Shapiro's slanderous rubbish

[Lizra]

"It's two....two....two words in one!

What we need here is a "sparkling drop of Retsyn"!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
What we need here is a "sparkling drop of Retsyn"!

lol!

Yes, but will it give us whiter teeth?

I must say your grill is positvely radiant.

I always wonder, when there are single thread posters, whether or not they are researching a paper for school. Trolling for dollars?

[BeardofPants]

This guy just isn't worth it. Just one more thing before I ignore his existence: *burns all his strawmen*

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This guy just isn't worth it. Just one more thing before I ignore his existence: *burns all his strawmen*

*warms cold hands over bright, cheery flames*

[ils]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Earendil was bi-racial, Arwen and Elessar are two bi-racials that become the rulers of the larger part of the realm of LotR. Racial mixing is not a compatible theme with racism.

By that logic, no-one should imagine that there's a race called that Anglo-Saxons originally made up of a mixture of Angles and Saxons. Sorry man, but what planet are you living on? This is plainly absurd.

("I Love Shapiro" -- oohhh. You caught me. I'm actually his love child, sent from the Evil Planet of Academia to menace you. How'd you know? You're a clever one. )

I got tired of this semantic... discussion after we couldn't agree that swart meant black skin.

What? You made a point that Tolkien sometimes "uses the colour black" to symbolize evil, which is true, but it has nothing to do with skin colour. Eg. the Nazgul wear black. "Swarthy" doesn't apply solely to black skin, and I've never argued that it does.

[ils]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This guy just isn't worth it. Just one more thing before I ignore his existence: *burns all his strawmen*

I'm glad to see Ye Olde Usenet Standards of Debate are alive and well. Better luck next time, man.

[Falagar]

Is it this thread, or that fire over there that is burning?
Ok, you discuss weather or not Tolkien was a racist, and I know this is a very sore topic, but...Why can't we all just be friends?!

As for my own opinion: Tolkien wasn't a racist. And nothing Ils or Shapiro would say could make me think othervise.
I know that by only reading LotR you could get that impression, but, as Ils himself said (quote:

Sadly, though, the Blue Wizards never made it into the LotR canon**, and it's the LotR books we're discussing here. So they wouldn't be relevant to Shapiro's point, I'm guessing, and they certainly wouldn't be relevant to mine (which, I'm getting awfully sick of repeating, is not about what Tolkien intended.)

** yes, we've used examples from the Silm in this discussion too, but the Silm is a way more established -- and better known -- context for LotR than HoME.

), by reading other books you would see that he was not, IMO.

Did I get it right?

[Elfhelm]

J.R.R.Tolkien wrote several books in which people learn to get along despite racial differences. Among those people those who were intolerant were depicted in a less than favorable light.

I believe racism is the biggest problem in the world today. For instance I have always maintained since the day it happened that 9/11 was a racist attack. Similarly the reactions to it have been rife with racism. I am partial to the Baha'i view that cultural and racial toleration (which bropous calls my heterodoxy) is the solution to the world's ills.

I feel that it is wrong to accuse things of racism that are not racist because it waters down the real issue. I mean, to repeatedly "play the race card" acclimates people to it so that they are quick to ignore it.

That is why I feel it is a bad thing to accuse Tolkien of racism. He grew up in a society where, if someone moved in next door who was black, they would practically kill the guy! In that context, he wrote about people learning to live together. Good for him.

The word for orcs, and the idea, came from the poem Beowulf. Are the giants in Nordic myth an example of racism? Are the Centaurs in Greek myth an example of racism? If so, Shapiro would have us burn these books along with Tolkien. Sounds like Maoism to me.

I think I know who ils is. I can tell by the unswerving "reasonableness" of his tone. What was it Blake said about the reasonable man?

[ils]

[ridiculously long, like all my posts thus far. sorry. but this IS the last, honest.]

Of course, as everyone has seen earlier, the main problem is that you're looking for the books to be racist.

Riight. Guess you missed the part where I repeatedly told you this is not what I am doing, and explained why. I don't blame you for missing this. It's only in half my posts to this thread.

[snip the mangling of poor Sir Arthur]

In conclusion, in case you don't want to read the rest (you seem impatient, ils,

The fact that I'm still bothering to reply to this rather strongly suggests otherwise. (Or maybe it suggests that I'm just a masochist. That works too.)

