LOTR: war mongering, racist

[Erik]

Great, funny article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg010303.asp

In order to enjoy it, some of you may have to ignore that it's by National Review's Jonah Goldberg. You should, though. Unless you count "moron" as a political doctrine, I think there's broad, non-partisan agreement that Orcs and blacks are not the same.

[Slothrop]

Nice article. He didn't address one thing though: there is that bit in the book and the movie where the armies from the south (and east?) march up with their oliphants to join forces with Mordor. These guys are obviously human, and the fact that they join the side of evil to help destroy life and civilization struck me as pretty blatantly racist, or at least xenophobic.

[Anonymous]

It isn't blacks who should be offended, but Nazis, whom Tolkien was actually trying to provide a metaphor for.

Is Jonah Goldberg saying he is a Nazi sympathizer?

[DrCrypt]

Well, JRR Tolkein was the earliest proponent of human liquidation camps for Bostonians and South Carolinans. So yeah, I see your point. More to the point, however, is that Tolkein refrained from referring to those bad men from the east and the south as "broad-nosed, pancake-lipped negroids" - therefore avoiding the racism connotation completely. Unless your political doctrine is moron, Erik's clever original comment, yadda yadda ya. But let me know if those humans from the south ever ate human flesh "as if 'twere sumpin' 'licious barbecue!" and I'll retract my statement.

[Chris Nahr]

Nice article. He didn't address one thing though: there is that bit in the book and the movie where the armies from the south (and east?) march up with their oliphants to join forces with Mordor. These guys are obviously human, and the fact that they join the side of evil to help destroy life and civilization struck me as pretty blatantly racist, or at least xenophobic.

Then I guess you missed the fact that Saruman collected a bunch of Westerlings for his forces who had an ancient grudge against the Rohirrim. And Tolkien goes out of his way in to make the Southrons look human and noble in their way, despite the fact that they're allied with Sauron. Gondor eventually makes peace with them, they're not annihilated like the orcs. In earlier times the Rohirrim had frequently fought the Numenoreans who had settled in Gondor until they became allies. Nothing in Tolkien's writing prevents the possibility of Gondor eventually allying with the southern nations, too.

Yes, the "West" of Middle Earth is racially homogenous, and it's white. That's completely in line with the fictitious historical and geographical situation Tolkien had created. Besides, Tolkien was a white European so it's rather obvious that the focus of his story is on white people whereas pseudo-Africans serve as an exotic contrast. Nothing prevents a black writer to write a similar story with opposite racial coordinates, and in fact I'd love to read it if one exists.

[Toddy]

FWIW, Tolkien always denied the Nazi link. And it strikes me as the truth, too, since the book was largely conceived long before the war started. Also, there's nothing in LOTR aside from vague geographical similarities that link Mordor with Germany. It's always seemed to me that the real background for LOTR is Victorian England. Tolkien certainly had a colonial view of the world, and a positive view of the class system. LOTR is one big lament for the end of the Empire. A "those were the days" nostalgia piece about a time when old money ruled, common folk knew their place, and their wasn't any of this nasty industrialism to make merchants get too uppity with their betters.

[Bub, Andrew]

Maybe Brett, but you could make that same argument that the Kalava, which influenced Tolkien immeasurably, "had a colonial view of the world, and a positive view of the class system."

Except that the Kalava was conceived some 2000 years before the Victorian class system, and Tolkien, were (conceived).

Now, I can see how you'd apply this analogy Brett, it fits, somewhat, and your probably dead on about the industrialism/environmentalism as a more modern influence, but the rest of your rant also applies to the ancient texts Tolkien studied and based LOTR on! So I doubt Tolkien was trying to evoke the halcyon days of the British Empire here, so much as he was evoking and capturing ancient Northern myth-cycles and epic storytelling.

Damn that Norse mythology, it's just so steeped in Victorian values, and industrial classism!

[Anonymous]

Where are the brothers in Asgaard? Would it kill Thor to hang with some brothers for a change?

[ydejin]

Tolkien certainly had a colonial view of the world, and a positive view of the class system.

When I read the books, I thought there was a very strong "manservant" to "master" relationship between Sam and Frodo. Something which is almost completely missing from the movie. I assume it was taken out, since modern audiences wouldn't be able to relate to it at all.

[Desslock]

Tolkien certainly had a colonial view of the world, and a positive view of the class system.

When I read the books, I thought there was a very strong "manservant" to "master" relationship between Sam and Frodo. Something which is almost completely missing from the movie. I assume it was taken out, since modern audiences wouldn't be able to relate to it at all.

It was definitely more prominent in the second movie than the first. In the first, Sam refers to "Mr. Frodo", instead of Frodo, only once or twice (in the book it's constant). In Two Towers he calls him Mr. Frodo most of the time.

You guys are nutty if you think that sort of class consciousness is a relic of the Victorian era -- it's still a pretty normal attitude today in England (employment law is referred to as "master/servant" law, for instance), and it certainly would have been the norm of the world Tolkien grew up in.

[Rywill]

(Note to self: any thread that mentions LOTR or Tolkein in any way will be turned into an extremely serious discussion about the books.)

[Dirt]

Actually, I think it's more like a very famous Kung Fu novel by one of China's premiere writers - Jing Yong.

You have Eastern Heretic, Western Poison, Southern Emperor and Northern Beggar. In the middle, of course, you have the Central Divinity.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, at the risk of pissing off everyone:

At the very least, you've got to wonder how Tolkein didn't notice that all the enemies are ethnic. He's not as bad as Lucas, and of course he's not a racist, but still: what the hey?

[Anonymous]

"At the very least, you've got to wonder how Tolkein didn't notice that all the enemies are ethnic."

Non-"ethnic" enemies:

Sauron
Saruman
Gollum

Shucks, that pretty much covers the biggest villains of the book, Tolkien's "axis of evil," if you will. What was your fucking point again?

[Anonymous]

Not to mention the main theme of the book: anyone who wields the power of the ring will be utterly corrupted, become utterly evil. It doesn't matter what race you are.

Kinda blows an elephant-anus-sized hole in that theory.

[Chris Nahr]

At the very least, you've got to wonder how Tolkein didn't notice that all the enemies are ethnic.

