Jump to content

Tolkien 2.0


The Marquis de Leech

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that, but that just doesn't change the fact that the Númenóreans are better human beings, objectively, insofar as life-expectancy and physical strength are concerned. 

Weren't the Rohirrim good friends of Gondor while they were still living in the Rhonvanion region? And wasn't Eldacar the son one of that people?

I don't see that the story/narrator condemns the expansionist Gonorian kings. In fact, Atanatar Alcarin is criticized because he did nothing to enlarge/secure the territorial gains of his predecessors.

I just checked the time line - the wars with the East begin in 490 with the first invasion of the Easterlings. Romendacil I drove them back and thus presumable waged a 'just war', not one of aggression.

And the Ship-kings eventually subduing Umbar seems to be connected to the rivalry/enmity between the Faithful and Black Númenóreans, from which the conflicts with the Haradrim ensued which led to the eventual conquest of Harad by the Gondorians.

And around the year TA 1050 you have Sauron in Dol Guldur, and one can assume he was subtly directing things. I don't think he had anything to do with Kin-strife later on but whatever outside threats the Dúnedain kingdoms faced from then onwards would have been connected to him (very obvious in the case of Angmar, of course). The best evidence for this is that essentially nothing important happened on the political during the four centuries of the Watchful Peace while Sauron was away in the East.

No doubt about that. But they are still not described as nice people. Tolkien never describes the enemy as having (m)any nice tendencies. That even extends to Elves - just look at Maeglin, Eöl, or Saeros.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Gríma was fair-haired. Anything else would make the thing very over the top. But you can understand why he was portrayed the way he is in most adaptations - because Tolkien indicates that his physical appearance sets him apart from the good guys. When he later is only 'Worm' we see this even more strongly.

Yeah, but in his case that's just a plot device. He is ragged and all, but not ugly/suspicious the way Bill Ferny and the squint-eyed Southerner in Bree are. Usually people who look bad are bad in LotR. That even goes for Sauron the Great who is 'a Dark Lord' and has a 'black hand', and so on. We don't really know what that means because Sauron never shows up, but it certainly could also mean that Sauron actually took on the shape of a man with black skin. I actually don't think this is the case but it is rather difficult to imaging how one should imagine Sauron's body.

I really don't know about all of that. And we honestly don't know whether the Orcs really like to rape all that much.

The racist element there clearly is that with all our information in mind (not necessarily with only the stuff we know from LotR itself) suggests that Tolkien saw the Orcs as corrupted elves or men. They are basically treated as subhuman vermin that have to be exterminated. Those are the politics of the good guys through the ages (including the armies of the Valar). If they were monsters/demons that could be a sensible approach but since they can actually produce viable offspring with 'normal humans' treating them the way the good guys is essentially genocide.

1. Again - what relevance have longevity and physical attributes to morality or worth? They are fundamentally different things. The Numenoreans - even before they start getting grumpy about the ban - have as much fallibility as any other people (Aldarion and Erendis).

2. Gondor as an expansionist power:

  • "He was, however, later slain in battle with fresh hordes of Easterlings. Turambar his son avenged him, and won much territory eastwards."
  • "With Tarannon, the twelfth king, began the line of the Ship-kings, who built navies and extended the sway of Gondor along the coasts west and south of the Mouths of the Anduin."
  • "Eärnil I, his nephew, who succeeded him, repaired the ancient haven of Pelargir, and built a great navy. He laid siege by sea and land to Umbar, and took it, and it became a great harbour and fortress of the power of Gondor."
  • Hyarmendacil forces the Kings of Harad to do homage to Gondor, and keeps their sons as hostages.

All this is before Sauron starts getting involved. You have a gigantic Gondorian Empire of unprecedented size and power - and that sort of regime is going to antagonise others. Again, it is noteworthy that Aragorn does not conquer Harad, but tries to make peace with it.

As for the Rohirrim, it is clear that in the early days they really were assailing Gondor - hence Faramir's line about the stewards:

"And they made a truce with the proud peoples of the North, who often had assailed us, men of fierce valour..."

(Tolkien further explains that Faramir's line about the Rohirrim being Gondor's far-off kin is self-serving propaganda that Gondor consoled itself with).