Oookay. So what you're saying is... even though Tolkien is not directly supporting it he is indirectly? By adding ideas that are present in the general atmosphere of the time?

No, I'm saying the book reflects the atmosphere of the time. For good and ill. Not a complicated or sinister point, really. And not an argument that it doesn't go beyond the atmosphere of the time, lest you be the next one to dig up that particular strawman.

It'd work better if ALL men from a certain area were presented as evil.

You're setting up a false definition of both race and racism. Your requirement that any argument about "racism" must assume that racists are all absolutists is convenient -- and I wish it were true -- but unfortunately for all of us it simply ain't so. Even the most hardcore Klansman doesn't believe ALL Black people are evil

but in imitation of Gandalf -- *pop* -- oops, blew your analogy.

The analogies in this section are, by the way, to others' arguments on this thread, not mine. You seem more than a bit confused about this.

Reason #2 that's wrong: One counterexample does disprove a theory.

One counterexample would disprove an absolutist theory. Since that's nothing to do with what I've said, ANYWHERE -- your claim that this is so is merely a strawman -- this is irrelevant. See above on tendentious definitions of racism.

You've picked a pretty bad one here. This is actually targeting your arguments.

Gah.

You do realize this question doesn't talk about pipe-weed, right? That the subject was pipe-weed, and the question doesn't mention it. You noticed that, right? Tell me you noticed that.

Gah.

Uh huh. What? are you thinking? I don't think that even makes sense in relation to what we've been saying. Don't invent ridiculous arguments to make us seem ridiculous.

Unfortunately this is formally similar (though not absolutely identical -- this is analogy, not homology) to a point that's been raised repeatedly. Eg. that the latter-day orcs can't be considered a race because the very first ones weren't. And yes, it's erroneous. (I'd stop short of "ridiculous" -- I think it's a perfectly understandable mistake. But yes, I think it's a mistake.)

The books are vast enough that you can find examples to support almost anything;

Except any hint of an implication about "race," because anyone who sees such a thing must obviously be trying to see something that just isn't there?

You're right. The books are vast. They encompass many wonderful messages of hope, struggle, redemption, companionship, friendship, valour, honour. They're about a great multitude of things, and that's what makes the books great.

Of course, I said almost exactly this (in shorter form) in my first post on the thread. And of course, you've ignored it in an attempt -- I'd like to think not a conscious one -- to misrepresent my position. So I find your strident claim that this is what I'M doing a little ironic.

Now, the books also encompass some background flavour of the time and culture in which Tolkien wrote them. Some of that is good, some, from our perspective, maybe not so much. There are people who want to twist the text to mean ONLY those bad things. I'm not one of them, and I'm not convinced Shapiro is either (though I don't really know), but they're out there.

If all that is something you really want to comment on as a fan of the books, and the existence of this thread suggests you do, then you need to an understanding of the arguments that are out there and how complex the issue can get. Above all, a free and mature discussion of the subject has to be possible.

I think this is my longest post ever. Wow. You really got me fired up ils. This is longer than many essays I have written.

If I also got you to think a bit, I'm happy. I've said what I felt needed to be said in any case.

[ils]

Originally posted by Falagar
Did I get it right?

You got it absolutely right, except for the part where you said I think Tolkien was a racist. I don't. I wouldn't read the books if I did.

[Elfhelm]

ils, who is a regular mooter in disguise that we all know, wrote:

...the books also encompass some background flavour of the time and culture in which Tolkien wrote them. Some of that is good, some, from our perspective, maybe not so much. There are people who want to twist the text to mean ONLY those bad things. I'm not one of them...

I wrote:

He grew up in a society where, if someone moved in next door who was black, they would practically kill the guy! In that context, he wrote about people learning to live together.

Do you see the difference? We each are seeing what we want to see.

[Elfhelm]

Is it a banning offense to disguise yourself in order to argue without budging and tick all your fellow mooters off? And my second question is, can an admin tell if someone is using a disguise like that?

[Elvellon]

Are you aware that I specifically mentioned the Black Numenoreans in the post you're quoting as an exception to the trend? For that matter, are you aware that I've specifically mentioned the complexity of the Edain characters for both good and evil in other posts? If you'd read what I'd written, you would be.

Kindly do me the courtesy of responding to what I've actually said. Thanks.

I
Why did I post that example?