(Took me a few seconds to realize that Jason is using Newspeak where "ethnic" means non-Caucasian...)

How did you get the idea that the "didn't notice?" His division of allegiance according to ethnicities strikes me as very deliberate. He's writing about a world where everyone's allegiance is to his family, ancestors, bloodline, and historically grown nation, which was of course ethnically and racially homogenous. He then puts his focus and sympathy on the "white" corner of Middle Earth -- well surprise, he was a white man. You think Lord of the Rings would have been a better book if he had clumsily tried to portray Hobbiton as an African village, or if everyone was some kind of pseudo-Caucasian?

The book is supposed to span enough of the fictional world that you'd see differences in appearance such as darker skin pigmentation, and the reason he gives why the Southrons and Easterlings are fighting with Sauron is that they hate the Western invaders -- not because they love eating man-flesh or something.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't know if it's Newspeak, but its pretty common for "ethnic" to mean non-white in the US.

Shucks, that pretty much covers the biggest villains of the book

As Desslock pointed out, there's the whole non-white armies allying with Sauron thing. At the worst, Tolkein possibly has some unconscious biasing going on, but I doubt it; it just looks that way on paper.

An interesting hypothetical: would Tolkein catch any flack if he released the books today? Currently, orcs have just always been that way, but as a new thing, I don't know.

[Anders Hallin]

Where are the brothers in Asgaard? Would it kill Thor to hang with some brothers for a change?
Well, there is Svartalfheim. Svart means black.

[ydejin]

"At the very least, you've got to wonder how Tolkein didn't notice that all the enemies are ethnic."

I think this is very common in fantasy writing. Try reading David Edding's Belgariad (Pawn of Prophecy, Queen of Sorcery, Magicians Gambit, Castle of Wizardry, Enchanters' Endgame). One of the central themes of his writing is that a person's personality is determined by their ethnic origin. Now granted a person's outlook in life is determined in part by where they're born, but Edding's goes way overboard. His world consists of a number of different regions, each with a different ethnic group. And everyone in that region acts in a particular way. So if you're born in Sendaria, well then you're very practical. If you're born in Drasnia, you're kind of a weasel, but in a good way. If you're born in Ulgo, then you're a bad person. And God help you if you're born in Malloria, cause then you're a terrible person.

Actually I rather enjoy reading Edding's work, but if you really stop and think about it, in a way it's all rather offensive.

I don't find Tolkien as troublesome. I think because in part, he doesn't quite take the broad all encompasing strokes Eddings did. For example Boromir and Faramir are both from Gondor (and of course are both brothers), but they have very different moral compasses (at least in the book...). Also a lot of Tolkien's groupings are actually different species, not different ethnic groups. So the Orcs are all bad. Where as the Elves are generally good. That's like saying Dogs are friendly and Cats are standoffish, rather than making a comment on say Asians vs. Hispanics.

[Ben Sones]

(Took me a few seconds to realize that Jason is using Newspeak where "ethnic" means non-Caucasian...)

I know a woman from Russia who gives me blank stares when I use the word "Caucasian" in this manner. She thinks of "Caucasians" as people from Caucasia, who are predominantly black.

[Chris Nahr]

I know a woman from Russia who gives me blank stares when I use the word "Caucasian" in this manner. She thinks of "Caucasians" as people from Caucasia, who are predominantly black.

Yes, AFAIK only the American use of "Caucasian" implies a race designation. But people from Caucasia being "black?" I had to look it up, but the dictionary says that Caucasia is situated near the Black Sea and the southern end of the Caucasus (as the name implies). People definitely aren't "black" there, unless you're referring to hair colour instead of skin colour.

[Jason Lutes]

When I read the books, I thought there was a very strong "manservant" to "master" relationship between Sam and Frodo. Something which is almost completely missing from the movie. I assume it was taken out, since modern audiences wouldn't be able to relate to it at all.

Some critics, and Humphrey Carter in his biography, think that Tolkien was actually trying to shift class perceptions in his portrayal of the relationship between Frodo and Sam. They point out that he was very disenchanted with the class system after he saw its effects in the trenches of WWI, and wrote Sam to be a heroic character (in some ways, more heroic than Frodo) partly for that reason.

Tolkien's kind of like Harriet Beecher Stowe when it comes to revisionism. She set out to humanize the African-American slave in Uncle Tom's Cabin, but because she did it from within a pro-slavery culture, to later readers her writing comes across as racist and condescending when at the time it was quite the opposite. Tolkien does the same thing with class distinctions, but with more success. Over the course of the book, Frodo and Sam manage to ameliorate the cultural boundaries that they were born into. The relationship between Sam and Frodo is the strongest one in the book; their great platonic love for one another (forgive me for getting mushy) is the thing that most affects me when I read it.

[Ben Sones]

Yes, AFAIK only the American use of "Caucasian" implies a race designation. But people from Caucasia being "black?" I had to look it up, but the dictionary says that Caucasia is situated near the Black Sea and the southern end of the Caucasus (as the name implies). People definitely aren't "black" there, unless you're referring to hair colour instead of skin colour.

I'm not. Different cultures have different definitions for traits of ethnicity and physical appearance (sort of how the US considers people from Brazil to be Hispanic, even though the term is inaccurate and the people of Brazil would disagree). Russians consider the people of Caucasia to be black.

[Brian Koontz]

Tolkien's kind of like Harriet Beecher Stowe when it comes to revisionism. She set out to humanize the African-American slave in Uncle Tom's Cabin, but because she did it from within a pro-slavery culture, to later readers her writing comes across as racist and condescending when at the time it was quite the opposite.

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

[Chris Nahr]

I'm not. Different cultures have different definitions for traits of ethnicity and physical appearance (sort of how the US considers people from Brazil to be Hispanic, even though the term is inaccurate and the people of Brazil would disagree). Russians consider the people of Caucasia to be black.

I think you don't quite understand what that Russian woman was saying. I'm familiar with Europeans casually applying the term "blacks" to people with a mediterranean or arabic look -- brown skin, dark and usually curly hair. That doesn't mean they couldn't tell the difference between those people and actual negroids from Central Africa, it just means the latter are so rare in their country that they use the term "black" for much smaller differences which are more relevant to their day-to-day lives. Obviously they are fully aware that these "blacks" don't actually look like black Africans, it's just a derogatory slang expression for "people from down there which we don't like".

