LOTR: Racist?

[Frontierzone]

Thanks. That means a lot. i have to admit, I haven't read all of the many, many works by Professor Tolkien. I've Read the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, LOTR Trilogy, and much, but not all, of Unfinished Tales. I've also read the old I.C.E. RPG supplements, since I also GM. I've recently switched from RM to LOTR RPG. But, that's off topic. The discussions here have helped me in my formation as a writer. as well as expanding my ability to expand my capacity for critical thought, which is sorely lacking these days. The feedback is deeply appreciated. Thanks again.

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

I think that point comes across in the Silmarillion a lot more than in LotR, but while perhaps Sauron and Melkor aren't portrayed as pure evil, they're close enough to (and their actions motiveless enough) to make it seem as if they were, and their underlings were as well. I think Tolkien, as many fantasy writers still do, used racial determinism - the race someone belonged to determined most of their characteristics. There was little or no variation between members of a race, particularly on the evil side. Every orc, without exception, is bad by definition. Every hobbit was good. Most elves were as well, and men, the most developed race of them all, were generally good or were misguided or corrupted when they were evil - this of course stemming from Tolkien's Christianity or from his ideology.

This bit struck a cord with me in regards to something I have been struggling with as a budding fantasy fan. Recently, I have been pouring over my husbands D&D manuals in an effort to acquaint myself with all things familiar (cliche?) to the fantasy genre. This bugs me, as a modern liberal woman -- Tolkien's racial determinism and its shaping of the entire fantasy genre. Tolkien invites us to engage in a very un-PC exercise of stereotyping a character based solely on race. Race determines not only a character's appearance, but also his personality and values. Elves are not only tall with pointy ears, they are also graceful, literate, refined, and cultured. Dwarves are not only stalky, they are secretive and greedy. Orcs are not just ugly, they are violent, illiterate, and unthinking.

This attitude spills beyond the borders of Middle Earth onto real Earth. Tolkien may have hated allegory, but that hasn't stopped countless comparisons between between his work and the real world. We have recited many of them here. Rohan is Scandinavian, for example. The Haradrim are African, Middle Eastern, or maybe Mediteranean -- take your pick. Many people view Hobbits as a metaphor for Tolkien himself, a middle-class Englishman. To be sure, Hobbits might not be the most flattering of Middle Earth's races: short, simple, child-like. But is it any coincidence the Hobbits are the heroes of the story?

In D&D your race might determine something called your "alignment," which determines whether or not you like to follow rules. It also might determine whether you are "good," "neutral," or "evil."

Based on the admittedly small amount of Tolkien scholarship I've read, it's my understanding that Tokien was attempting to base his story on ancient myths that are so entrenched in our collective psyches that they have become imprinted in our language itself. That is why these archetypes -- elves, dwarves, and hobbits -- are so familiar to us. As the theory goes, Tolkien hardly had to tell us that elves are tall and graceful and that orcs are ugly and evil. We all know that as surely as we know, from the time we are three years old, that the phrase "big, bad wolf" is redundant. As Tolkien was a linguistic genius, I'm going to assume that he was absolutely correct on this point and that his work was an unqualified success.

Tolkien may not have invented "good elves" and "bad orcs." But he did, for better or worse, institutionalize them into this genre we call "fantasy."

I know that a lot of you despise the PC movement. (Certainly, I'm not suggesting that Tolkien can be blamed for not following its principles, as the movement didn't even exist when he was writing.) My opinion of the movement is that, even if it is occasionally misapplied -- with annoying or even dangerous consequences --on the whole, it's a good thing. The PC movement's heart is in the right place. It encourages us never to judge an individual based on anything superficial: skin color, accent, disability, education level, income level, pointy ears, or number of hit points. Can I strive for this ideal and still be a fan of fantasy?

Was Tolkien a racist? I don't know. For the purposes of this post, I don't care. My concern at the moment is the lingering effect his work might have on the fantasy genre in the year 2007.

Something else struck a cord with me on another thread. On the "Harry Potter Sucks" thread, J.D. posted a snippet from an interview with Rowling. It said that fantasy as a genre is "deeply conservative, politically, culturally, psycologically. It looks back to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world." To my chagrin - as a modern, liberal, godless, feminist, commie -- I must admit this is true. I find myself experiencing some cognitive dissidence with my modern mind and my love for fantasy. Afterall, the good elves and bad orcs are as engrained in my psyche as anyone elses'. I love to play this game too.

