Shapiro's slanderous rubbish

[Cirdan]

Saruman the white = evil. So much for the theory.

Tolkien had more of a grudge against white industrialists than any race. Coal miners with blackened faces, WWI troops with night camo and dirty faces: these images were more a part of Tolkien's inspiration than his limited or even non-existent contact with dark-skinned ethnic groups. All of the conversations amoung orcs sound more like eastenders than foreigners. It is easy to see that the use of the Haradrim is meant as something remote and exotic. The use of elephants in combat goes back to to the carthaginians.

Is it open to racist interpretation? It's possible. Is it racially motivated? Not a shred of proof. All conspiracy theorists like this depend on trying to force it's opponents to disprove the unproven. Such a great writer would have no problem clearly expounding a racist theme if that was his intent. It is just the age old use of dark and light to represent evil and good.

Anything racists speak of is garbage anyway. It matters not what they believe.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by ils
Actually, we don't have much from Tolkien on the creation of orcs in LotR -- nor elsewhere in the corpus save for hints that their progenitors were twisted elves, maybe Avari. But he certainly seems to have imagined them as a race or type apart, and he is very clear on the point -- particularly within the LotR context -- that they are in the essence of their being evil and non-redeemable, animated largely by the will of their Dark Lord. That's precisely why orcs don't merit the same considerations, or the same mercies, as human opponents in the War of the Rings.

If you read the Sil, it is stated in one of the first chapters that orks were elves cout by Melkor, who evanchually was able to change them in aperance and in thought. I know that this is in onw of the first chapters, because I am in chapt. 7 for the first time reading it. I would quote it, but I don't know my way around The Sil. as good as I do with The Lord of the Rings.

[Falagar]

in the Silmarillion there were two groups of Easterlings, one lead by one guy and his sons and the other lead by another guy and his sons, in the service of the Noldor.

In the this one big battle (sry, can't remember the names) the one group betrayed the Elves and the Edain, but the other group remained faithful and fought alongside the good guys.

Yes, that was the group I meant. Although the group was smalll, if Tolkien was a racist he wouldn't have had any good swarthy guys at all!

If you read the Sil, it is stated in one of the first chapters that orks were elves cout by Melkor, who evanchually was able to change them in aperance and in thought. I know that this is in onw of the first chapters, because I am in chapt. 7 for the first time reading it. I would quote it, but I don't know my way around The Sil. as good as I do with The Lord of the Rings.

He later changed his mind and made the orcs twisted men instead of Elves, but that's another thread.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by Falagar
Yes, that was the group I meant. Although the group was smalll, if Tolkien was a racist he wouldn't have had any good swarthy guys at all!


He later changed his mind and made the orcs twisted men instead of Elves, but that's another thread.

Where dose it say that?

[Falagar]

The History of ME-books, volume 10 (?), Morgoths Ring. However he didn't get to finish these changes before he died (I think).

[ils]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Saruman the white = evil. So much for the theory.

I hope this isn't meant to be a reply to me, since it would have totally missed the point in my original post. And Shapiro's point, for that matter.

If it was meant as a reply to me, I'd suggest you go back and re-read, then take a look at a parallel example: Louis Farrakhan thinks Jews are evil for the most part, but also thinks certain Black people are evil. Therefore, nothing he says can have racist implications. Right?

My point is not that Tolkien was consciously, or viciously, racist in this same sense -- simply that isolated counterexamples aren't sufficient to debunk the existence a general, and persistent, theme in someone's remarks or writings. Unless, of course, you're willing to disavow the existence of racism generally.

Tolkien had more of a grudge against white industrialists than any race.

The analogy of the orcs with working-class laborers and soldiers is another obvious one, of course, and another layer to consider. But it really doesn't alter the point about swarthiness as a widespread marker of evil in Tolkien.

And, though that's the element most people seem to be focussing on, I've said before and I will say again -- "race" is far more than a question of colour, both in our society and in Tolkien. Quite apart from skin colour, "race" is fundamentally a notion of discrete groups of people with common inherited personality traits and cultures. I don't see how it's possible to deny the importance of this idea in Tolkien's books, including LotR. It's absolutely basic to his portrayal of many of the characters and to the plot. Eg. Aragorn is the returning King, and the most capable of Men, because of the relative purity of his Dunadan blood.

It is easy to see that the use of the Haradrim is meant as something remote and exotic.

And evil, and wicked, and cruel, and sunk in the service of darkness and hatred of the West. LotR is awfully specific about this.

Is it racially motivated? Not a shred of proof.

I, for one, am not that interested in Tolkien's motivations, though Shapiro might be. I'm just pointing out that the degree to which his writing lends itself to those interpretations isn't, and shouldn't, be a taboo question.

