systematic intrinsic evil the way the orcs do.

Gondor is one place (and therefore racially uniform) defending itself against a great empire (which is therefore racially diverse, simply because it is larger than Gondor and controls more territory).

Let me give another example: the Western Front of World War One. The German army was more or less ethnically uniform: everyone was a conscripted German citizen. The British and French, on the other hand, fielded some units of colonial troops from India and North Africa.

Now, if we make a movie from the German side of the line, the Germans are going to become the sympathetic characters. This is pretty much unavoidable, even if we don't come out and SAY the Germans are the good guys. But if these sympathetic (all-white, all-North European) characters are fighting a diverse army (some white, some from far off countries where people are dark skinned and don't speak European languages)... is the movie racist?

Okay, but then we have the problem of associating specific races with said supernatural enemies. This is something that ideally should and could easily have been corrected in the film edition. I mean, had the Haradrim and Easterlings been off-screen in the backstory, or else neutral in the Gondor-Mordor conflict, then there would be almost no implications. Had Gondor been described as being ethnically mixed, there would be fewer implications.

Tolkien actually did describe Gondor as ethnically mixed, with a blend of the old Numenorean overlords who had conquered the local population thousands of years ago; you can imagine them as being something like the modern Latin-American countries where you see a range of shades from lily-pale descendants of the Spanish colonists to the (more common) mestizos. But Tolkien didn't come out and explain this in enough detail for Peter Jackson to pick up on it; he tended to leave information about race in the background for the reader to fill in the blanks. Apparently he wasn't as interested in it as he was in scenery and elven poetry.

Exactly. There are villainous extras, but no heroic extras, no neutral extras, and no real characters period.

But when the villainous extras are generic, and when they aren't even notably villainous except for the fact that they showed up in the villain's army... I question just how villainous that makes the extras' entire race out to be.

[Bakustra]

You know, there is a difference between portraying another ethnicity/fantasy race as the enemy of the protagonists and outright demonizing an enemy apparently due in part to their race. LotR crossed that line when they brought in the Orcs and made them evil not by association with the enemy, but simply by being the creations of the de facto villains. If you don't want to call that racism, fine, but if that doesn't have bigoted implications I don't know what does.

I'm trying to probe the boundary here.

Because there are the Haradrim, who are one of the major supports for racism in Tolkien because they are both dark-skinned and "the enemy." They are clearly a stand-in for a culture that really exists, and can be taken as commentary on that culture (those cultures). Racist commentary.

And there are the orcs, who are one of the major supports for racism in Tolkien because they are "the enemy" by nature. Any civilized being of any race or species would oppose an orc, because they are monstrous parodies of nature animated by the malicious spirit of an evil god. Which can be taken as a support for the abstract concept of racism: the idea that people break down into distinct subspecies, some of which are inherently better than others.

So on the one hand we have a "real" race of people who are clearly humans (dark skinned "foreign" humans). And on the other we have an intrinsically evil race.

The problem for me is that the intrinsically evil race isn't real, and the real race isn't intrinsically evil. That weakens the "racist message" to the point where I'm not sure it meets reasonable standards of what "racism" is. Especially when it's coupled with the "everyone pulls together to defend Middle-Earth against the evil god" aspect, with such strange and foreign allies coming into play (though many of those allies are supernatural... but then, so are the orcs)

It's not a racist message, but rather racist implications, like a lighter version of 300. Furthermore, my point is that both are servants of absolute evil. Let us divorce this from LOTR. If we take, say, a hypothetical work of fantasy set in an alternate past, wherein our Japanese heroes fight against the evil forces of the god Amatsu-Mikaboshi. These forces are primarily summoned oni, but he also has a great many European and Chinese servants, who invade Japan at the climax and are repelled, but are mentioned nowhere else within the context of the novel. The same thing is happening; there is nothing to give us any sense, within the novel, that said groups are anything beyond servants of the god of evil.