My point is (finally) maybe it's time to re-evaluate the racial determinism convention of the fantasy genre. Not only because it might not be PC anymore, but also because it's old fashioned and oh-so-cliche.

 

[Urien]

"good elves and bad orcs" Pel Arg.

Hmm, are you worrying about racism being applied to non-existent races? Actually they are well on their way to different species.

If one invents a world and says on this world all Orcs are bad. Or all Jargofraks are bad. Then surely it is so.

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

"good elves and bad orcs" Pel Arg.

Hmm, are you worrying about racism being applied to non-existent races? Actually they are well on their way to different species.

If one invents a world and says on this world all Orcs are bad. Or all Jargofraks are bad. Then surely it is so.

I'm concerned that the imaginary racism that Tolkien engaged in might be a reflection of antiquated real-life attitudes toward race.

I'm concerned that some writers continue to emulate it, not only because it might be a relic of past racism, but also because it's becoming cliche.

I think that more modern attitudes toward race (or class, gender, and anything else) might open interesting avenues for fantasy writers, if we can learn to question the "good elf bad orc" paradigm.

 

[Sapheron]

If you actually read about many of the 'bad men' in LoTR, you find they are not that bad. The hill men who work for Sauron are lighter skinned than the men of Rohan or Gondor. The pukel men who guide the Rohirrim to Minas Tirith by the secret paths are meant to be brownish, and they're good. The men of Rhun, the Easterlings, are not really black. They are arabic. The Corsairs of Umbar are also white, being of the same stock as the Dunedain and men of Gondor. If anyone is black it is the haradrim, and yes they are evil.

Overall, the colour isn't so racist as you might think. I think the idea of 'ism', if anyting, is more 'countryism'. The good people live in the nice places (the shire, Lothlorien, Rohan, Gondor), all nice places with balanced whether, water supply, trees a plenty, farmland and the like. The bad guys live in the Desert, the Mountains and Mordor. The hard places, in other words.

As Tolkien placed the bad guys in the bad environments he couldn't make them all North Europeans, or they'd die of sunstroke and sunburn before the battles started. Likewise, why would black people live in the Shire?

Tolkien isn't racist, he just placed the bad guys/good guys in their stereotypical environments.

 

[Frontierzone]

As for the "good elf bad orc" idea, one has only to read the Silmarillion to see that this argument hardly rings true in its entirety. The orcs were elves, led astray by Morgoth, corrupted and twisted. As for the rest of elfdom, they didn't all turn out good. Or have we forgotten about the kin-slaying? Feanor, his sons, and all of his kin, rebelled against the Valar, and ultimately, Eru Illluvitar Himself. They then murdered the Telari for refusing to take them back to Middle-Earth. They then took the ships, and promised to send them back for the rest of the Nolderim, but burnt them instead, forcing the rest of the Nolderim to cross the icy sea. Many died on that journey. Hardly the actions of "good" elves.

Lest we forget, (as I've pointed out before) Galadriel was in exile for her participation in the kin-slaying. She had elvish blood on her hands, people. She was only redeemed after having refused the One Ring, which she, in her pride, almost accepted.

As for the notion that only the bad, non-human races, such as orcs and trolls were ugly, (again, as I pointed out earlier) the ents (from which Morgoth derived trolls and giants) aren't going to win any beauty pageants anytime soon, folks.

 

[j d worthington]

A few points: While Tolkien didn't invent the word orcs, he did this particular application. However, the orcs, remember, are descendants of elves that were taken and tortured, maimed, and corrupted by Morgoth; they are bred by the Enemy (genetic engineering on a primitive level?) to be harsh, cruel, cold -- and their treatment and the methods of training reinforce that. And recall that Gandalf says (when speaking to Denethor, whose concern was only for Gondor) "I pity even his [Sauron's] slaves" (including, in context, the orcs.

As for the "evil" men... it's not quite so simple. Tolkien has created historic causes for the enmities there. The corsairs are largely from the division of the Gondoreans who, during the kin-strife, followed Sauron's lead. As we know, bad blood is worst between kin. That's the case here: they're so closely related to those who still live in Gondor proper that the hatreds are even more vicious. The Haradrim and the Easterlings are descendants of tribes who either rejected the Valar and their representatives or took the side of Morgoth during the First Age; and again, the enmities between those who had been to the West and those who betrayed not only the Elves' trust (having agreed to serve under their banners during the war with Morgoth and then literally stabbed them in the back once the battle was joined) but also betrayed their own kindred among men, is bitter and of long-standing (just as we see if we look at history; such betrayals and disagreements tend to breed bad blood for centuries and even millennia). So Tolkien has the support of history for such reactions between people. These "races" are not evil, per se, but they are enemies to those of the West because of a long history of abrasive relations between the two.

