LOTR: Racist?

[jackokent]

On that note, does anyone besides me think we look too hard for reasons to protest something?

I agree. There's enough real issues in the world without going looking for them.

 

[Fightin gobbo]

Why care? if tolken was a racist or a sexist? im very much against sexism but if he was its his opinion! his problem and part of freedom of speech is that if he wants to write a book in that way hes free too-If the book had been infact racist! and his intentions where racist! yet the book was as it is now

would you stop reading and liking his story?
The easterlings or the haradrim were not white either(even though they where seen as evil in the book) they where described to be very semetic

if you choose not to like a book because the writer was a racist,sexist or homophobe-fine! good on ya! but dont crap on about how bad the book is
just dont read it!

i believe political correctness is being taken to far and in the wrong way
people are still hurt because they are guilted into not being proud of their heritage(in the case of white americans) just because there where events in the history of that people DOES NOT! make their heritage bad or evil or somthing to be ashamed of! and i think this is what alot of racists and neo-nazis and such try to get across is that this does happen! If the lord of the rings was written with racist or sexist intentions-who gives a ****?? fine you dotn have to liek or agree with it then dont read the book but dont try and ruin it for others

 

[Paige Turner]

On that note, does anyone besides me think we look too hard for reasons to protest something?

I'm pretty sure I'm offended. I just have to figure out why and by whom.

 

[j d worthington]

I'm pretty sure I'm offended. I just have to figure out why and by whom.

Well, let's face it, Paigie... these days, there's such a plethora of choices!

 

[carrie221]

Both of you are impossible

And just for the record I do not believe that he was a racist... his writing just reflected the time and place he was from. I think also the "color" differance just had to do with the traditional views of good and bad from fairy tales and such. The Blond handsome hero and the ugly bad guys.

I do think that some people are reading too much into this. But on the other hand maybe I missed something in his writing where he spouted off racist ideals.

 

[Paige Turner]

Well, let's face it, Paigie... these days, there's such a plethora of choices!

Wha? Why, you… That's it. You're on the list.

 

[j d worthington]

Wha? Why, you… That's it. You're on the list.

My lord! You mean I wasn't already? Now I'm offended!!!

 

[Briareus Delta]

Both of you are impossible

And just for the record I do not believe that he was a racist... his writing just reflected the time and place he was from. I think also the "color" differance just had to do with the traditional views of good and bad from fairy tales and such. The Blond handsome hero and the ugly bad guys.

I do think that some people are reading too much into this. But on the other hand maybe I missed something in his writing where he spouted off racist ideals.

I agree totally with Carrie221. Tolkien was simply following in a long tradition of story telling - Black Witches are evil, White Witches are good; cowboy villains always wore a black hat etc. However, he did thankfully depart from the 'blond handsome hero' bit - Aragorn is clearly not that, even though Hollywood refused to acknowledge that in the films (what a surprise!).

When Aragorn is first introduced he is described as a 'strange-looking, weather-beaten man'. Then later, there is Frodo's comment that 'I think one of his (Saurons) spies would....seem fairer and feel fouler'.

Sorry, I've digressed off the main point a bit. But at least Tolkien gives hope to those, like me, who are aesthetically-challenged!! Oh no, now I've offended the beautiful people...........

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry, I've digressed off the main point a bit. But at least Tolkien gives hope to those, like me, who are aesthetically-challenged!! Oh no, now I've offended the beautiful people...........

Well, I'd agree that Aragorn was not quite so ... ambiguous in appearance as I always pictured him. And, as I've argued quite a bit here, no, I don't think there was any conscious racism as such... though one can read it into the book. (And a note on offending the beautiful people: Have you ever read Ellison's "Eyes of Dust"?....)

 

[Briareus Delta]

Well, I'd agree that Aragorn was not quite so ... ambiguous in appearance as I always pictured him. And, as I've argued quite a bit here, no, I don't think there was any conscious racism as such... though one can read it into the book. (And a note on offending the beautiful people: Have you ever read Ellison's "Eyes of Dust"?....)

No, haven't read it. Tell me more....

 

[j d worthington]

Well, I'd prefer not taking the thread off-topic; briefly, it is on the subject of a family that have tiny flaws, in the midst of a society of "beautiful people" who do not tolerate such. Their offspring has "eyes of dust", and is raised in secret, though with love, until found after the death of his parents. Their intolerance of his ugliness brings out their own. It can be found in the collection I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

 

[Frontierzone]

LOTR Isn't racist. J.R.R. Tolkien's memory is done a great disservice with such absurd, anachronistic, and outrageous claims. Tolkien was a linguist. He was also very familiar with Anglo Saxon culture and languages. The fact that the main heroes are of European stock is due to the fact that Tolkien drew largely from Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian sagas for his writings.

