StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I split this tangent off the Reprehensible movies thread, because it is in essence a hijack to a single tangent. We can discuss this here and let the original thread go its own merry way.

The Harad/Far Harad bit always bothered me (although it should be said that Umber was dominated by former Numeroreans, the Mouth of Sauron being one of them), but where is the racial divide on the Easterlings coming from? At least from what I remember reading, there's no real racial divide between most of the Gondorians (who are originally from Rhovanion) and the Easterlings.

Bakustra wrote: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.

Do the orcs ever rebel against Sauron? If not, then I would argue that there is no evidence of a real free will being present. Infighting might even be encouraged by Sauron, after all it rids him of weak commanders.

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.

What letters are these?

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.

Then I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this point.

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.

Maybe. My concept requires at least some degree of faithfulness to the thing they are supposed to emulate.

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

He did, however, draw the elves from German mythology. And as this particular point of contention was about elves, I think the influence from the eddas is pretty much nonexistent with regards to them. That said, the original German forest myths also have little in common with the elves.

Edi wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: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.

Thanks Edi, that about sums it up for me.

Rye wrote: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 think that Sauron had corporeal form:

"Tolkien described Sauron's form in the Third Age as "that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic." (The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien #246)"

Gil Hamilton wrote: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.

The Numenorians were hardly "noble and pure", they were simply shielded from temptation for a good long while. As soon as they met Sauron, they turned out just as evil as anyone else.

So no, there was no inherent good or evil in any race of men in Lord of the Rings, that was part of what Boromir's character was all about.

Vendetta wrote:The Numenorians were hardly "noble and pure", they were simply shielded from temptation for a good long while. As soon as they met Sauron, they turned out just as evil as anyone else.

So no, there was no inherent good or evil in any race of men in Lord of the Rings, that was part of what Boromir's character was all about.

Didn't they make war on him? The glitch in the plan happened when they smashed his armies and took Sauron prisoner. It was only after Sauron worked on their king for a while did they launch that ill-fated expedition to Valinor, which, of course, lead to the Valar mass murdering their entire country. They didn't go "hey, it's Sauron, we are evil now! whee!", it was more than Sauron pointed out the obvious to their king, that the Valar were treating them as second class compared to the elves and that the Valar forbidding them from sailing West to the Undying Lands was bullshit. Note that Sauron didn't actually turn them evil, he just pointed out the conclusion that the Numenoreans were already drawing.

Tolkien spends a great amount of time talking about how awesome, noble, pure, and fair the Westernesse were. They there the ones who had exposure to the elves and therefore the divine, and suprise, they are the white folks. Tolkien also devoted words to the fact that those Men that lived in places the Elves didn't tread were all wicked and savage though their lack of contact with the divine. Naturally, they are the ones that end up siding with Sauron and suprised again! They are colored folk!

As soon as they met Sauron, they turned out just as evil as anyone else.

They were like that even before they met Sauron. The first time they ran into Sauron was when a gigantic Numenorean invasion fleet landed on the shores of Middle-Earth, causing all of Sauron's men to desert him in fear. They got some serious perks from siding with the Valar and Elves in the war on Morgoth, but they certainly weren't pure and good (neither were the Elves, for that matter - witness what Feanor and his followers did in chasing after Morgoth).

I'd like to note that Tolkien apparantly thought of (or had it pointed out to him) the whole problem of Orcs being evil to a man and wrestled with it because it clearly contradicted his own the Roman Catholicism and the idea of Free Will. In one of tolkien's letters (in the collection it appears to be numbered '153') Tolkien writes that Orcs are made by Morgoth and are "creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad." Which is pretty racist. But then in the next sentence he notes "nearly wrote ‘irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good”, but that Orcs probably don't have souls regardless. I'm not sure who is "tolerating their making" (humans? orcs?) in that excerpt, so I can't fully parse what that's supposed to mean. Another bit of the letter, Orcs are "corrupted, though no more than many Men to be met today".