A couple of other points: Elves are nowhere described by Tolkien as having pointy ears; that is an artist's conventional conception of elves, a holdover from the "cutesy" elves of the Victorian era -- something which Tolkien himself despised, harking back to a much older version of elves, from Northern myths and literature, where they could be both noble and ignoble, fair and perilous, and either "good" or "evil". Nor are all elves by any means good. Broadly speaking, you'll find that the Avari (those who went to Aman) and Avanyar (sometimes called "dark elves", those who refused the journey and thus never saw the light of the Two Trees) are the major divisions, and there are no few Elves in the latter party that are also dark in personality -- this is a part of Tolkien's religious image of the world: those who refuse the light Heaven offers tend toward the dark; but all are fallen, the difference is in degree. Thus you have kin-strife even between those who go to the West, including the slaughter of many of the Teleri by the Noldor (the "race" of the elves to which both Feanor and Galadriel belong) -- and even cruel treatment by (some of) the Sons of Feanor toward others even of their kindred who would withhold the Silmarils.

The Dwarves have, again, good reason to be secretive historically, as well as by nature being more loving of the earth and the crafting of their own hands (something they inherit from their "father", Aule, the Valar who created them). For one thing, because they were stunted and gnarled in appearance, and because of their uncouthness in speech and manner, at first the Elves took them as some form of wild beast, and they were often hunted as predators or threats. There were time and places where the two had very close relationships (as in the glory days of Khazad-Dum), but with the corruption of the rings, and the distrust sown by Sauron and his agents, both sides became distrustful of the other; and the Dwarves became more secretive and close than ever -- yet they are nowhere presented as evil as a whole, or even wicked or untrustworthy; albeit individuals are (and even then it is often a misunderstanding between the two that causes the trouble, rather than one side being "good" and the other "bad"; as often as not, it is due to the haughty behavior of the Elves as to the mercenary attitude of the Dwarves).

But nowhere in Tolkiens' world were any races depicted as inherently evil by reason of their race; it was the historic causes that made them enemies of those who had become closer to the light of Aman (by association with the Elves who had gone there), not infrequently at least in part due to the arrogance of those of the West, as well. Tolkien makes this point with the young Haradrim slain in the raid during which Sam sees his oliphant; we are given a glimpse of him that makes it clear that he was almost certainly a good man in his own land, a loving person, but was driven by the forces of history to die in a foreign land. The enemy he is, but he is not inherently evil; nor are his people. They are misguided and deluded by the promises of Sauron, but they are not evil of heart or mind. Tolkien's world is much more complex and less simplistic in its divisions than the "good-vs.-evil" dichotomy; that's very surface reading of something that was done with considerable thought on all these issues.

Was Tolkien conservative? Definitely. But his conservatism has much less to do with issues of "race" and much more to do with "fallen" and "redeemed"; and with a support of royalty and a vision of tradition as being more solid and trustworthy than quick and sudden innovation (gradual change he might accept, but only when it proved genuinely beneficial on a deep cultural, rather than economic, level).

More broadly: Is Fantasy conservative? These days, I'd say yes; though originally it was both; William Morris, for instance, was both very progressive and very conservative in his approach, alternately. Howard was not particularly conservative in social issues, particularly given his time and place; he was very libertarian in his approach to things, but was also adamantly opposed to social injustice. However, he was also rather grim about the human race, feeling that barbarism is indeed our natural state, and that it "will always ultimately triumph." A lot of the fantasistes of the latter 19th- through the mid-20th centuries were either liberal or even radical in their approach; others were conservative, and certainly once Tolkien's influence was truly felt, the "faux-mediaeval" fantasy had become largely a conservative movement; but that is only one portion of fantasy (something people tend to forget), and until relatively recently a very small portion, at that. I hardly think anyone would call Harlan Ellison conservative, yet a fantasiste he most definitely is, having written very little genuine science fiction, instead dealing almost entirely with the fantastic end of the spectrum -- though very seldom using elements of "heroic" or "sword-and-sorcery" fantasy. Michael Moorcock is certainly no fan of conservatism, being very far to the left of that idea; and his fantasy is overtly allegorical (as is all his work), and comes very much from that perspective. But, on the whole, most fantasy these days is of a conservative stripe, reflected in the fact that we are narrowing it down more and more into that "faux-mediaeval" model rather than the broader spectrum fantasy has had since at least the days of the Victorians. (Let's recall that fantasy includes, sometimes by their own admission or preference of term, such writers as Bradbury, Ellison, Bradley, a fair amount of Shirley Jackson, Clark Ashton Smith, H. P. Lovecraft, Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont.... So it is hardly necessarily a conservative branch of literature, and has had -- and continues to have -- its share of radicals.)