3. Of course we don't see the Dunlendings' good side - we know so little about them, and only see things from the Rohirrim's perspective. But we do know that they were utterly screwed, and are still angry centuries later.

4. Eh? What part of Grima's physical appearance sets him apart from the good guys? "Worm", incidentally, is a reference to his dragon-like manipulative tendencies.

5. Since when is Bill Ferny described as ugly?

6. Except that Orcs, as per the rules of war, were held to fall under the Law, and were not to be tortured or mistreated. Any Orc that surrendered was to be treated fairly. So, no, they were not vermin to be genocided.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

1. Again - what relevance have longevity and physical attributes to morality or worth? They are fundamentally different things. The Numenoreans - even before they start getting grumpy about the ban - have as much fallibility as any other people (Aldarion and Erendis).

Sure, but their special abilities are the reward for their moral superiority. They are better men, or rather their ancestors were better men. They stood with the Eldar against the Shadow, and they reaped the rewards (long life which their children would inherit, a great land, etc.). 

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

2. Gondor as an expansionist power:

  • "He was, however, later slain in battle with fresh hordes of Easterlings. Turambar his son avenged him, and won much territory eastwards."
  • "With Tarannon, the twelfth king, began the line of the Ship-kings, who built navies and extended the sway of Gondor along the coasts west and south of the Mouths of the Anduin."
  • "Eärnil I, his nephew, who succeeded him, repaired the ancient haven of Pelargir, and built a great navy. He laid siege by sea and land to Umbar, and took it, and it became a great harbour and fortress of the power of Gondor."
  • Hyarmendacil forces the Kings of Harad to do homage to Gondor, and keeps their sons as hostages.

All this is before Sauron starts getting involved. You have a gigantic Gondorian Empire of unprecedented size and power - and that sort of regime is going to antagonise others. Again, it is noteworthy that Aragorn does not conquer Harad, but tries to make peace with it.

Sure, but do we know he did that out of the goodness of his heart or because he lacked the power to do so after the losses suffered during the War of the Ring? We know Aragorn and Éomer later fought many a war together, so it wasn't all peace and quiet during the reign of Elessar Telcontar.

And even if it was, I see no reason to follow your interpretation that Aragorn apparently not being an expansionist king is retroactively making the point that the expansionist Gondarian kings were in the wrong.

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

As for the Rohirrim, it is clear that in the early days they really were assailing Gondor - hence Faramir's line about the stewards:

"And they made a truce with the proud peoples of the North, who often had assailed us, men of fierce valour..."

(Tolkien further explains that Faramir's line about the Rohirrim being Gondor's far-off kin is self-serving propaganda that Gondor consoled itself with).

Sure, there is a pretty strong racism between the Dúnedain and the Rohirrim. That is sort of proving my point. Tolkien himself considers the Rohirrim to be not as refined and good a people as the Dúnedain.

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

3. Of course we don't see the Dunlendings' good side - we know so little about them, and only see things from the Rohirrim's perspective. But we do know that they were utterly screwed, and are still angry centuries later.

That is the point, we don't see the good sides of many people there, and one really wonders whether anybody in the world sees any good whatsoever in those 'half-orcs' among Saruman's people and those 'half-trolls' from Harad.

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

4. Eh? What part of Grima's physical appearance sets him apart from the good guys? "Worm", incidentally, is a reference to his dragon-like manipulative tendencies.

Tolkien never gives a lot of detailed descriptions but Gríma simply comes off as slimy and corrupt in any depiction of him I've seen of him-

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

5. Since when is Bill Ferny described as ugly?

That isn't really the point. The point is that his buddy is.

9 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

6. Except that Orcs, as per the rules of war, were held to fall under the Law, and were not to be tortured or mistreated. Any Orc that surrendered was to be treated fairly. So, no, they were not vermin to be genocided.  

But that's not what the dwarves or the Rohirrim did to them, no? Or the armies of the Valar when they destroyed Beleriand. Morgoth had pretty large armies back then and if any prisoners of war were treated fairly then one wonders why there are only very few Orcs left in Middle-earth in the Second Age. Presumably they didn't go to Aman.