So according to Tolkien, Orcs were made by evil, corrupted, soulless and are currently serving evil, but aren't irredeemably evil despite lacking souls. I'm not sure what to make of that in terms of racism, so I'll leave it to others in this thread. Incidentally he also appears to imply, via a quote I've found in the course of looking up that letter, that Orcs have some kind of ethical code, albeit a primitive and unwritten one, above and beyond just "Serve Sauron/Serve Evil" in their society- Gimli states in FOTR that Orcs will pursue enemies far longer than they otherwise would to avenge the death of one of their leaders. They apparently have some concept of honour or something over which they avenge fallen Orcs, which wouldn't make sense unless they placed some kind of value on their kin and their leaders in particular.

Thanas wrote:

Bakustra wrote: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.

Do the orcs ever rebel against Sauron? If not, then I would argue that there is no evidence of a real free will being present. Infighting might even be encouraged by Sauron, after all it rids him of weak commanders.

Shagrat and Gorbag planned to desert and set themselves up as bandits. I'd say that given Sauron's immense advantages through the Nazgul and other servants of his, that the lack of any known revolutions is unsurprising, and we also have no evidence of any revolts within Harad and Rhun either, but humans are indisputably possessed of free will in LoTR. There is also the fact that they are capable of independent action after Sauron dies as more direct evidence as well.

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.

What letters are these?

Specifically, letter 210, which I quoted the relevant section from in a previous post.

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.

Then I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this point.

I suppose that's fine.

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.

Maybe. My concept requires at least some degree of faithfulness to the thing they are supposed to emulate.

I personally feel that an analogue need merely be reminiscent; if our Chinese (or Elven, or starfaring trichordate) empire occupies a similar situation to Rome, then it serves as an analogue.

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

He did, however, draw the elves from German mythology. And as this particular point of contention was about elves, I think the influence from the eddas is pretty much nonexistent with regards to them. That said, the original German forest myths also have little in common with the elves.

Agreed.

We really don't get to see the Easterlings (they seemed pretty East European or Germainic to me) or Haradrim (only the men of Far Harad IIRC, were definitely described as non white) in full. It's hinted that the Blue Wizards were off encouraging resistance out there in Rhun and Harad in the Third Age (one of the letters, I forgot which one, actually suggested that their help was crucial in paring dow Sauron's numbers to the point that he couldn't just immediately swarm Gondor), though we really couldn't expect to hear much about them, given that the entire story pretty much took place in the Northwest of Arda.

It should be noted that, near the end of Return of the King, the humans that fought under Sauron (specifically the Haradrim and Easterlings) are depicted more as brainwashed than evil. Even has a small paragraph thrown in about several of those countries sending diplomats to Gondor.

The Steward and the King wrote:In the days that followed his crowning the King sat on his throne in the Hall of the Kings and pronounced his judgements. And the embassies came from many lands and peoples, from the East and the South, and from the borders of Mirkwood, and from Dunland in the west. And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Núrnen to be their own.

It's not much, but when Sauron is defeated, the "evil" humans act like any group of humans that finds themselves on the losing side of a war. Some surrender, some run away, some fight to the death.

Duckie wrote:I'd like to note that Tolkien apparantly thought of (or had it pointed out to him) the whole problem of Orcs being evil to a man and wrestled with it because it clearly contradicted his own the Roman Catholicism and the idea of Free Will. In one of tolkien's letters (in the collection it appears to be numbered '153') Tolkien writes that Orcs are made by Morgoth and are "creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad." Which is pretty racist. But then in the next sentence he notes "nearly wrote ‘irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good”, but that Orcs probably don't have souls regardless. I'm not sure who is "tolerating their making" (humans? orcs?) in that excerpt, so I can't fully parse what that's supposed to mean. Another bit of the letter, Orcs are "corrupted, though no more than many Men to be met today".