 

[Frontierzone]

Well put. j.d. I bow, once again, to you. You have said all that I meant to say, but with a much better voice. I raise a tankard of meed (ok, really a bottle of cream soda) to you. Hubah (as we say in the Middle Kingdom. Actually, I stopped playing in the "faux-mediaeval" world of the SCA, and thus the Middle Kingdom, years ago, but what the hey.)

 

[edott]

Middle earth is very racist. if you don't believe me go there with one of your orc friends and try to get a table at a restaurant

 

[j d worthington]

Middle earth is very racist. if you don't believe me go there with one of your orc friends and try to get a table at a restaurant

"My goodness.. they'll let anyone in this place these days, won't they?"

FZ ... thanks for the kind words. Mead, eh? Hmmm. Haven't had that in a few years... very nice stuff, that.

Incidentally... just in case anyone might take offense -- the term "faux-mediaeval" is not (at least by me) meant derogatorily; simply to denote that it's set in a mediaeval-style setting, but not in our world or the actual historical period.

 

[Frontierzone]

Ah, well, what that it were actually meed, and not cream soda. And, no offense taken. I think anyone who has taken a look at fantasy can see that much of it is set in "faux-mediaeval" settings. The SCA itself got its start near Berkley, CA, and was, and to a large extent still is, a quasi fantasy organization. I was a herald in the local shire here some years back, and part of a herald's duty is to submit names to be registered. Well, apparently, before the rules for naming practices were formerly codified, people were taking names from fantasy literature. There were actually people with names like Galadriel, Gandalf, etc. (These names were 'grandfathered' in after the rules for naming practices were codified.)

Such things as rules on naming practices still haven't stopped those bent on making the SCA their version of a living D&D game. There are households, such as the so-called "two-chucks" (started by two guys named Chuck, lol) who insist that every member of their household dress and behave like characters from the Gor novels. (I've never read them, I've only seen the covers.) Aaah! And they wonder why, when they show up at a Renfair, people stare. (Gak, no offence, but fat bald guys, like yours truly, or their female counterparts, shouldn't go around in public wearing skimpy leather loincloths and/or leather bikinis. Aak oop gag cough.)

These things, as well as the nasty, back-biting politics, is why I left the SCA.I was interested in Medieval history. (Still am.) Fantasy has its place, and I wouldn't read it if it didn't interest me. And I've played Fantasy RPGs for a long time. And, yes, groups like the SCA have their mediaeval fantasy roots, but things got too carried away, especially for a group which is listed as a Non-profit Educational Organization.

Sorry, I know this is a Tolkien thread. I guess I got carried away on the whole notion of the "Faux-mediaeval" thing.

 

[Raynor]

Some comments to jd's post:

Elves are nowhere described by Tolkien as having pointy ears

Debatable:

The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf. shaped than [?human].)

The "human" part was not very readable; however, Vinyar Tengwar issue #45 confirms it as such.

For one thing, because they were stunted and gnarled in appearance, and because of their uncouthness in speech and manner, at first the Elves took them as some form of wild beast

It should be noted that the elves were at first attacked by the petty dwarves, before they met the powerful dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost. These Tad-dail were ousted from their original communities for being "deformed or undersized, or slothful and rebellious".

Tolkien makes this point with the young Haradrim slain in the raid during which Sam sees his oliphant; we are given a glimpse of him that makes it clear that he was almost certainly a good man in his own land, a loving person, but was driven by the forces of history to die in a foreign land.

Hm, can you be more specific about this haradrim?

The enemy he is, but he is not inherently evil; nor are his people.