Your example of Brazil is inappropriate here since there is practically no ethnic, let alone racial, difference between the Portuguese and the Spanish, nor (as far as I'm aware) between the natives that these immigrants blended with. So calling Brazilians "Hispanics" (as an ethnic designation) is quite appropriate, no matter how much Portuguese national pride might disagree.

[Dirt]

All this is really a English convention; an idea popular particularly in the Victorian era (though it exists in many eras of English writing) where most characters that are evil (or of questionable ethics or even "alien" from the general populace of England) are generally described or represented as darker in hue than others. Tolkien, a contemporary of the Victorian era (Queen Victoria died in 1901 when Tolkien was in his late 20's) would naturally hold the same ideas.

[Ben Sones]

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Harriet Beecher Stowe. Had she lived in modern times, she could have easily replaced her traditional reality with a massively multiplayer game about looking for fish. In the 19th century, options were more limited.

[Anonymous]

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

No it is not. Where was Kafka supposed to move?

[Desslock]

As Desslock pointed out, there's the whole non-white armies allying with Sauron thing. At the worst, Tolkein possibly has some unconscious biasing going on, but I doubt it; it just looks that way on paper.

Actually the Easterlings are never described as non-white (and they have nice round eyes in the movie Two Towers, heh). There are also indisputably "white" human allies of Saruman and Sauron -- the people who were displaced by Rohan's immigration north of Gondor, for instance (the Dunlendings, who are also shown in Jackson's Two Towers).

In terms of associating the non-human foes as non-white? Uh, you guys should read the article at the beginning of this thread again and reconsider who is drawing rascist connections. Although the Dwarves do look like French Canadians.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

No it is not. Where was Kafka supposed to move?

Or Solzhenitsyn.

And it's not like Stowe lived in the deep south. She lived in Cincinnati for God's sake. She was as much a part of slave society as Garrison - an opponent to an evil that was tolerated by her national government. I guess she could have moved to Britain, but then I suppose she would have been disqualified for criticizing imperialism. Give me a break.

Troy

[voltaic]

Define irony: bunch of well-to-do white Westerners discussing slavery and ethnicity as if they had great personal experiences living under it.

Anyways modern apologists can take just about any book, poem, song, or other artistic endeavor and turn it into some commentary on modern social issues. As for me, I'm offended that orcs are portrayed in such an ugly manner. Why does an orc always have to be the bad guy with snot and mucus everywhere? What about clean orcs? What about their children?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Jason Lutes]

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

I know it's futile to argue with you, Brian, but the only way she could have "moved outside of it" would have been to climb in a time machine. Hindsight is 20-20, and you or I are just as incapable of being truly objective in assessing our respective present moments. The struggle for objectivity is exactly that: a struggle. She perceived injustice and did the best she could with the tools at her disposal to address it.

Anyone who claims to reside above it all, or to be able to "move outside of it" at will is delusional. Two hundred, or a hundred, or (in Tolkien's case) fifty years after the fact, it's easy to level criticism at any historical point of view, but those criticisms are just as locked into their time and culture as the things at which they are directed.

Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin?

[Jason Lutes]

Define irony: bunch of well-to-do white Westerners discussing slavery and ethnicity as if they had great personal experiences living under it.

Dearest voltaic, no one has said anything to indicate some "great personal experience" on these matters. But you're right, who are we to talk of such things? Clearly, if we haven't lived it, it shouldn't be discussed. Especially if the discussion comes into contact with the annihilating anitmatter of irony.

(FWIW, I average 12k a year, so I don't think I qualify as well-to-do)

[Anonymous]

The article concludes:

"Evil still exists, even if it is adorned with better disguises than an Orc mask and equipped with better excuses for leaving it be. Such excuses might be the potential deaths of innocent humans — as opposed to vile Orcs — or the simple rationalization that our own comfortable Shire is not particularly threatened yet. And come to think of it, another rationalization for not heeding the message that evil must be confronted might be to dismiss the messenger as a racist. After all, those Orcs do have dark skin."

Poppycock. Iraq is not about "evil must be confronted." If that were the philosophy of the US, then we wouldn't be enriching China and helping to make it the world's biggest manufacturer. We would not be trading with China, if the US philosophy was "evil must be confronted." Talk about simplification. I was with the author until he betrayed the rest of the article by using an "acidic" metaphor of his own by comparing Iraq to Mordor.

[Jason Lutes]

I was with the author until he betrayed the rest of the article by using an "acidic" metaphor of his own by comparing Iraq to Mordor.

The NYT ran a piece about the parallels too, which was similarly way off-base. Both depend on a facile reading of the story's themes based on skin color. If either writer had looked at tiny bit deeper, at the forces at work in LoTR and how they might apply it to the modern-day world, it would be hard to avoid a lefty interpretation: the U.S. as Mordor (the most powerful, industrialized empire with the strongest army) vs. the "old world" (Rohan/Gondor/Elves, the smaller nations whose time in Middle-Earth/Earth is "over").

I mean, what are Sam and Frodo really but a couple of terrorists, taking the equivalent of a suitcase nuke into the heart of the evil empire? It's amazing to me that no on in the media has latched onto that one. On the other had, I guess it's not so amazing, since the obvious spin, given the stance of our leadership, is pro-war.

[Jason McCullough]

[quote=Jason McCullough]
In terms of associating the non-human foes as non-white? Uh, you guys should read the article at the beginning of this thread again and reconsider who is drawing rascist connections. Although the Dwarves do look like French Canadians.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the books, but this "seeing more racism than is there is racism" thing is irksome. Would you say the ADL is "being racist" if they read more racism into the flying bug of The Phantom Menace than was there?

[Desslock]

[quote=Jason McCullough]
In terms of associating the non-human foes as non-white? Uh, you guys should read the article at the beginning of this thread again and reconsider who is drawing rascist connections. Although the Dwarves do look like French Canadians.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the books, but this "seeing more racism than is there is racism" thing is irksome.