So according to Tolkien, Orcs were made by evil, corrupted, soulless and are currently serving evil, but aren't irredeemably evil despite lacking souls. I'm not sure what to make of that in terms of racism, so I'll leave it to others in this thread. Incidentally he also appears to imply, via a quote I've found in the course of looking up that letter, that Orcs have some kind of ethical code, albeit a primitive and unwritten one, above and beyond just "Serve Sauron/Serve Evil" in their society- Gimli states in FOTR that Orcs will pursue enemies far longer than they otherwise would to avenge the death of one of their leaders. They apparently have some concept of honour or something over which they avenge fallen Orcs, which wouldn't make sense unless they placed some kind of value on their kin and their leaders in particular.

(sigh) shit like this reminds me of American Civil War era progressives who may have been progressive for their era, but who still said horribly racist things by modern standards. Does this make them evil men? Perhaps not, but their statements are no less racist. Similarly, this is not about whether Tolkien was an evil man; it is about whether there are racist overtones in his work.

The fact is that there's plenty of racial overtones in it, and even his defenders keep pointing them out but then making excuses. Those excuses may exonerate Tolkien of the crime of being a terrible man, but that's not the subject here. I think certain people are assuming that to be the subject, and responding to it accordingly.

Pelranius wrote:We really don't get to see the Easterlings (they seemed pretty East European or Germainic to me) or Haradrim (only the men of Far Harad IIRC, were definitely described as non white) in full. It's hinted that the Blue Wizards were off encouraging resistance out there in Rhun and Harad in the Third Age (one of the letters, I forgot which one, actually suggested that their help was crucial in paring dow Sauron's numbers to the point that he couldn't just immediately swarm Gondor), though we really couldn't expect to hear much about them, given that the entire story pretty much took place in the Northwest of Arda.

I thought they were more analogous of Ancient elites Mid-eastern units?

Civil War Man wrote:It should be noted that, near the end of Return of the King, the humans that fought under Sauron (specifically the Haradrim and Easterlings) are depicted more as brainwashed than evil.

"Possessing inferior intelligence and easily misled" is pretty much exactly how white Europeans of that era viewed the "lesser races", even if they thought of themselves as progressives and advocated humane treatment of them. Add that to "genetically evil but not irredeemably so" and you have, well, as I said, a typical white European of the era. Progressive compared to some, but certainly not by modern standards. The man himself died a long time ago so that's not the issue, but the movie (and remember that this was split from a thread about movies) still ends up carrying those racial overtones.

And you know, they could have added some racial diversity to the elves in the movie casting, in order to weaken that Aryan superman impression that they generated.

Tolkien was a man of his time. Just because people living today admire his work doesn't make him innocent of espousing the prejudices that were accepted as normal during the age he wrote in.

That said, Tolkien was far from the most racist fantasy author ever to exist. He practically comes across as progressive next to the author of The Wizard of Oz, who once wrote an editorial saying this:

The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians.

EDIT:

And you know, they could have added some racial diversity to the elves in the movie casting, in order to weaken that Aryan superman impression that they generated.

To be honest, since the elves are indigenous to a high-latitude region, having some of them be dark-skinned wouldn't make much sense.

Being "not as racist" doesn't make him "not racist". A racist shitbag is a racist shitbag regardless of any sort of quantification

open_sketchbook wrote:Being "not as racist" doesn't make him "not racist". A racist shitbag is a racist shitbag regardless of any sort of quanification.

Nonetheless, it seemed ironic to me that an author who wrote for a mature audience had more family-friendly views on a certain issue than an author who wrote for children.

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:And you know, they could have added some racial diversity to the elves in the movie casting, in order to weaken that Aryan superman impression that they generated.

To be honest, since the elves are indigenous to a high-latitude region, having some of them be dark-skinned wouldn't make much sense.

Dude, we're talking about immortal magic demigod beings.