And if you go further back into the First Age there was never an attempt made by Thingol or the Nandor to establish some kind of truce/peace while Melkor was a prisoner in Valinor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

But that's not what the dwarves or the Rohirrim did to them, no? Or the armies of the Valar when they destroyed Beleriand. Morgoth had pretty large armies back then and if any prisoners of war were treated fairly then one wonders why there are only very few Orcs left in Middle-earth in the Second Age. Presumably they didn't go to Aman.

And if you go further back into the First Age there was never an attempt made by Thingol or the Nandor to establish some kind of truce/peace while Melkor was a prisoner in Valinor.

It seems to me that this shows what a realistic writer Tolkien was.  The enemy that offers to surrender ought to be treated with mercy (something that Aragorn, Erkenbrand, Gandalf, and Thranduil manage).  But, human (and Elvish and Dwarven) nature being what it is, people are frequently in no mood to take prisoners. Gondor and Rohan probably had their equivalents of Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton, ( hunting the Woses for sport) as well as people who didn't torture, but were quite willing to pay their enemies back in kind (eg Denethor.  Tolkien said that had he been victorious, he would then have launched a war of revenge against Sauron's supporters).

There are wars in real life where one side is in the right and the other in the wrong, but in which members of the former still carry out atrocities against their opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

It seems to me that this shows what a realistic writer Tolkien was.  The enemy that offers to surrender ought to be treated with mercy (something that Aragorn, Erkenbrand, Gandalf, and Thranduil manage).  But, human (and Elvish and Dwarven) nature being what it is, people are frequently in no mood to take prisoners. Gondor and Rohan probably had their equivalents of Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Bolton, ( hunting the Woses for sport) as well as people who didn't torture, but were quite willing to pay their enemies back in kind (eg Denethor.  Tolkien said that had he been victorious, he would then have launched a war of revenge against Sauron's supporters).

There are wars in real life where one side is in the right and the other in the wrong, but in which members of the former still carry out atrocities against their opponents.

We also have the hero of LotR, Frodo state, that Gollum is as bad as an Orc and simply an enemy that deserves to be killed. Sure, he changes his mind on Gollum but nothing indicates that even the enlightened Frodo ever changes his view on Orcs. He shows mercy towards both Gríma and Saruman, but those - especially Saruman - were simply corrupted good guys while we can safely say that the impression LotR gives is that Orcs are essentially born evil.

There are no good Orcs in the story, nor any examples for circumstances/societies where men/dwarves/elves and Orcs live together in peaceful manner.

This is essentially racism. The Dúnedain are better than the Rohirrim (both biologically and culturally, and even morally), the Rohirrim are better than the Haradrim and Easterlings, and those are better than the half-orcs who, in turn, are better than the Orcs and goblins.

The Orcs and goblins have to be eradicated. God might take care of them in the afterlife, etc. but in this life there is no reason to try to establish a peaceful coexistence with there really bad races. I mean, the Orcs are really only seen (and treated by their masters) as expendable cannon fodder.

It was Tolkien's decision to have the footmen of the evil guys be degenerate Mongols rather than, say, tall dark-haired Númenóreans or fair-haired Rohirrim. It is a choice he made very deliberately, presumably.

On 16.2.2017 at 9:41 AM, Jo498 said:

You are apparently misreading on purpose (because you are too smart to not understand this difference). The reason for the "privilege" is not they they have special blood but that they are stronger, smarter, have healing hands etc. (the heritage is only the ultimate cause of their superior capabilities). You are changing the presuppositions of the setting. It is precisely not a spurious claim to privilege but real superiority in abilities (that is ultimately grounded in heritage). It is not because of racism that 11/12 of the players of the 2016 US Olympic basketball team were black. They were not picked because they are black or because of a racial prejudice that "white guys can't jump" but because they are the best players.

If there was a ME All Stars basketball (with our rules and measures) team there would be no hobbits or dwarves in it, I guess. The very construction of the hobbits makes them physically inferior to humans in many ways. The hobbits are not only underdogs as characters but as a race (and therefore overlooked) and this is not a minor point in the narrative.

That isn't the point at all. Being better at stuff or having an ability others lack doesn't make you inherently better or worse than another person. At least not in a society one would to live. Some great athletes are only good athletes.