Well, we know from the fact that this is the real world that this is not so, but the Haradrim and Easterlings, while evocative of various cultures, are not those cultures. We know too little about them to say whether they are slaves, holy warriors, mercenaries, or puppets. They exist solely for the slaughter. Even orcs get more face time and more insight into their though processes, even though these highlight how unpleasant orcish life and society are. As a result, they simply fall into the same category as trolls, the Balrog, and Wargs; they are in the service of evil, and we don't know why. They lack anything to humanize them in the context of the story, beyond a basic level of sympathy; one which was not particularly in evidence at the time Tolkien was writing, though I doubt he considered this.

Sure there is. Don't portray either the Ethiopians or Italians as being servants of a supernatural evil. Don't portray them as stereotypes, and avoid making one side full of evil people and one side full of good people.

But in that case... is a movie that portrays the heroic Ethiopians defending their homes from colonial oppression as racist as a movie that portrays the heroic Italians being overrun by savages? Because most people would say "no," just given the historical context.

Again, I'm trying to probe the boundaries of your definition of racism in art, to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Not so much, since it is closer to actual history, rather than distorting it, but it depends on the characterization of the people involved. If it portrayed the Italians as unthinking monsters, rather than human beings, it could well be as racist as a film that rewrites the Abyssinian War as an attempt by Ethiopia to invade Somalia but provided humanized Ethiopian characters.

Within the context of LOTR, the idea of a clash between cultures is racialized by the fact that the one side is associated with supernatural good and the other with supernatural evil. Had this not been in place, then the associations would have been minimized.

Thing is, the Gondorians aren't clashing with the Haradrim culture; they're just clashing with a bunch of individual Haradrim. Who, for all we know, are mercenaries, or Mameluke-style slave soldiers, or weirdos who like to fight too much to stay at home (as the Vikings were to Norse culture). They're just people Sauron brought into his army somehow; there's no evidence that they represent some kind of systematic intrinsic evil the way the orcs do.

Gondor is one place (and therefore racially uniform) defending itself against a great empire (which is therefore racially diverse, simply because it is larger than Gondor and controls more territory).

Let me give another example: the Western Front of World War One. The German army was more or less ethnically uniform: everyone was a conscripted German citizen. The British and French, on the other hand, fielded some units of colonial troops from India and North Africa.

Now, if we make a movie from the German side of the line, the Germans are going to become the sympathetic characters. This is pretty much unavoidable, even if we don't come out and SAY the Germans are the good guys. But if these sympathetic (all-white, all-North European) characters are fighting a diverse army (some white, some from far off countries where people are dark skinned and don't speak European languages)... is the movie racist?

So where is the supernatural evil involved in WWI? If it were a clash between Gondor and Haradrim alone, with no evil gods in sight, then there would be fewer implications. Such a movie would also be racist if it portrayed the Entente as seeking to overrun Germany and loot and pillage, or any other stereotypes associated with racism and ethnocentrism throughout the centuries.

Okay, but then we have the problem of associating specific races with said supernatural enemies. This is something that ideally should and could easily have been corrected in the film edition. I mean, had the Haradrim and Easterlings been off-screen in the backstory, or else neutral in the Gondor-Mordor conflict, then there would be almost no implications. Had Gondor been described as being ethnically mixed, there would be fewer implications.

Tolkien actually did describe Gondor as ethnically mixed, with a blend of the old Numenorean overlords who had conquered the local population thousands of years ago; you can imagine them as being something like the modern Latin-American countries where you see a range of shades from lily-pale descendants of the Spanish colonists to the (more common) mestizos. But Tolkien didn't come out and explain this in enough detail for Peter Jackson to pick up on it; he tended to leave information about race in the background for the reader to fill in the blanks. Apparently he wasn't as interested in it as he was in scenery and elven poetry.

Of course we can imagine them, (Indeed this is my preferred view of Gondor) but this was spawned by the films, and this applies to the films as well.

Exactly. There are villainous extras, but no heroic extras, no neutral extras, and no real characters period.

But when the villainous extras are generic, and when they aren't even notably villainous except for the fact that they showed up in the villain's army... I question just how villainous that makes the extras' entire race out to be.

It's not that they're particularly villainous, but that they are the faceless servants of evil, and become associated with the orcs and trolls and wraiths and other supernatural nasties, all of whom are unquestionably evil. They become tainted by association with such.