[ils]

Originally posted by Falagar
Yes, that was the group I meant. Although the group was smalll, if Tolkien was a racist he wouldn't have had any good swarthy guys at all!

How I wish it were this simple.

First, as I pointed out earlier, the Easterlings were not swarthy guys -- Tolkien never describes them as such. They fall under the second category of race distinictions I mentioned in my original post, not the first. So there are still no examples of swarthy good guys that I can find.

Second, as noted above, a few isolated counter-examples -- while they bring some nuance to the picture -- don't necessarily debunk general trends. If I wrote thousands of pages of stories in which I was given to portraying such-and-such ethnic group (Jews, say) as a monolithic race who were money-grubbing and evil, then threw in a good Jewish character for one paragraph in which he was promptly killed, I shouldn't point to that paragraph and say "hey! look! I'm not an anti-Semite!" Well, I could, but people could be forgiven for not taking my protestations too seriously.

Third, whether or not Tolkien was a racist isn't that important. What's at issue is how much his writing lends itself to racist interpretations. I'd say that it does, though not to the degree that Shapiro (or certain white supremacist groups, for that matter) imagine.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by ils

My point is not that Tolkien was consciously, or viciously, racist in this same sense -- simply that isolated counterexamples aren't sufficient to debunk the existence a general, and persistent, theme in someone's remarks or writings.

It's not a theme as much as a story mechanism. Symbolism doesn't add up to a theme. Again the obvious theme is good vs. evil with evil sometimes sybolized with the color black. The is nothing that shows that Tolkiem was trying to imply that black is evil. That some can infer something he does not intend does not change the meaning. It just means they are confused.

And, though that's the element most people seem to be focussing on, I've said before and I will say again -- "race" is far more than a question of colour, both in our society and in Tolkien. Quite apart from skin colour, "race" is fundamentally a notion of discrete groups of people with common inherited personality traits and cultures. I don't see how it's possible to deny the importance of this idea in Tolkien's books, including LotR. It's absolutely basic to his portrayal of many of the characters and to the plot. Eg. Aragorn is the returning King, and the most capable of Men, because of the relative purity of his Dunadan blood.

The fact is that race is very subjective and not discreet at all. There are many degrees, to the point of imperceptability, between all phenotypes. Tolkien uses the word very loosely. Elves, dwarves, men, and orcs are very different (elves being immortal kind of sticks out). Toliken was not likely to use the term subspecies in a work of fiction, though it would have been more appropriate.

The race of the evil cast is irrelevant to the plot. The only race issues that enter into the plot are those of the elves, the numenorians, and the dwarves and this is due to the life spans and how they effect personal histories and choices.

Swarthy can mean dark complected like arabic or even armenian, generally speaking. Tolkien was english so swarthy could be someone who's been out in the sun.
Aragorn is made king because he is the last living heir of the last king of gondor to have children, namely Isildur.

And evil, and wicked, and cruel, and sunk in the service of darkness and hatred of the West. LotR is awfully specific about this.

It also makes a point of stating that many were "made promises" to join with Sauron. He did have the gift of guile.

To RÜTTEN AND LOENING VERLAG
25 July 1938
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter.... I regret I am not clear as to what you intend by arish. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware non of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-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 accoustomed, 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 irrevelant inquires of this sort are to become the rule inmatters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
....
JRRT

[ils]

(another long one, sorry! I'm probably going to stop after this -- feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.)

Originally posted by Cirdan
It's not a theme as much as a story mechanism.

Well, that's semantics really, isn't it? If racism is being used as "symbolism" or a "story mechanism," does it stop being racism? Does that make it less relevant?

In fact, I don't think the whole question of swarthiness is a plot device or story mechanism -- it's a more marginal or decorative thing, something used as window dressing, as a way of making the setting more evocative for Tolkien's reader. "Race" in the second sense I'm using the term is much more central, though.

Again the obvious theme is good vs. evil with evil sometimes sybolized with the color black.

Since I've said nothing about Tolkien's use of the color black -- nor, from anything I've seen, has Shapiro -- I don't see how this is relevant.

That some can infer something he does not intend does not change the meaning.

A text can't have "meaning" independent of what a reader thinks it means. Therefore, the more a text lends itself to certain interpretations or inferences, the more those things are part of its "meaning." It doesn't matter what the author did or didn't intend.

The fact is that race is very subjective and not discreet at all.

Be careful about confusing "race" in the real world -- which is really a non-starter in any literal sense -- with "race" as Tolkien represents it. Tolkien decidedly does not use the word loosely; he's very specific about who is descended from whom and what their descent means for their character and their abilities as a person. His "races" are quite specific lineages which play similar roles at all points of Middle Earth's history.