There is also a great deal of metaphor used throughout his works. Tolkien was keenly aware of the fact that there is a spiritual battle going on. The fact that, not only do Sauron's forces have dark skin, but the orcs, Uruk-hai, and other monsters have black blood, is not a racist observation. It is simply a metaphor for the darkness of sin. The consequences of sin are spiritual death. Black blood equals dead inside.

Also, let's not forget, there were the Druadain, or Woses. They weren't white, yet they played an important role in Return Of The King. And, lest we forget, what about the Ents? Or the Hourns? Did they not play an important role in The Two Towers? So, I say again. Tolkien was not a racist, and neither was LOTR.

 

[Commonmind]

I think it wasn't purposefully racist - he made the bad guys all dark, hairy and warty and in the final battle the bulk of the defenders are from the same culture group so they would naturally all look similar. In the book, the only skin colors I remember being discussed are those of specific royal families and the bad guys themselves. The Hobbits are never described as white - that, I think, is a factor of the collective readers' conciousness and the original artists. If you look hard enough almost anything can be considered racist.

I think he just took the common 'look' of the people around him as a basis for the good guys. He was creating a mythos for the Brits after all.

This is akin to how we view Christ in mainstream society, as he was portrayed by majority of renaissance artists, a white man of European build with delicate hair, sometimes with blue eyes and arguably fair of skin. We've taken what images are presented to us and embedded that appearance in our heads for so long that as a society we accept it without question and to think of him looking any differently is impossible for some.

I don't think Tolkien made a great effort to discern between the good and bad guys' skin color. And I think we all assume the heroes are of the same color because, as above, we've taken the images that have been presented to us and accepted them as truth instead of developing our own opinions of what they might look like.

 

[j d worthington]

On the Hobbits... they are often described as "fair", whether it be dealing with their complexion or their hair, some are described as "sallow"; but largely the indications in the books are that they are indeed light-skinned. This is true of the majority of Tolkien's "good guys" (though some dwarves, as I recall, are given a somewhat swarthy appearance). I'd reiterate that Tolkien's work does indeed have elements that we today would consider "racist", though they were not seen that way at the time; and his views on blacks supports the idea that he did indeed have such prejudices, at least to the level of ambivalence and/or distaste toward some ethnoi.

Was it intentionally built into the work -- that is, aimed at any particular group? No, I don't see anything in any of his published writings to indicate that. And that, I think, is what it takes to make a work truly "racist"; not a reflection of the views one inherits from one's society and surroundings and which remain generally passive, but rather the overt expression of hostility toward an ethnic group (or members of that group because they are of that group, rather than as individuals who may be deserving of hostility themselves). On that level, Tolkien cannot be called a racist.

 

[Frontierzone]

As to the description of hobbits, and others, as "fair". I think that many today take that description out of context. Within the context of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, and indeed, any of Professor Tolkien's works, the word fair simply means that the person in question reflects an inner light, that is to say, truth and beauty. It's a reflection of their general demeanor, not necessarily skin tone.

As an example of this, in The Fellowship Of The Ring, during the hobbits' first meeting with Strider, after Barliman Butterbur brings the note from Gandalf, Sam is suspicious of Strider. He doubts that this is the Strider mentioned in the note, sighting the man's outward appearance. Frodo points out that a servant of Sauron would look fair, but seem foul. Strider then quips, "I see...I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter. All that wander are not lost."

Clearly, Professor Tolkien is referring to matters that go deeper than the skin.
He's referring to the spirit, not the outer appearance. After all, if the mere appearance, i.e., the skin tone of the "good guys" vs. the "bad guys'' was his point, then what of Galadriel?

She's tall, beautiful, blond, and, as an Nolder, fair skinned. But, she is also guilty of a dark secret. She's not all together good. Oh, she finds redemption, after rejecting the Ring. But, lest we forget, she was in exile. She did take part in the kin-slaying, after all.

Also, there are plenty of light skinned villains. Isuldur claimed the One Ring. Smeagal, a Stoor hobbit, murdered his cousin, Dheagal, for the One Ring. Saruman coveted the One Ring. There was Ted Sandyman, a hobbit bully. There were the Sackville-Bagginses, and, in Bree, ther was Bill Ferny. There were also the Dunlendings. The list goes on and on.

Fair isn't, for Professor Tolkien, a person's skin tone. It's the person's very being. They are fair in the Eyes of Eru Illuvitar. After all, only Eru can judge the hearts of elves, men, and all free folk.

 

[j d worthington]

Fair isn't, for Professor Tolkien, a person's skin tone. It's the person's very being. They are fair in the Eyes of Eru Illuvitar. After all, only Eru can judge the hearts of elves, men, and all free folk.