While you speak briefly of them, you din’t really seemed to be “aware” of their significance or appearance, after all, you seem to fail to realize the importance of the Black Numenorians.

Numenorians are no “exception” to a rule, they are the rule.

The history of Second and Third age, as it is told, is the History of the Numenorians, and specifically in the second age, of their fall. And even the First age is, in part, a pre-Numenorian “history.”

If “you” were a racist, would “you” make your favoured “race” the subject of the greatest treason (to Eru) committed by Men? I really don’t think so.

I don't know what Shapiro's arguments are. Neither do you. And since neither of us has read his work, save for some selective quotes in a news story, we're really not in a position to be throwing around heady terms like "incompetent" or "malicious," are we?

Yes I can. If someone writes claiming something I know to be preposterously false I can assume that that person is either ignorant or have a malicious intent. I don’t need to read all his work to know that the affirmations in cause are false; hence I can speculate about the only plausible reasons to write a falsehood.

Curiously, by your own arguments, it should be unimportant if Shapiro really is or not incompetent or malicious, since, has you have stated in the past;

“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.”


Well then, it is obvious Saphiro’s own writings are prone to be judged by the same rule, implying that you shouldn’t object so much if one sees slander, incompetence and/or mischievous intent on his work.

I personally disagree with your perspective. To me, I matters what the reason of the author were, and Saphiro’s claims, being false and highly defamatory, are slander.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you about the dwarf thing on the whole. But ask yourself if you're behaving any better than you imagine Shapiro to be behaving.

Oh really? Because I pointed out that there isn’t any rational association between the two?
Does that make me slanderous?
You can’t see any relation, neither. For that matter, can anyone see one?

[ils]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
the reactions [to 9-11] have been rife with racism. I am partial to the Baha'i view that cultural and racial toleration (which bropous calls my heterodoxy) is the solution to the world's ills.

We agree, on both these points.

That is why I feel it is a bad thing to accuse Tolkien of racism.

We also agree that frivolous accusations of racism are bad. And of course, I don't accuse Tolkien of being a racist. (I've gone on and on about that elsewhere, so no more.)

We disagree about what constitutes a frivolous accusation, obviously. Disagreements are healthy. That's fine. I simply tend to think that if Tolkien's books and films are being picked up as white supremacist propaganda, that makes the issue a little more urgent than it would otherwise be.

Really, it's just stuff like this that I tend to object to:

Shapiro would have us burn these books along with Tolkien. Sounds like Maoism to me.

By all means be a fan of Tolkien, admire the man and his work. But be able to see the opinions of others, even his critics, in an honest light. Nowhere have I seen Shapiro suggest Tolkien's books should be burned or no-one should be reading him. (In fact, for all his trenchant criticism, quite frankly I get the impression he's a fan himself.)

I think I know who ils is. I can tell by the unswerving "reasonableness" of his tone. What was it Blake said about the reasonable man?

Would you rather I was unreasonable? I'm not setting out to offend you, man, I just don't know what other tone would be better for uncomfortable discussions like this one. And of course, I have pretty strong feelings on the subject myself, so I'm fully aware I'm not, ahem, always as tactful as I could be.

Seriously, peace. Let's put out the fires. Though it might seem otherwise, I didn't come on this forum to antagonize you, and I don't think our opinions are quite so different as you imagine.

[Elvellon]

Yes, in fact, it's a kind of "chosen people of God" argument. I agree completely. But if you really imagine that such an argument is necessarily exclusive of the concept of "race," I can only conclude that you're just not familiar with historical claims of various self-proclaimed "races." Strictly "scientific" biological determinism is a very recent phenomenon -- the concept of "race" has a much older history, and includes such concepts as divinely-endowed peoples. (Including, for example, British Israelism, an ancestral doctrine to various modern versions of North American white supremacism. I thoroughly recommend Warren Kinsella's WEB OF HATE for a brief introduction to that topic.)

You and others here are simply arguing with an artificially, and I would say indefensibly, truncated definition of "race." I understand why that is, since many are anxious to defend Tolkien against all the odious evils I'm supposedly laying at his feet (I'm not, but never mind for now), but to anyone who's actually studied "race" as a concept in history -- and how broadly the people who used it for political purposes actually defined it -- this kind of thing simply won't wash. I'm sorry, but there it is.