The race of the evil cast is irrelevant to the plot.

No, it -- and they -- are marginal to the plot. There's a difference. The Easterners and Southroners -- and the "wild men" of the wilderness -- are placed where they are so they can serve as largely faceless hordes for the Dark Lord. They're marginal precisely so Tolkien won't have to go into portraying them as complex actors.

The Men of the West, the Elves, the Dwarves of Durin -- all are riven with factions, produce both heroes and villains, have complicated characters who agonize over their choices, undertake doomed and misguided quests, experience love and joy and torment and wrath. It's not just that we never see those complexities in Easterlings and Southroners -- but that Tolkien, when he describes them, does so in terms that almost rule them out.

The only race issues that enter into the plot are those of the elves, the numenorians, and the dwarves and this is due to the life spans and how they effect personal histories and choices.

The lineages don't just affect lifespans; they also determine characteristics and personality to a very significant degree, as Tolkien is frequently at pains to mention.

It also makes a point of stating that many were "made promises" to join with Sauron. He did have the gift of guile.

And yet the Men of the West were made similar promises, and did not convert to Sauron's service en masse.

[ils]

One more note, to Cirdan: when trying to prove that Tolkien's writing doesn't have racist implications, you'll want to refrain from quoting the famous "arish" letter.

A) The people you're quoting it at probably know it already;

B) Disliking the Nazis and their policies doesn't necessarily say anything meaningful about whether or not a person was a racist (eg. Winston Churchill didn't like the Nazis, but really was no angel on the subject of race himself);

C) In any case, the point is really NOT whether Tolkien was a racist, but whether the texts in question do or don't lend themselves to racist interpretations, and the extend to which that's so.

Now I really am repeating myself. Time to call a halt.

[Cirdan]

Well, I've read your post and I've interpreted it to mean that you don't think there is any racism in Tolkien's work and that Shapiro is all wrong. But that's just my interpretation.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't know about you Cirdan, but my opinion of Tolkien is slightly biased in his favour - in my mind, he can practically do no wrong. However, I stand by my original post, which lives on page 2.

I am slightly confused about ils' view on this debate, I'm always open to new ideas from fellow 'Mooters.

[Cirdan]

So do I, N, but that doesn't mean that equating Tolkien's made up "races" of elves, dwaves, etc. with racism, a word used to describe the worst in real world humans, isn't revisionist. Like the book it's just fantasy. I'm also sensitive about false racism claims as they detract from the fight against the very real problem.

Your post was quite clear and to the point, btw.

[ils]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I am slightly confused about ils' view on this debate, I'm always open to new ideas from fellow 'Mooters.

Well, my view -- as I've said repeatedly -- is that the racism issue isn't an enormous deal but should not be taboo to talk about. Eg. people should not be calling Shapiro names and impugning his character for bringing it up. It's a valid thing to discuss.

And, much as I admire Tolkien and enjoy his books -- and I do -- I don't think he can do no wrong.

Okay, now I'm really done.

[ils]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'm also sensitive about false racism claims as they detract from the fight against the very real problem.

Incidentally, I did post a link about the "very real problem" earlier on, eg. the fact that LotR has, disagreeably, become something of a phenomenon in the white supremacist community. And yes, people should be troubled by that, and should be taking a good hard look at why that is. In addition to confronting the folks who are hijacking Tolkien's work for such odious purposes.

[Elfhelm]

"open to racist interpretations"?

Interpretation is a subjective thing. You can't fault an object for other people's subjective interpretations. If you look in the mirror and see a racist, don't blame the mirror.

As for your other dismissals of my clear and straightforward and supportable statements, such as the fact that orcs are not a race but are good being who have been twisted, I can only say that you are not "open to being convinced". You have clearly drawn your conclusions prior to examination and will only be convinced by each little item that can be "interpreted" as you see fit.

Good people can be twisted to badness. That's all I see in the work. Likewise, good writing can be twisted to hateful purposes. I don't think I need to prove that; thousands of people die every day from it. It's a very sad truth and I am offended that anyone would do it to Tolkien. But then I'm even more offended that people do it with the teachings of Jesus.

So I'm outa this thread.

[ils]

I keep saying I'm done with this thread, but I keep coming back.. like Saruman drawn to his palantir, I guess.

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Interpretation is a subjective thing.

Well, for reasons I've stated elsewhere, I don't buy the "mirror" argument. Of course interpretation is subjective -- but that doesn't mean that given a certain text and social context, some interpretations aren't likelier than others. Evidently you also believe this, since you feel confident in saying the text DOESN'T support certain interpretations.