A monarchy which bases the right to rule on the divine right of kings as well as a special magical royal bloodline is essentially racist because we don't have to buy the idea that anybody with some special blood has the right to rule. Just as we don't have to believe people who come from the forgotten west can teach us anything about how to behave properly.

On 16.2.2017 at 9:41 AM, Jo498 said:

Of course one can find the very idea of racial differences racist. But I think that this is a shift in meaning and in any case the differences in ME are not prejudices but real in the setting (and it is made very clear in LotR that the differences do not justify maltreatment or enslavement). If hobbits are on average less than 4 ft. tall they are objectively and obviously quite different from humans, this is not a prejudice, but simply a fact.

That is the heart of the matter. You seem to be of the opinion that if I invent a setting where it is okay to exterminate the Jews (Orcs) or more or less treat them like inferior, inherently evil creatures then this is not racist. And you might even be right within in the rules of that fictional world but we would still characterize such a setting as implicitly racist.

On 16.2.2017 at 9:41 AM, Jo498 said:

Not in any other setting (and why should we even care about other settings?) This very clearly marks you as someone coming of age in the late 20th century who despite being well read seems to be unable to try a different (historical) mindset. Because this is probably the first time in history when any bachelor would be suspected a closeted homosexual and any same-sex friendship of homoerotic undertones. There are dozens of bachelors in older literature without such an implication; in many historical societies a fair percentage of the populace were celibate monks, nuns, priests, hermits etc. Why should we even care whether the Istari have any sex drive (very probably not, why should they (it does not seem helpful for their mission) and how does it matter in any way for the story)?

I was using hyperbole there up to a point but one has to keep in mind that Bilbo and Frodo are not following a celibate ideal (and that following a celibate ideal in medieval times did not actually mean that you have 'the strength' to stick to it) so it is odd that they have no romantic relationships whatsoever and don't even seem to have the desire to pursue such relationships.

And one has to keep in mind that even in the 19th and 20th century people who remained unmarried for no good reason were not exactly considered to be good or productive members of society. If you were a priest, monk, or nun you had an excuse, but if you were just a bachelor for life or an old maid people certainly would be whispering about you.

As to the Istari - having permanent flesh corrupts the Ainur and even the Valar and Maiar have spouses, so would be very unnatural and strange if the Istari - who are gendered by spirit not by body - would be above mundane things as sex drive. Melian clearly fell in love with Thingol and he clearly fell victim to her magical powers of seduction and enthrallment when bewitched him in the woods.

On 16.2.2017 at 9:41 AM, Jo498 said:

Again, the key is that there is a specific story to be told (and it happens to contain very little romance), not a complete history of either the protagonists or of middle earth or inspiration for perverse fan fiction or an RPG manual. If "The Hobbit" had remained a stand-alone book noone would care whether Bilbo had married later on or not, it is simply not a question that arises in the context.

I'd agree there insofar as 'The Hobbit' is concerned. It is a children's book, after all.

On 16.2.2017 at 9:41 AM, Jo498 said:

In context I think the implication that the Ring prevents him from seeking romance and marriage is plausible. This would be both a parallel to Wagner (to gain the Rhinegold and forge the Ring Alberich has to forsake and curse love) and fit well with a core of Catholicism (cf. Aquinas and Dante) that "misdirected love" (usually love of earthly things instead of God) is the main problem of humans. The Ring is a paradigmatic object of misdirected love because it makes the bearer desire its possession above anything else and corrupts him. Bilbo and Frodo were more resistant than many others would have been because they were comparably free of character faults (especially pride and desire for power) that would lead to easy corruption but they were not immune. So while I am pretty sure that Tolkien would not have wanted to imply that a bachelor generally is a repressed weirdo, Bilbo maybe became to some extent a repressed weirdo because of the Ring.

Well, you can interpret things in such a fashion, of course, but this is nowhere actually in evidence in the books. One would expect an author to actually address the question as to why Frodo - a very wealthy esquire - would remain unmarried for decades.

I actually tend to think that the exclusion of all things connected to eroticism and love is part of why Tolkien is so successful to a certain audience (myself included). It gives you the feeling that life is much simpler than it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo and Frodo's unmarried status is simply the demands of story. It allows Bilbo to go his adventure without having to worry about leaving a wife and children behind, because really, The Hobbit is just all about the adventure (and wish-fulfilment for a certain middle-aged Oxford Don, who couldn't just up and leave Edith and company behind to run off with a bunch of Eddaic dwarves).