Sadly, though, the Blue Wizards never made it into the LotR canon**, and it's the LotR books we're discussing here. So they wouldn't be relevant to Shapiro's point, I'm guessing, and they certainly wouldn't be relevant to mine (which, I'm getting awfully sick of repeating, is not about what Tolkien intended.)

** yes, we've used examples from the Silm in this discussion too, but the Silm is a way more established -- and better known -- context for LotR than HoME.

You say we don’t have a firm concept of race or racism, but then you use those terms rather loosely, as most people in our society for that matter.

Any accusations of racism must be supported by facts. What facts are those?

“The evilness of the swarthy men.” Well, it seems all come to that.
But, do you see anywhere claims that all swarthy men are evil? Or that swarthy man are inherently evil? (Evil as a racial trait). No, in fact, there are examples of the contrary (which are conveniently ignored as if they were unimportant).

But you argue in other posts that a few examples are not enough, forgetting that, there is no clear indication to the reality of the world outside that of North-western Middle Earth, were the Numenorians and associated peoples lived (and forgetting also that the examples we have aren’t as few as that as well). Many Easterlings and Haradrim we see are foes, but does that implies all Easterlings and Haradrim are under the Shadow, and are unredeemable? No, it does not. Again the example of the Blue Wizards comes to mind (1), for if they were truly so, would the Valar send them their agents? Would they ever be successful?

As for the argument of the “Chosen People of God,” well, it seems to me it is the other way around. The Numenorians are not chosen by Eru, they chose Eru. They were not preordained to become faithful, as they were not preordained to fall.

(1) Of course we can and we should use all the available Tolkien sources to clarify his thoughts about a matter were we have doubts. For that matter, if we want to be honest with ourselves, HoME is much more cannon than the Silmarillion, since some of the Sil is Cristopher’s work. Furthermore, HoME cannot be simply discarded as a source of information about Tolkien’s published books, because they are directly and deeply related with them. So not only they can be used, they should be used.

But perhaps your argument implies that Saphiro may have not read them. Well then, if he didn’t he should. If he was going to accuse someone of writing a racist book, then he should know what the background of the universe of the book is, should he? Otherwise, he was incompetent.

[ils]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
ils, who is a regular mooter in disguise that we all know,

????

[Elvellon]

I've already had a discussion on this thread about Bor and his kin and their non-applicability to the "swarthiness" portion of my post. Please go back and read it, I'm really not going to repeat it. AFAIK that discussion applies to the Beornings and the Druedain as well. If I'm wrong about that, then you're quite right -- they would make the "swarthiness" correlation much weaker

But if we accept your argument here what remains?

Then it all comes really to the conflict with the Haradrim and the role of Orcs.

But, orcs are no representation of a “real race,” and any attempt to claim so is, at least, ludicrous. They are a mythological species, a completely artificial literary construct. If they are, or not, irredeemable become totally irrelevant.

It is, no more racist, and irrelevant, as saying that “all demons are evil.”

The Haradrim we know so little about. How much of their peoples were represented in the alliance against Gondor? Unknown.

What can be postulated about the Haradrim as a people from a few armies that did appeared to fight the Gondorians? Not much.

How many of those present were peoples that were ruled by the Black Numenorians? Unknown, but we do know that at least a few of those people still existed, so the possibility is quite real.

So basically any accusation based on that become totally unsubstantiated by any evidence.

[Elfhelm]

ils wrote:

if Tolkien's books and films are being picked up as white supremacist propaganda, that makes the issue a little more urgent

Are they? By whom? Where and when? I will condemn that! The books are about toleration and the triumph of simple love.

[Elfhelm]

ils wrote:

In fact, for all his trenchant criticism, quite frankly I get the impression he's a fan himself.

I moved the shapiro quotes to the next page because we should really be talking about these words and I don't want them to be ignored....



sorry if it confuses anyone

[ils]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I personally disagree with your perspective. To me, I matters what the reason of the author were, and Saphiro’s claims, being false and highly defamatory, are slander.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Re: the stuff about the Numenoreans, and definitions of race -- I'd like to respond, but I'll save it for another thread and another time, when tempers aren't running quite so hot. There are, I think, some genuinely interesting things to be said about the Chosen People of God (or People Who Chose God) theme, and about the role of HoME in the canon. But now isn't the time; I'm chagrined at having touched off a flamewar on my first visit here, so I think it's best to call a halt.