I don't understand your point. If you conclude that the treatment the orcs receive is analagous to white people mistreating non-white people, then you're associating "non-white people" with "flesh eating, light fearing, disfigured monsters" in order to conclude there is an analogy, which is far more racist than anything you're criticizing.

[Toddy]

You guys are nutty if you think that sort of class consciousness is a relic of the Victorian era -- it's still a pretty normal attitude today in England (employment law is referred to as "master/servant" law, for instance), and it certainly would have been the norm of the world Tolkien grew up in.

I never said that it was. But it certainly isn't nearly as strong today as it was around a century ago, when little JRR was learning his rightful place in the world from pater and mater. The "Mr. Frodo" relationship between Massah Baggins and Sam wasn't taken out just for the North American audience, y'know.

[Jason McCullough]

[quote=Jason McCullough]
In terms of associating the non-human foes as non-white? Uh, you guys should read the article at the beginning of this thread again and reconsider who is drawing rascist connections. Although the Dwarves do look like French Canadians.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the books, but this "seeing more racism than is there is racism" thing is irksome.

I don't understand your point. If you conclude that the treatment the orcs receive is analagous to white people mistreating non-white people, then you're associating "non-white people" with "flesh eating, light fearing, disfigured monsters" in order to conclude there is an analogy, which is far more racist than anything you're criticizing.

[quote]If you conclude that the treatment the orcs receive is analagous to white people mistreating non-white people[quote]

You have the criticism backwards. People don't think the orcs are "black" because they get killed off by the whites, they think the orcs are "black" because there's a bit in their movement styles/design (in the movie) and descriptions (in the books) that resemble black stereotypes. *Then* when you notice that they're killed off by the white people, that just reinforces the linkage.

[Doug Erickson]

Um, Jason, no.

I think you need to re-read the Lord of the Rings. As a product of white bread America, I've never once envisioned the Orcs picking cotton, jive talking, or singing spirituals. If you go by the commentary of most post-modern critics, that's a pretty amazing thing - I'm told by folks much cleverer than I and who write whole treatises on how I think and act as a honky that when I see anything even 5 integer values darker than 255 on the RGB scale, the refrain to Song of the South plays through my bloodless Caucasian cranium.

What about the ghastly and very white spiritual bodies of the Nazgul? Can you accept that Tolkien was trying to draw a parallel between good ol' crackers like you and me and the hideous, soulless captains with their genocidal manifest destiny?

If I were gonna write a pulp fantasy novel, it would probably have almost all white people in it. Not because I have anything against black people, or Asians, or Hispanics, but because I'm more interested in Paladins, Gelatinous Cubes, the Head of Vecna, and +7 Swords of Smiting than I am in racial commentary and skin color.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't actually think LOTR is racist. My point is that it's not all that shocking that people might.

The reason it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me, I guess, is that I haven't read the books, but I've seen the movie. I don't even remember the Nazgul being white in the movie, but the orcs sure made an impression.

[ydejin]

I don't even remember the Nazgul being white in the movie.

They're definitely white ethnically, although they do wear black. I think the only time you can actually see them, except as wraiths, is at the beginning of the movie when Galadriel is narrating and talks about the nine rings given to the humans, and then again when Frodo puts on the ring at when the Nazgul attack him and the other hobbits on weathertop, before Aragon comes back to rescue them.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I think it's more like a very famous Kung Fu novel by one of China's premiere writers - Jing Yong.

You have Eastern Heretic, Western Poison, Southern Emperor and Northern Beggar. In the middle, of course, you have the Central Divinity.

The condor Heroes Trilogy by Louis Cha (AKA Jing Yong) ?

In what way, you mean ?

western Posion- Ouyang Feng is the only one who can be considered a Villian amongst the 5. (Ya, he's a westerner)

if you read the 2nd Novel of the trilogy,you find that, he really not a very evil person, just too obsessed with that secret Kungfu manual..(infact, but for a handful of people, every pugilist in the novels covets the manual)

[Brian Koontz]

If you hate something you shouldn't live within its boundaries. So if you hate slavery you shouldn't speak against it from within it, you should move outside of it. This criticism of Stowe is valid.

I know it's futile to argue with you, Brian, but the only way she could have "moved outside of it" would have been to climb in a time machine. Hindsight is 20-20, and you or I are just as incapable of being truly objective in assessing our respective present moments. The struggle for objectivity is exactly that: a struggle. She perceived injustice and did the best she could with the tools at her disposal to address it.

What are you talking about? Objectivity is never desired, at least by anyone wise. You have to do what you have to do to create the reality you want to create. Objectivity has nothing to do with anything. Objectivity can be used temporary to serve creative purposes, that's the most that can be said for it.

If you are really against something, the moral action is to have it not affect you. If Stowe is really against slavery... or that is to say if she prefers it to never have existed, then she is best off making sure it does not exist in her. And if it doesn't exist in her, then there is hardly any point in writing "against" it.

Now, if her attitude is rather that its good to fight against slavery but that the existence of slavery is ok, then her actions are fine. After all, the whole point of fighting against something is that its worthwhile to fight against. Fighting slavery while simultaneously being disgusted by it is nonsensical.

Why hadn't Stowe already defeated slavery... why did she have to write the book? Stowe's book is more of an exploration of the issue than a treatise against.

Humans are not interested in things they have *already* destroyed. Destroy slavery and it becomes boring.

And if destruction of something is desired then you have to embrace the thing... you have to understand it. You have to be passionate about it. This cannot be done if the thing is disgusting or unworthy of your attention.

Stowe was passionate about slavery. I am bored by slavery (at least the specific type Stowe was referencing). That's the difference.

Stowe might have become bored. She didn't, or couldn't, or saw her glory only within slavery's embrace, and again that is why criticism of her in that regard is valid.


Anyone who claims to reside above it all, or to be able to "move outside of it" at will is delusional. Two hundred, or a hundred, or (in Tolkien's case) fifty years after the fact, it's easy to level criticism at any historical point of view, but those criticisms are just as locked into their time and culture as the things at which they are directed.

Don't worry... the past is just as critical at the present.

Most attacks of that kind (such as those on Tolkien) are ignorant, in the way in which you suggest.