Sauron walked "the same ruinous path down into the void" as Melkor; he is called in the letters the nearest approach to evil as is possible; in Myths Transformed, the orcs are said to be in "irremediable" allegiance to the evil of Melkor. The las residue of what might have been "a shadow of good", Sauron accepting Melkor as greater than him, dissapeared when Sauron aimed to become the master of Middle Earth, its "God-king".

 

[Sinbearer]

I totally agree with you throughout this thread Teresa Edgerton. And I want to thank you for your clear thinking and articulation not just on this subject but on many subjects throughout this forum.

 

[daisybee]

Give the guy a break, Tolkien didn't live in todays multicultural ,globe trotting, displaced world. You write what you know, ie, you write your main characters from first hand knowledge of who they are and how they think.Don't you?
I always thought and still do that colour and race aren't the same thing.

As has been stated we are all part of the HUMAN RACE.

Colour of skin denotes geographical ancestry nothing more- and I do not think in any way that Tolkien was insinuating that certain racial types are inherently evil, he gave a detailed history of the whys and hows of the peoples and how they ended up where and who they did and personally I thought Orcs were not evil as much as tools used by someone with evil intent. They got a rough break.

Plenty of the "fair" characters were nasty pieces of work, he drew from the human condition, where good and bad exists in us all.

I think it is really sad that people would use such great fantasy to push ridiculous levels of pcness.

Just because he wrote fantasy and created a world he has been
accused of racism-but he created it from a place he recognised and understood.

Not to go off thread-but why should he get a hard time for having an epic story to tell that may not quite fit some peoples ideals and pc sensibilities.

If they don't like it, write another and redress the balance, if it bothers that much.

How many of the Harry Potter main characters are non white?? Whats JK's excuse-her story is essentially set now FGS in our world.

sorry, but works of fiction that are better than most could ever wish to achieve deserve respect not pc bashing by people with nothing better to do.

(y £5 worth)

 

[Connavar]

I cant see what the fuss is about. You cant call Tolkien a racist based on the orcs looking black. I never saw them or the rest of the ugly bad guys as black cause its not thier race, its cause of what happened to them and being burned.

Also its not wise to judge a guy that lived in a very different time cause they had a totaly different world view.


I wouldnt like a story set in africa were all the characters were changed to white despite how people in africa look like. So i cant see why someone would expect black people in a story set in northern medevil europe and call that racist.

 

[manephelien]

Many good points raised here.

However, I think that one of the most important hasn't been stated enough, i. e. that Tolkien wrote an English mythology, because unlike many other nations, England lacks its own, proper mythology. Most of the mythology we think of as English, i. e. the lady of Shalott, Arthur and the knights of the round table and the like, are actually French in origin, brought over during the Norman conquest.

Even Beowulf, the one surviving fragment of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry, deals mainly with Scandinavian matters and legends. Let's not forget that the language of Rohan was rendered into Anglo-Saxon by Tolkien, to show its relationship with the Westron tongue, as we see it in English.

 

[Vortex Manipulator]

Way too many pages & posts to read through all (so apologies if this appears to copy someone elses views)

Imagine if Sam had been a non-white character?

There'd have been a right kerfuffle.

 

[Fake Vencar]

You just cannot call Tolkein racist one bit. Got to remember that all his books were written back in the 1930's and 1940's, when the social integration between people and races were much different. If the books were written now then they may have been branded racist but you've got to really look at history. It still doesn't stop it being the best trilogy in the world though!

 

[jackokent]

I can't believe this thread is still going.. wow. Even if Tolken had been written today I don't think it would have been racist. Most people write about what they are. Most heros in modern SFI are white still. Are they all racists? I note Octavia Bulter (who very very sadly died last year) was african american and most of her heroines were black. It is normal and probably quite sensible for people to do this. I am unlikely to write about an oriental hero / heroine as I am not one myself.

There are a lot of things that can be read into LOTR and I imagine racism is one of them but is it far more likely to be about presonal experience.

As for the Orcs being black... well they were clearly not of any race alive on the earth today or in Tolkein's time so yes maybe he was Orcist but that's his only crime. I think I'd be Orcist too if I met one!

 

[Andy R Marshall]

of course tolkien was a racist. if you take a closer look at "the last supper" painting by di vinci, rearrange a few items, shine black light on it, use the bumps and raises to make an audio recording of it. In the end, it will tell you that tolkien was really the leader of the kkk.