As for your other dismissals of my clear and straightforward and supportable statements, such as the fact that orcs are not a race but are good being who have been twisted, I can only say that you are not "open to being convinced".

Don't take it personally. I'm open to being convinced, but by specific counterexamples FROM THE TEXT that address what I'm saying. I'm afraid that flatly declaring "orcs are not a race" doesn't cut it.

When Tolkien's writing has an entire people descended, apparently by reproduction, from an original core group and you claim that doesn't qualify as a "race," I can only say you're grasping at straws. And starting with that original core group, Tolkien seems to pretty clearly say that their evil from then on is bred in. I've tried to provide some specific parallel examples as to why I think this is relevant. If you don't like them that's fine, but you're better off giving some reasons for this rather than just saying:

You have clearly drawn your conclusions prior to examination and will only be convinced by each little item that can be "interpreted" as you see fit.

Debates of this kind often get pretty detailed. Some people have the patience and interest for that, some don't. As long as people are willing to at least acknowledge the validity of having a discussion, it's fine by me either way. For the most part I'm just trying to get you to realize which arguments will and will not carry weight with Tolkien's critics on this subject, and why.

[Elfhelm]

I did not say it does or does not support any kind of interpretation. I said an interpretation of the sort that is endorsed in this thread says more about the interpreter than it does about the thing that is being distorted.

Orcs are not a race. I am 100% certain that even if I quote chapter and verse to this effect you will not be convinced.

I did not say it does not support this that or the other thing. I said it can support whatever you want it to support. If you want it to support something vile, that's your problem.


edit:
I guess I'll have to also point out that you misinterpreted my words written just a few minutes ago, and that is proof enough for me that you are more inclined to find things that are not there so long as they have even the slightest chance of supporting your outlandish claims.

[azalea]

I don't want to get into an argument, but is it possible that since Tolkien created ME as a mythology for England, that the foreign races are simply the factual historical enemies of England? I don't know if I can express exactly what I mean, but I'm not saying that they are a representation of them, but are them. I mean, if ME is our world a long time ago, and in truth the enemies of England were foreigners of all kinds, then it would make sense that these other races would be the enemies of the Celtic-like good men of ME. (I'm talking about the bad men, not the orcs). I have to admit that the fact that the men from the bad side had dark skin was something I noticed when I last read the books. But it didn't seem racist to me, just a geographical thing. I don't know. I can see ils' point, but yet I agree that Tolkien had no racist intentions in writing it that way.

[ils]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I did not say it does or does not support any kind of interpretation. I said an interpretation of the sort that is endorsed in this thread says more about the interpreter than it does about the thing that is being distorted.

Is it just possible that even disagreeable interpretations of a work are simply recognitions of layers present in a text? Look, I don't want this to get hostile, but I hope you're not seriously suggesting that anyone who criticizes possible racial overtones in work of Tolkien's must be a racist themselves, because that's more than a tad odious.

I will say... YET AGAIN... that I don't believe this is all there is to Tolkien's work, and that I do believe there are elements of Tolkien's writing that clearly allow it to surpass the racial overtones it contains. It is only PART of a very dense and layered epic. Anyone who reads Tolkien and sees simply a fantasy of white supremacist domination is obviously ignoring huge chunks of the text.

All that, however, doesn't mean I'm willing to deny that this stuff is there AT ALL or that I'm willing to watch people be unfairly slandered for bringing attention to it.

[quote]Orcs are not a race. I am 100% certain that even if I quote chapter and verse to this effect you will not be convinced./quote]

Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken. If you can provide me a quote from LotR that says or even implies that orcs are not a race, I will indeed be convinced. It's not like I'm claiming to be an omniscient Tolkien scholar or anything. I just don't happen to recollect such a quote, there or anywhere else.

I DO recollect a story in the Silmarillion regarding the creation of the progenitors of the orcs, which seemed to me to be a racial origin story. If you have a different take on it, I'll be happy to talk about why that is.

I did not say it does not support this that or the other thing. I said it can support whatever you want it to support. If you want it to support something vile, that's your problem.

What if there are other people who want it to support something vile, and you're interested in why exactly they feel that way and what elements of the text play into that? That's not a worthy thing to discuss? If it doesn't interest you, that's fine, but I really don't think there's any call for a blanket condemnation of the whole line of discussion.

I guess I'll have to also point out that you misinterpreted my words written just a few minutes ago, and that is proof enough for me that you are more inclined to find things that are not there so long as they have even the slightest chance of supporting your outlandish claims.

Okay, well, I obviously can't defend myself against this charge unless you tell me what I'm supposed to have misinterpreted...