The typical error of these current humans is to assume they are enlightened, when they are really just the outcome of wars. A culture that lacks slavery is not on moral high ground, although lacking slavery can be a good idea. There are many possible cultures where slavery is a key and necessary ingredient. I'm sure they would be amused to find themselves to be "bad" people as a result.

We send a Tolkien-attacker back in time to Ancient Egypt...

Tolkien-attacker talks to an Ancient Egyptian: "You should abolish slavery. It sucks. You are an ignorant fool for doing this. Thank you and have a nice day."

Ancient Egyptian: "Check back with me tomorrow when I might care. Bye bye now."


Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin?

No, although I've heard people talk about it and I even have a vague idea as to the plot. I'll never read the book for the reasons already stated in this post.

Stowe's Crime: To not be bored by something that is not worthwhile.

[voltaic]

Define irony: bunch of well-to-do white Westerners discussing slavery and ethnicity as if they had great personal experiences living under it.

Dearest voltaic, no one has said anything to indicate some "great personal experience" on these matters. But you're right, who are we to talk of such things? Clearly, if we haven't lived it, it shouldn't be discussed. Especially if the discussion comes into contact with the annihilating anitmatter of irony.

If we haven't lived it, we shouldn't discuss it as if we have. Yes, there are parts in the original article and small bits in this thread which imply having volumes of knowledge on the subject as if from an "I was there" point of view. By no coincidence, this is precisely what I was referring to.

I suppose I could have said that some parts of the thread are mildly patronizing or full of self-righteous supposition or some such, but I went ahead and lumped it all into the word "irony" for brevity.

[Chris Nahr]

I still don't know what "living under ethnicity" [sic] is supposed to mean, or why it would be a bad thing...

[Anonymous]

I had some great Orc Jamima syrup on my pancakes today.

[DrCrypt]

Jason Lutes wrote:
Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin?


No, although I've heard people talk about it and I even have a vague idea as to the plot. I'll never read the book for the reasons already stated in this post.
Brian's obviously way smarter than me, because not only did I need to map out a logic structure for his last post, but that logic map ended up utilizing fifth-dimensional geometry to follow each argument through the wormhole to its unpredictable conclusion. But as stupid as I am, I'd take his literary opinions a lot more seriously if they were about books he'd actually bothered to read before denouncing the author's intentions for three pages. Great "I won't expose myself to anything that I might disagree with" philosophy too.

Seriously, Brian, you just took uninformed pseudo-intellectuality for such a General-Lee-style joyride that it broke.

PS: I find it intriguing that you begin your post by saying that "No one wise wants objectivity, unless for the means of creation". You then follow that art can only come from being passionate (ie: subjective) about a subject, which is so obvious as to be an almost non-comment. But then, you finish your post off by saying that there is no such thing as moral correctness for issues like slavery - in effect, preaching that nothing is right or wrong and we should look at the morality of taking away another person's freedom objectively! This is the sort of sloppy pontificating that even a freshman philosophy T.A. would flunk. But I'll expect a thousand page essay on exactly why you didn't contradict yourself (perhaps trying to confuse the issue by arguing that a multiplicity of subjectives create objectivity in the abstract) on my desk tomorrow morning.

[Jason Lutes]

If we haven't lived it, we shouldn't discuss it as if we have. Yes, there are parts in the original article and small bits in this thread which imply having volumes of knowledge on the subject as if from an "I was there" point of view. By no coincidence, this is precisely what I was referring to.

Can you point out specifically what you're referring to here? Exactly which posts take this tone? All I've read is a bunch of people communicating their opinions on the subject, which is sort of the point of a messageboard. If all you're talking about is Koontz, fine. Otherwise, I don't understand the point of your comment unless you're just trying to establish your own un-ironic superiority over the rest of us.

[exodusquandary]

http://blackpeopleloveus.com

[Troy S Goodfellow]

If you are really against something, the moral action is to have it not affect you. If Stowe is really against slavery... or that is to say if she prefers it to never have existed, then she is best off making sure it does not exist in her. And if it doesn't exist in her, then there is hardly any point in writing "against" it.

Now, if her attitude is rather that its good to fight against slavery but that the existence of slavery is ok, then her actions are fine. After all, the whole point of fighting against something is that its worthwhile to fight against. Fighting slavery while simultaneously being disgusted by it is nonsensical.

Why hadn't Stowe already defeated slavery... why did she have to write the book? Stowe's book is more of an exploration of the issue than a treatise against.

Humans are not interested in things they have *already* destroyed. Destroy slavery and it becomes boring.

This is so far beyond silly I almost laughed. Then I realized you were being serious.

I guess environmentalists shoud stop complaining about global warming, and just agree not to let it affect them.

Conservatives should stop complaining about high taxes, and merely explore them.

And my great uncle who was wounded fighting Fascism, which he was disgusted by, was involved in a nonsensical battle.

And since you haven't defeated pointless levelling in MMORPGs there's no point to continuing. After all, fighting leveling while simultaneously being annoyed by it is nonsensical.

Stowe wasn't attacking slavery as a person from the twenty-first century criticizing Ancient Egypt, so your anachronistic conversation is stupid. She was attacking slavery from within her own time. She didn't just write a novel, but worked in the abolitionist movement. We don't hate things because we are given meaning by their existence. This kind of sophistry went out with Gorgias.

Troy

[Desslock]

I don't understand your point. If you conclude that the treatment the orcs receive is analagous to white people mistreating non-white people, then you're associating "non-white people" with "flesh eating, light fearing, disfigured monsters" in order to conclude there is an analogy, which is far more racist than anything you're criticizing.

You have the criticism backwards. People don't think the orcs are "black" because they get killed off by the whites, they think the orcs are "black" because there's a bit in their movement styles/design (in the movie) and descriptions (in the books) that resemble black stereotypes. *Then* when you notice that they're killed off by the white people, that just reinforces the linkage.

I don't have the criticism backwards -- you're missing the whole point, which is that the very fact that concluding that the orcs resemble black people (stereotypes or otherwise), is far more racist than the intent of the author.

[TimElhajj]

You have the criticism backwards. People don't think the orcs are "black" because they get killed off by the whites, they think the orcs are "black" because there's a bit in their movement styles/design (in the movie) and descriptions (in the books) that resemble black stereotypes. *Then* when you notice that they're killed off by the white people, that just reinforces the linkage.