I would argue that, in the descriptive passages (giving a character's physical appearance), it is. Again, it depends on context. And, reading as much of Tolkien's work as I have, that interpretation seems to have quite a lot to support it.

However, in other passages, where there is more than (or the main thrust is not centered on) such physical description, then it tends to apply more broadly. Yes, Tolkien was also using symbols, but not exclusively. As he himself made known, he had a distaste for allegory, and intended a great deal of what he wrote to be taken on a more literal level within the story (as opposed to the "primary world"). And the description he gives of Aragorn when the hobbits first meet him emphasizes his grimness and sternness, as well as his unkemptness; things which, given not only their somewhat sheltered lives in the Shire, but their recent experiences, would tend to make them (Sam most of all, who was especially protective of Frodo) more than a bit suspicious.

But, as I said before, I don't see any intentional racism within the work; and even that which is (again, by our contemporary standards) there, is rather minimal; nor is it at all surprising (nor to be held against anyone), as this is true of the vast majority of European and American literature until at least the last 25 years. To deny these unconscious assumptions underlying these aspects of so much literature is, I'm afraid, to deny history.

 

[Frontierzone]

As to the description of hobbits, and others, as "fair". I think that many today take that description out of context. Within the context of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, and indeed, any of Professor Tolkien's works, the word fair simply means that the person in question reflects an inner light, that is to say, truth and beauty. It's a reflection of their general demeanor, not necessarily skin tone.

While I agree with the main body of your post, I am submitting a quote from the opening paragraph of my previous post to make a point, so bear with me. The opening paragraph in my earlier post contains the word necessarily. While fair may mean, in a given context, fair of complexion, this description doesn't always go hand in hand with fair of heart, and that was the main point I was trying to make.

I was in error in not reiterating that statement in the quote you used. What I meant to say was that, even when the word fair is used for a physical description of a person, Professor Tolkien didn't nessessarily equate either beauty or lightness of skin with goodness.

As for allegory, I realize that Professor Tolkien detested allegory, especially for it's own sake, but there is still, interwoven into the fabric of his stories, a certain amount of religious imagery. It's subtle, but it's there, nonetheless.

Please understand, when I'm posting, it's after work, and my brain isn't altogether awake, so my posts aren't up to standards. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

 

[j d worthington]

Please understand, when I'm posting, it's after work, and my brain isn't altogether awake, so my posts aren't up to standards. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

LOL. Apologies not necessary... certainly not in this case. And yes, symbolism certainly enters in, and I'd say there's always inevitably several layers of metaphorical meaning to any fiction worth the paper it's printed on. And yes, the religious imagery (and ideas) are permeative, I'd say. In some ways, that's one of the strengths of his work, because he put such a great deal of thought into these issues, and it shows in the way it works within his fairy-story (to use his phrase, nor is that at all meant derogatively, as I tend to agree with him on their value and importance).

Essentially, the point I was adressing was that it is almost impossible for the (often unspoken) assumptions of whatever society any writer lives in, either as a child or an adult, to not be reflected in their work, including some of the things we, from our current perspective, would call racist. But, unlike Lovecraft (whom I greatly admire, by the way), I don't feel Tolkien's was overt, studied, or intentional. It was incidental and very minor, where it exists at all. But (again, from a modern reader's perspective) it is possible to see such elements and not be entirely mistaken; I just think that the case is far too often overstated and based upon our own current biases (which, in their turn, will look every bit as awkward to generations to come), rather than any truly objective criteria -- this is not always the case, but I think it tends to be a common problem in dealing with nearly all older literature, nonetheless.

However, as I said earlier, in Tolkien's case, I think it's something one may note as existing, but it certainly isn't worth more than a brief glance ... especially in comparison to so many writers of his generation (and no few after) who have not been accused of such.

 

[Frontierzone]

Well, as I've said, I agree with the main body of your argument. I've also learned a lot in this forum. This group is helping me to grow in many different ways. So, we agree basically on all points. I rather enjoyed going over this, point by point, and clearing the air. So many have chimed in on this topic, many more learned than I. But, learning, for me at any rate, is fun. We learn, we think, we grow. (Of course, one way that I need, especially at 43, is to stop growing sideways. There's one area of growth I can do without.)

Seriously, thanks for the replies. you've given me much food for thought. And thought is where ideas begin.

 

[j d worthington]

I enjoyed reading your posts as well; they showed considerable thought and a willingness to argue the points of discussion; and that is the best way to have a debate that helps each party to expand their views. I believe I've done so elsewhere but, if not, welcome aboard! Glad to have you here.