[open_sketchbook]

I'm not sure where I'm getting this from, but I always thought that Haradrim and Gondor were old enemies and Salron's deal to get them on his side was more or less "I'm taking out Gondor, you want in?" If this is the case and I'm not talking out of my ass, I'd imagine this clears up most of the racist implications, as it actually puts a racist cause on the side of Evil. While the ethnic diversity bit is a little messed up, I'd say it loses it's punch if racism itself is why there are humans on both sides of the conflict.

[Formless]

The problem for me is that the intrinsically evil race isn't real, and the real race isn't intrinsically evil. That weakens the "racist message" to the point where I'm not sure it meets reasonable standards of what "racism" is. Especially when it's coupled with the "everyone pulls together to defend Middle-Earth against the evil god" aspect, with such strange and foreign allies coming into play (though many of those allies are supernatural... but then, so are the orcs)

Its not about the message; FFS, there is no message! Tolkien just wanted to write a pretty story about good vs. evil. Its about the mindset. That any race, either real or imagined, could be intrinsically evil is insulting to anyone with half a brain. Does the anti-bigoted message of the X-Men franchise get weakened because Mutants do not exist?

[open_sketchbook]

With the Orcs, however, I'd argue it's no different than, say, having the Big Bad assemble an army of intelligent robotic minions, like the Trade Federation. Orcs are a constructed race; they were "built" to serve Salron. They are not nessesarily Evil in and of themselves, but they have an imposed culture that conditions them to brutish behaviour, and the reason they have this culture is because Salron, who created them, forced it upon them. B1 Battle Droids are bad guys because they have been programmed to be bad guys by the villians, and indeed the Rebels a generation later reprogram a bunch of them and make them Good Guys; Orcs are bad guys because they were were culturally, and phyiscally, and perhaps even genetically, conditioned to be bad guys by the villian. They are fanatasy battle droids.

[Formless]

Yes, but then that gets into the many reasons I hate the idea of metaphysical/supernatural evil in the first place. Even if it existed, "good" and "evil" would be the wrong words for them, IMO.

[open_sketchbook]

In a way, the orcs are tragic figures, and always have been; they've never had a chance to be more than subservant, downtrodden and placed in a situation which forced brutality and distrust. The tragic fact is that as of the time of the books, they are for all intents and purposes irredeemable baddies; their entire culture is bent towards warfare and service to an immoral figure, to the point where no orc that has lived to adulthood can be divorced of his cultural indoctrination. They stand opposite of what is right, and will not move unless moved. That they must be killed is tragic, but nessesary.

It is not that the orc species = evil, just that the programming they recieve drives them to terrible things. It's no different from the Trade Federation being greedy because of the Nemodian's early life cycle, Klingon culture promoting a constant cycle of violence, the indoctrination of Nazi Germany creating fanatical Hitler's Youth, fundamentalist Islam compelling people to become sucide bombers, or a constant bombardment of lies and a culture of bigotry compels people to vote Republican. The orcs just bring this concept to the logical conclusion; they have been created in a controlled environment where only one outcome, a subservant, violent culture, was possible.

[Formless]

In a way, the orcs Muslims are tragic figures, and always have been; they've never had a chance to be more than subservant, downtrodden and placed in a situation which forced brutality and distrust. The tragic fact is that as of the time of the books, they are for all intents and purposes irredeemable baddies; their entire culture is bent towards warfare and service to an immoral figure, to the point where no orc Muslim that has lived to adulthood can be divorced of his cultural indoctrination. They stand opposite of what is right, and will not move unless moved. That they must be killed is tragic, but nessesary.

Fixed for you.

[open_sketchbook]

Go ahead, replace "orc" in that paragraph with pretty much anyone; the point stands. To Godwin for a moment, the world had a beef with Hitler, but they had to kill an awful lot of guys in the way that were just unlucky enough to be indoctrinated into the Nazi worldview. It doesn't make Germans bad people; it makes them unlucky, perhaps, in that particular historical situation. Such a dictator could have arisen in England, in America, in France, wherever, the situation would have remained the same.