Wow, that's kind of wacky. I've watched the movie twice now and didn't see any "bit in their movement." What's this bit look like? Can you describe it?

[Bub, Andrew]

Jason, I'm afraid they've got you here. I can't think of a single thing Orcs do in the movies, or in the books, that makes me think of ethnic stereotypes. So I'm forced to be sensationalistic and offer suggestions:

Is it the cannabalism? The barbarism? The slurred speech? The sharp pointy teeth?

Orcs resemble barbarian sub-human stereotypes. Which is pretty much what they're intended to resemble. I don't get why people see that as representative of any current ethnic group.

[Jason McCullough]

Huh, go figure. Well, you know when they rise that first orc (or is it a uruk-hai?) in the first movie out of the muck, and it just stands there flexing or whatever? It *really* reminded me of this one black professional wrestlers in the 1980s who'd stand in the middle of the ring and flex.

[Bub, Andrew]

Yeah? :)
He reminded me of Hulk Hogan. Damn Tolkien and his prejudice against balding Nordic people.

[milo]

Jason, I'm afraid they've got you here. I can't think of a single thing Orcs do in the movies, ...
I can think of one tenuous link: Lurtz, the Uruk-Hai warrior, was portrayed by Lawrence Makoare, a Maori from New Zealand. In the dark make-up and long black wig of his costume, he looked rather like a twisted and evil version of Michael Dorn's Klingon character. Until I looked it up on IMDB, I had assumed that the actor was of african descent.

http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/cinema/artigos/o_senhor_dos_aneis/uruk-hai.jpg

Having said that, I agree that people who see significant racial commentary in either the LOTR books or movies are seeing more than the creators put there.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Brian Koontz]

But as stupid as I am, I'd take his literary opinions a lot more seriously if they were about books he'd actually bothered to read before denouncing the author's intentions for three pages.

It has nothing to do with the author's intentions or the book's substance... it has to do with my identity. You don't read things that are trivial to you, and neither do I.


Great "I won't expose myself to anything that I might disagree with" philosophy too.

Nice work not understanding my post.


Seriously, Brian, you just took uninformed pseudo-intellectuality for such a General-Lee-style joyride that it broke.

PS: I find it intriguing that you begin your post by saying that "No one wise wants objectivity, unless for the means of creation". You then follow that art can only come from being passionate (ie: subjective)

Passionate and subjective are not synonyms or even closely related. Objectivity is not denounced because it is not obtainable but rather because it should not be obtained. However, a human that really KNOWS something in many ways imitates objectivity... but he is always present with that thing, unlike objectivity.


about a subject, which is so obvious as to be an almost non-comment. But then, you finish your post off by saying that there is no such thing as moral correctness for issues like slavery - in effect, preaching that nothing is right or wrong and we should look at the morality of taking away another person's freedom objectively!

Pretty much forget that not-so-exciting stuff and re-examine the situation.

"A culture that lacks slavery is not on moral high ground, although lacking slavery can be a good idea"

Every culture develops in its own way. Every culture has its own needs, its own goals, its own necessities. Every culture treats EVERY cultural element in its own way. What exists in culture is not a matter of morality but rather a matter of these needs, goals, and necessities.

Within a given culture there is certainly right and wrong... there is creation of and destruction of the culture. There is what benefits and harms the culture, etc.

In some cultures slavery is a good idea and in some its a bad idea. Each culture does what's best for itself... its hardly going to screw itself over because some outside culture that claims to be on "moral high ground" tells it what to do (unless war occurs).

Things like Christianity, Equality, and Humanism were behind the anti-slavery movement in the United States, none of which is particularly moral. All three of those things are mere cultural elements, and they fought and destroyed slavery.

[voltaic]

Can you point out specifically what you're referring to here? Exactly which posts take this tone? All I've read is a bunch of people communicating their opinions on the subject, which is sort of the point of a messageboard. If all you're talking about is Koontz, fine. Otherwise, I don't understand the point of your comment unless you're just trying to establish your own un-ironic superiority over the rest of us.

Nope, you caught me. As always I'm simply tooting my own primtive, red-necked horn in an effort to puff up my chest so you can see the medlas I win yearly from other fundamentalists like myself. I'll simply be agreeable from now on.

[Brian Koontz]

And since you haven't defeated pointless levelling in MMORPGs there's no point to continuing. After all, fighting leveling while simultaneously being annoyed by it is nonsensical.

You don't get it, do you? Listen up.

"At the time I was caught in the druggish frenzy of the experience, and looking back on it I realized how pointless it all was. Extreme Nihilism best describes this Upward Spiral."

"Of course. Even I am *enough* of a Modernist to see an appeal within myself for it. I enjoy getting "better and better" as I play an RPG. I've also recognized this thing as Nihilistic. That is to say, my very enjoyment of this is MISPLACED. Its kind of like when a serial killer enjoys torturing his victims. He may very well enjoy it but its better for him to realize his enjoyment is misplaced and CHANGE his reality."

Do you understand YET? I'm describing my WEAKNESS, or that is to say the part of me that is drawn to this thing that is bad.

Stowe is weak in the very same way. She spoke against slavery just as I speak against the levelling treadmill. But that culture was part of her just as Modernism is still a part of me.

I want to cut out this piece of myself and destroy it. I criticize myself for being drawn to the levelling treadmill.

Stowe is criticized for FAILING to destroy slavery within herself, and therefore resorting to attacking it.


Stowe wasn't attacking slavery as a person from the twenty-first century criticizing Ancient Egypt, so your anachronistic conversation is stupid.

I was talking about Tolkien-attackers, not Stowe. That's why I wrote "Tolkien-attacker", which you apparently missed.


She was attacking slavery from within her own time. She didn't just write a novel, but worked in the abolitionist movement. We don't hate things because we are given meaning by their existence. This kind of sophistry went out with Gorgias.

If I was not drawn to the levelling treadmill I would not be its most effective opponent.

Two enemies always share the same battlefield. Two enemies are PEERS.

That you are idiotic enough to think that Fascism was not a peer to Western Socialism/Democracy is your own ignorance.