Frodo's more thematic though - if he is going to come back from the Quest a broken man (which he does), with no place in The Shire anymore, he can't very well have a wife and children. Better to leave that to Sam.

Note also that homosexuality doesn't solve these problems either - it still means emotional attachment, which is problematic to both Bilbo and Frodo's story.

Oh, and the actual quote about the Orcs?

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. Morgoth's Ring, HoMe X, 419

This is why Peter Jackson made a terrible mistake by having Aragorn shout "give no quarter, for you shall receive none" at Helm's Deep. Never mind beheading the Mouth of Sauron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 2:23 PM, Lord Varys said:

We also have the hero of LotR, Frodo state, that Gollum is as bad as an Orc and simply an enemy that deserves to be killed. Sure, he changes his mind on Gollum but nothing indicates that even the enlightened Frodo ever changes his view on Orcs. He shows mercy towards both Gríma and Saruman, but those - especially Saruman - were simply corrupted good guys while we can safely say that the impression LotR gives is that Orcs are essentially born evil.

There are no good Orcs in the story, nor any examples for circumstances/societies where men/dwarves/elves and Orcs live together in peaceful manner.

 

Not so.  Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin all displayed mercy towards the remnants of Saruman's forces in the Shire (when they had every reason to hate them).  Before each fight, they were given the chance to surrender, and those that did surrender were spared, and deported from the Shire.  And those forces certainly included half-orcs.  Pippin mentions fighting half-orcs in the Shire;  Merry describes them as "like that friend of Bill Ferny's".  The leader that Merry kills in single combat is described as "like a great orc."  The hobbits aren't pacifists (they kill if they have to) but they do behave decently towards captives. Along with Aragorn's warning to the Uruk Hai at Helms Deep, it seems that there are people who follow the Law in their treatment of orcs and half-orcs. 

There's certainly no textual evidence of sympathetic protagonists trying to befriend orcs or wanting to share their lands with them (and Tolkien would surely be accused of writing a completely unrealistic story if they had) but no reason either to think that they want to eradicate orcs from the world.  I think the attitude of people like Aragorn and Merry is more like "Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone."

Edit:  Including hereditary succession as an example of racism is a real stretch.  I live in a country which has a hereditary Head of State, an aristocracy which is very wealthy (and in some cases, has considerable political advantages) and in which wealthy people can look forward to inheriting land and money from their parents.  A socialist is entitled to criticise such a system, but calling it racist would be silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Not so.  Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin all displayed mercy towards the remnants of Saruman's forces in the Shire (when they had every reason to hate them).  Before each fight, they were given the chance to surrender, and those that did surrender were spared, and deported from the Shire.  And those forces certainly included half-orcs.  Pippin mentions fighting half-orcs in the Shire;  Merry describes them as "like that friend of Bill Ferny's".  The leader that Merry kills in single combat is described as "like a great orc."  The hobbits aren't pacifists (they kill if they have to) but they do behave decently towards captives. Along with Aragorn's warning to the Uruk Hai at Helms Deep, it seems that there are people who follow the Law in their treatment of orcs and half-orcs. 

There's certainly no textual evidence of sympathetic protagonists trying to befriend orcs or wanting to share their lands with them (and Tolkien would surely be accused of writing a completely unrealistic story if they had) but no reason either to think that they want to eradicate orcs from the world.  I think the attitude of people like Aragorn and Merry is more like "Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone."

Okay, I'm curious as to whether or not LV will accept "if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone" as "not racist"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20.2.2017 at 0:00 PM, SeanF said:

Not so.  Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin all displayed mercy towards the remnants of Saruman's forces in the Shire (when they had every reason to hate them).  Before each fight, they were given the chance to surrender, and those that did surrender were spared, and deported from the Shire.  And those forces certainly included half-orcs.  Pippin mentions fighting half-orcs in the Shire;  Merry describes them as "like that friend of Bill Ferny's".  The leader that Merry kills in single combat is described as "like a great orc."  The hobbits aren't pacifists (they kill if they have to) but they do behave decently towards captives. Along with Aragorn's warning to the Uruk Hai at Helms Deep, it seems that there are people who follow the Law in their treatment of orcs and half-orcs.