Indeed, it doesn't exactly make sense that they'd look like any one race at all. The fact that they are all white is just further damning proof that Tolkien went out of his way to promote a racist attitude in his work.

The original Numenorean Empire, which was comprised of these very long lived "super" men (who were perhaps partially Elvish) was almost completely subverted by Sauron to his whims earlier on in his Dark Lord career, to literally apocalyptic results (the Numenorean homelands were sunk as punishment). And this first empire conquered and likely suppressed the lands of the Haradrim, with the Numenorean descendants serving Lord Sauron as loyally as any Orc (and were just as cruel and evil).

Big Orange wrote:The original Numenorean Empire, which was comprised of these very long lived "super" men (who were perhaps partially Elvish) was almost completely subverted by Sauron to his whims earlier on in his Dark Lord career, to literally apocalyptic results (the Numenorean homelands were sunk as punishment). And this first empire conquered and likely suppressed the lands of the Haradrim, with the Numenorean descendants serving Lord Sauron as loyally as any Orc (and were just as cruel and evil).

That's some pretty creative misrepresentation on your part. They never pledged allegiance to Sauron and they were certainly not "almost completely subverted by Sauron to his whim"; he just tricked them into attacking a third party for what they believed to be their own gain. That's a whole lot different than being enthralled to him and sending your armies thousands of miles from home to fight on his behalf. A small minority of them joined him.

Darth Wong wrote:

Big Orange wrote:The original Numenorean Empire, which was comprised of these very long lived "super" men (who were perhaps partially Elvish) was almost completely subverted by Sauron to his whims earlier on in his Dark Lord career, to literally apocalyptic results (the Numenorean homelands were sunk as punishment). And this first empire conquered and likely suppressed the lands of the Haradrim, with the Numenorean descendants serving Lord Sauron as loyally as any Orc (and were just as cruel and evil).

That's some pretty creative misrepresentation on your part. They never pledged allegiance to Sauron and they were certainly not "almost completely subverted by Sauron to his whim"; he just tricked them into attacking a third party for what they believed to be their own gain. That's a whole lot different than being enthralled to him and sending your armies thousands of miles from home to fight on his behalf.

At the end of the Akallabeth, it's really debatable who's running Numenor. Ar Pharazon is still King, but Sauron is the high priest and practically has his hand up the former's ass, getting him to do all sorts of things like human sacrifice. Additionally, Sauron openly converted most of the Numenoreans to the worship of Morgoth, with the end result being that Sauron is the Hideki Tojo to Ar Pharazon's Hirohito, Ar Pharazon is technically in charge but Sauron pretty much makes all the decisions.

Not having read anything more than summaries, I'm not going to debate precisely what happened. The point here, however, is that Sauron could only trick them into doing things they believed to be in their own interest. They were certainly not his vassals. Nothing you said changes that.

As for the original subject, the Numenoreans aren't even in the movie, nor is all of this material. The only thing we hear about them in the movies is that "the blood of Numenor is thin" and that humanity's only hope lies in a man who still has a drop of it running through his veins. Classic monarchist/pureblood/racial inbreeding stuff.

PS. Besides, do you really want to push the Numenorean angle? The ones who turned to evil were called "Black Numenoreans", after all.

Man, you wouldn't think it would be so hard to go "Yeah it was written in the thirties/forties so it unsurprisingly has some racial themes that would probably raise eyebrows if it were written today, but I still enjoy the story so whatever."

DudeGuyMan wrote:Man, you wouldn't think it would be so hard to go "Yeah it was written in the thirties/forties so it unsurprisingly has some racial themes that would probably raise eyebrows if it were written today, but I still enjoy the story so whatever."

That's a very reasonable statement (about the book; the original thread was actually about the movie). However, some people are prone to saying "oversensitive!" every time a minority brings up race, while others just can't bring themselves to admit there could be anything wrong with their beloved LOTR at all.