If you think Fascism was TRULY pathetic, then all of its enemies are also pathetic.

Stowe is criticized because American Slavery is not a worthy enemy. I don't fight against Brittany Spears or Eminem.

[Ben Sones]

It has nothing to do with the author's intentions or the book's substance... it has to do with my identity. You don't read things that are trivial to you, and neither do I.

Brian Koontz: "I don't read things that are trivial, even if they are substantial."

Hypothetical Sane Person: "Isn't that a contradiction? And how do you know it's trivial if you have never read it?"

Brian Koontz: "I think you just answered your own question."

Hypothetical Sane Person: "Uhm, yeah."

All right, so it's not exactly a Socratic dialog. Funnier, though.

[Anonymous]

Funnier, though.

Nah.

[Brian Koontz]

It has nothing to do with the author's intentions or the book's substance... it has to do with my identity. You don't read things that are trivial to you, and neither do I.

Brian Koontz: "I don't read things that are trivial, even if they are substantial."

Hypothetical Sane Person: "Isn't that a contradiction?

Stowe's book was fine in a certain context that I am not inside. Whether the book is substantial is beside the point.

And how do you know it's trivial if you have never read it?"[/quote]

You've never read a book on the mating habits of 6th century mongolian ducks and you never will because you say it is trivial. And then I have the pleasure of calling you a hypocrite.

But man, that is a substantial book... you don't know what you're missing. Quack Quack.

[Anonymous]

The portrayal of orcs offends me. And Brian Koontz is a lunatic.

[Ben Sones]

You've never read a book on the mating habits of 6th century mongolian ducks and you never will because you say it is trivial. And then I have the pleasure of calling you a hypocrite.

While I hate to deny anyone pleasure, I wouldn't say that. I have no idea whether or not it is trivial, since I have no knowledge of what information it contains. You are right that I would probably not read it however, because the subject matter does not interest me. Which is not the same as saying that it is trivial. Many things that do not interest me are not trivial.

[Brian Koontz]

Many things that do not interest me are not trivial.

Hmm... the very way I define "what interests me" is by its degree of relevance to me... its degree of importance.

What method of determining interest do you have and why do you prefer that method over my own?

[Anonymous]

Hmm... the very way I define "what interests me" is by its degree of relevance to me... its degree of importance.

I don't care about learning the design priciples and mathematics of motor vehicles but it's very important that the person who manufactures my car does.

[Brian Koontz]

Hmm... the very way I define "what interests me" is by its degree of relevance to me... its degree of importance.

I don't care about learning the design priciples and mathematics of motor vehicles but it's very important that the person who manufactures my car does.

Then it is important to him and not to you.

[Kyle Wilson]

Most. Banal. Thread. Ever!

[DrCrypt]

Another ghreat article (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/07/1044579926428.html) on why The Two Towers is racist, only this time, its racist against Iraq and its title reflects the World Trade Center!


The very title of The Two Towers is a reminder of why America is so active in the world. It shows the fair-skinned forces of the West arrayed against swarthy enemies called Uruk-hai and Orcs - words too close to Iraqi and Iraq to be mere coincidence. The Orcs are so evil that mass slaughter is the only suitable treatment. They worship a dictator called Saddam, sorry, Sauron, and use a suicide bomber to breach the wall of WASP Central.

At least the "orcs are slavering, flesh-eating negroes" theory isn't based upon the notion that Tolkein had access to a time machine.

[Erik]

Another ghreat article on why The Two Towers is racist, only this time, its racist against Iraq and its title reflects the World Trade Center!

My joke sensor may be busted, because I think this guy's actually serious. He can't be, though, right?

He also says this:


Out on the left, we find The Quiet American and Bowling for Columbine. The first shows the birth of America's view of itself as the policeman of the world - with Brendan Fraser (of The Mummy) as a CIA operative intervening to discredit communism in French-controlled Vietnam (and we know how that venture ended up).

Is he referring to Vietnam or communism? Because I don't care what Brendan Fraser told him, the discrediting communism venture ended up working out pretty good.

And:


Bowling For Columbine, the most successful documentary ever shown in Australia (and the funniest), suggests that America has a bigger share of paranoid morons than any other country.

I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, but I think this guy crosses the line when he implies that America has a bigger share of paranoid morons just because Michael Moore is gigantically obese. Plus, this guy really shouldn't throw stones at America's big paranoid moron Michael Moore from his glass house made out of thinking "Uruk-hai" is a thinly veiled reference to "Iraqi". The house is also about 50% glass.

[DrCrypt]

My joke sensor may be busted...

Mine too. If the platonic ideal of sarcasm is not merely mimicking the person you disagree with in the voice of a castrati (and/or adding a dot dot dot after it then "NOT" followed by shift then a minute-long press of 1) but is in fact a stern-lipped parody of actual idiocy so unexaggerated that everyone except its author takes it completely seriously, we might have just met our generation's George Bernard Shaw.


The first shows Eddie Murphy assigned by George W. Bush to recover a stolen jet from Prague. He is the latest (noisy) incarnation of "the quiet American".

I think he's trying to say that Eddie Murphy is the latest incarnation of Brendan Fraser here, but I'm not sure. Another possibility is that Eddie Murphy is supposed to subvert communism in Prague, in which case, Mission Accomplished! Or it might be a stinging indictment of the stupidity of Bush still thinking the Czech Republic is filled with godless commies. Jeez, I dunno. For the next George Bernard Shaw, David Dane hasn't learned to string his sarcastic quips together very coherently.

[Captain Cookiepants]

How could he NOT be joking! Witness this masterful stroke of his all-encompassing humor:
Catch Me If You Can (not about Osama bin Laden)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...*sniff* oooooh lordy...excuse my while I wipe these mirthful tears from mine eyes!

[DrCrypt]

Awesome ACHTUNG! update on the Two Towers racism angle... Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn offer commentary (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html) on Peter Jackson's shill propoganda for the American corporate hegemony.


Zinn: Of course. "The world has changed." I would argue that the main thing one learns when one watches this film is that the world hasn't changed. Not at all.

Chomsky: We should examine carefully what's being established here in the prologue. For one, the point is clearly made that the "master ring," the so-called "one ring to rule them all," is actually a rather elaborate justification for preemptive war on Mordor.