But wasn't it Frodo who was pushing them to kill as few people (men and Hobbits) as possible? The Hobbits also have the luxury to throw these people out, considering that the lands outside are pretty much depopulated.

I never said that they had to conduct a holocaust against them - although people also conveniently die if you prevent them from retaining the proper resources to maintain their very lives.

And Aragorn's warning can easily enough seen as a move of desperation. They were about to lose the battle. Once Gandalf and Erkenbrand arrived Saruman's forces were butchered (and some of them taken captive).

On 20.2.2017 at 0:00 PM, SeanF said:

There's certainly no textual evidence of sympathetic protagonists trying to befriend orcs or wanting to share their lands with them (and Tolkien would surely be accused of writing a completely unrealistic story if they had) but no reason either to think that they want to eradicate orcs from the world.  I think the attitude of people like Aragorn and Merry is more like "Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone."

Well, but it seems as if the world is not big enough for Orcs and Men both. And no, the story would not necessarily be 'unrealistic' if some Men and Orcs had gotten along. After all, a story about some demon actually creating a race of sub-humans by 'corrupting' human beings isn't all that realistic.

One really wonders how mercy shown towards the Orcs should look like. Torturing and not killing them when they asked for mercy is not the same as allowing them to be your neighbors. What we know about them indicates that they are permanently tainted by the touch of Morgoth, incapable to be good guys to the same degree as the (corrupted) Men are.

On 20.2.2017 at 0:00 PM, SeanF said:

Edit:  Including hereditary succession as an example of racism is a real stretch.  I live in a country which has a hereditary Head of State, an aristocracy which is very wealthy (and in some cases, has considerable political advantages) and in which wealthy people can look forward to inheriting land and money from their parents.  A socialist is entitled to criticise such a system, but calling it racist would be silly.

Well, you don't even have a written constitution, do you? I don't understand why Elizabeth II is your head of state or why Charles should succeed and his descendants should succeed her in that capacity?

Royal blood is no longer as 'special' as it once was in the middle ages, not even over there on your islands, but if the best/main argument for a monarchy is that the monarch is descended from a previous monarch, etc. then those are not very good arguments. You could also call that an elitist society.

But my point wasn't that monarchies are necessarily racist societies despite the fact that the race/clan/family of the monarch is clearly set apart from common men on a fundamental level. I was talking about Tolkien's Dúnedain race which is clearly set apart from common men in a very fundamental way (and among them is the very special semi-divine Line of Elros whose members are set apart even more - very evident in the fact that the Dúnedain kingdoms cannot have kings who do not come from that family.

On 20.2.2017 at 4:19 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, I'm curious as to whether or not LV will accept "if you leave us alone we'll leave you alone" as "not racist"?

Well, it sounds a lot like something that was once done in South Africa, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But my point wasn't that monarchies are necessarily racist societies despite the fact that the race/clan/family of the monarch is clearly set apart from common men on a fundamental level. I was talking about Tolkien's Dúnedain race which is clearly set apart from common men in a very fundamental way (and among them is the very special semi-divine Line of Elros whose members are set apart even more - very evident in the fact that the Dúnedain kingdoms cannot have kings who do not come from that family.

So in your opinion this is racist, regardless of whether or not the Dúnedain or the line of Elros really and objectively are special in the scenario? Is this better or worse than a royal line like the Windsors that is not objectively special?

I am afraid I don't follow. For me racism contains two main aspects: 1. False claims of superiority/inferiority of certain heritages compared to others. 2. The claim that such an heritage could justify enslavement or mistreatment (or more generally privileges). Because even real superiority/inferiority would not justify enslavement or mistreatment any more than the real world de facto technological superiority could have justified real world racism and slavery, any of the two aspects would be sufficient for racism. But the real superiority of e.g. the Dunedain or Elves in the ME scenario does not amount to racism in my opinion unless accompanied by enslavement or mistreatment of others and using the real superiority as a justification for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But wasn't it Frodo who was pushing them to kill as few people (men and Hobbits) as possible? The Hobbits also have the luxury to throw these people out, considering that the lands outside are pretty much depopulated.

I never said that they had to conduct a holocaust against them - although people also conveniently die if you prevent them from retaining the proper resources to maintain their very lives.