[Jason McCullough]

Don't forget part 2 (http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/23fellowship.html).

[Brian Koontz]

These guys seem to be high on something or other (pipeweed maybe) but I'll respond to them anyway...

Zinn: There are at least 19 rings floating around out there in Middle Earth, and yet Sauron's ring is supposedly so terrible that no one can be allowed to wield it. Why?

Brian: Because Tolkien doesn't trust anyone who wants to rule the world. Sauron's ring is the "ring to rule them all".

Chomsky: These terrible armies of Sauron, these dreadful demonized Orcs, have not proved very successful at conquering the neighboring realms — if that is even what Sauron was seeking to do.

Brian: You have to prepare an army before it can attack. Unless my knowledge of the books is mistaken, Sauron was building an army during the books. Meaning, he did not have an army prior and therefore could not "conquer the neighboring realms".

Chomsky: As Tolkien later establishes, the Shire's surfeit of pipe-weed is one of the major reasons for Gandalf's continued visits.

Brian: The major reason is the proclivity of Shire inhabitants to be heroes, and of Gandalf's desire to be intimate to and encourage these heroes. I'm sure he didn't mind the pipe-weed though.

Chomsky: The thing to remember is that the crop they are tilling is, in fact, pipe-weed, an addictive drug transported and sold throughout Middle Earth for great profit.

Brian: Great profit? The hobbits don't strike me as materially rich. How exactly are they using these great profits?

Chomsky: But without the pipe-weed, Middle Earth would fall apart. Saruman is trying to break up Gandalf's pipe-weed ring. He's trying to divert it.

Brian: Somebody take the pipe-weed away from Chomsky please.

Zinn: Well, you know, it would be manifestly difficult to believe in magic rings unless everyone was high on pipe-weed.

Brian: What the hell? Its a magical fantasy universe you dimwit. Magic rings come with the territory and do not require drugs.

Chomsky: How do you think these wizards build gigantic towers and mighty fortresses? Where do they get the money?

Brian: You don't need money. You just need laborers and materials. Money is only one form of control... and it wasn't very prevalent in Tolkien's world (Gandalf and Sauron using awe, coercion and/or threats for example).

Zinn: Gandalf is deeply implicated. That's true. And of course the ring lore begins with him. He's the one who leaks this news of the supposed evil ring.

Brian: Its not an evil ring. Its a ring that grants great power. Tolkien and Tolkien's characters treat it as evil because they assume that people cannot handle great power.

Chomsky: Now here, just before Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday party, we can see some of the symptoms of addiction. We are supposed to attribute Bilbo's tiredness, his sensation of feeling like too little butter spread out on a piece of bread, to this magical ring he supposedly has. It's clear something else may be at work, here.

Brian: If all of the hobbits are on the pipe-weed as you claim, then other hobbits should feel the same. They don't. Therefore something else is at play here. The ring being the obvious call.

Chomsky: And note how Gandalf's magic is based on gunpowder, on explosions.

Brian: Huh? Other than the firework sequence (which was pretty meaningless magically) when is Gandalf's magic based on gunpowder or explosions? The curing of Theoden for example had no gunpowder/explosion elements.

Chomsky: I think the Hobbits are criminals, essentially.

Brian: Alright. I'm just going to stop here. I can't take this crap anymore. Either these guys are engaged in some odd form of humor or they need some severe sense knocked into them.

[Slothrop]

No, Brian, I think you are on the right track. Keep up the fight!

[DrCrypt]

How does a self-proclaimed philosopher not know who Noam Chomsky is? But I agree with slothrop, keep going: you're doing great!

[Jason McCullough]

It must hurt to not get it.

[Jason Lutes]

It's one thing not to know Chomsky and Zinn, it's another to take that interview as anything other than satire. God bless you, Brian Koontz, for personifying the overlap of these two traits!

[Brian Koontz]

It's one thing not to know Chomsky and Zinn, it's another to take that interview as anything other than satire. God bless you, Brian Koontz, for personifying the overlap of these two traits!

I had heard of Chomsky, although I don't know much about him. I hadn't heard of Zinn.

The discourse was not a satire of Tolkien (it referenced Tolkien), it seemed to be a satire of Chomsky and Zinn's peers. Those peers can be visited in their natural habitat at the Liberal Academia zoo.

After 10 minutes of research, http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html it looks like Chomsky and Zinn were engaged in an odd self-parody. Chomsky must not be taking himself so seriously in his old age.

Ah... I just revisited the original link and saw that the "discourse" was written by Jeff Alexander and Tom Bissell... the satire was BY them OF Chomsky and Zinn.

[Brian Rucker]

I was with the author until he betrayed the rest of the article by using an "acidic" metaphor of his own by comparing Iraq to Mordor.

The NYT ran a piece about the parallels too, which was similarly way off-base. Both depend on a facile reading of the story's themes based on skin color. If either writer had looked at tiny bit deeper, at the forces at work in LoTR and how they might apply it to the modern-day world, it would be hard to avoid a lefty interpretation: the U.S. as Mordor (the most powerful, industrialized empire with the strongest army) vs. the "old world" (Rohan/Gondor/Elves, the smaller nations whose time in Middle-Earth/Earth is "over").

I mean, what are Sam and Frodo really but a couple of terrorists, taking the equivalent of a suitcase nuke into the heart of the evil empire? It's amazing to me that no on in the media has latched onto that one. On the other had, I guess it's not so amazing, since the obvious spin, given the stance of our leadership, is pro-war.

Yup. And look at the treatment of technology and corrupted magics like The Rings. It's like the Middle Eastern governments that have essentially become Ringwraiths by accepting cash and weapons in exchange for cooperation with the U.S. They're powerful but they're also enslaved by those ties. Seriously go against the U.S. and lose the wealth or weaponry they need to keep their people and enemies in line. This analogy could go on and on.

And racism had nothing to do with LoTR. As many others have pointed out there are plenty of white folk serving the Dark Lord and just because we hear about Southrons and Easterlings coming to fight for Mordor doesn't mean there aren't other Southrons and Easterlings that didn't or might even have driven these folks away. Maybe someone who knows a little more about those obscure regions could fill us in.