And Aragorn's warning can easily enough seen as a move of desperation. They were about to lose the battle. Once Gandalf and Erkenbrand arrived Saruman's forces were butchered (and some of them taken captive).

Well, but it seems as if the world is not big enough for Orcs and Men both. And no, the story would not necessarily be 'unrealistic' if some Men and Orcs had gotten along. After all, a story about some demon actually creating a race of sub-humans by 'corrupting' human beings isn't all that realistic.

One really wonders how mercy shown towards the Orcs should look like. Torturing and not killing them when they asked for mercy is not the same as allowing them to be your neighbors. What we know about them indicates that they are permanently tainted by the touch of Morgoth, incapable to be good guys to the same degree as the (corrupted) Men are.

Well, you don't even have a written constitution, do you? I don't understand why Elizabeth II is your head of state or why Charles should succeed and his descendants should succeed her in that capacity?

Royal blood is no longer as 'special' as it once was in the middle ages, not even over there on your islands, but if the best/main argument for a monarchy is that the monarch is descended from a previous monarch, etc. then those are not very good arguments. You could also call that an elitist society.

But my point wasn't that monarchies are necessarily racist societies despite the fact that the race/clan/family of the monarch is clearly set apart from common men on a fundamental level. I was talking about Tolkien's Dúnedain race which is clearly set apart from common men in a very fundamental way (and among them is the very special semi-divine Line of Elros whose members are set apart even more - very evident in the fact that the Dúnedain kingdoms cannot have kings who do not come from that family.

Well, it sounds a lot like something that was once done in South Africa, don't you think?

So, Aragorn, by restricting access to the Shire to non-Hobbits, himself included is being racist?  This actually raises a broader question.  Are you saying having boarders is inherently racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mind-boggling to me how far people stretch the meaning of racism.

Monarchies may be elitist societies but that does not mean they're racist. Sure, only members of one family can inherit the throne and the rest can bugger off, but that's regardless of race. I mean, very close to 100% of Caucasians in UK (or any other European monarchy) will never be in line of succession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22.2.2017 at 5:42 PM, Jo498 said:

So in your opinion this is racist, regardless of whether or not the Dúnedain or the line of Elros really and objectively are special in the scenario? Is this better or worse than a royal line like the Windsors that is not objectively special?

I'd say that real superiority/special abilities don't justify the right rule over an objectively inferior group of people. If the groups are large enough one certainly could that racist. It would, of course, also be racist to exterminate the Jews even if they were objectively sub-human vermin.

On 22.2.2017 at 5:42 PM, Jo498 said:

I am afraid I don't follow. For me racism contains two main aspects: 1. False claims of superiority/inferiority of certain heritages compared to others. 2. The claim that such an heritage could justify enslavement or mistreatment (or more generally privileges). Because even real superiority/inferiority would not justify enslavement or mistreatment any more than the real world de facto technological superiority could have justified real world racism and slavery, any of the two aspects would be sufficient for racism. But the real superiority of e.g. the Dunedain or Elves in the ME scenario does not amount to racism in my opinion unless accompanied by enslavement or mistreatment of others and using the real superiority as a justification for that.

We see privileges awarded to Dúnedain within the Gondorian society, not just among the society but by the Valar/God himself (who granted the Line of Elros and the Númenóreans a significantly longer life.

It is also a world ruled by racist principles to even entertain the possibility of a world where there could be inherently different races of men who actually a biologically different (e.g. Dúnedain, Drúedain, Rohirrim, Easterlings, Half-Orcs, Orcs, etc.).

There are also three races of Hobbits (Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots) and we even get literally told that the fair-haired and tall Fallohides were natural leaders and the like. If that's not racist thinking then I don't know what is. That is the same kind of thinking that led to the invention of the Hamitic people in Africa.

On 22.2.2017 at 6:21 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, Aragorn, by restricting access to the Shire to non-Hobbits, himself included is being racist?  This actually raises a broader question.  Are you saying having boarders is inherently racist?

One could see that as both positively racist (the king has to create a Hobbit Preservation to preserve the ways of the little people) as well as pretty paternalistic. The Hobbits owned the Shire for at least a thousand years. They don't the permission of any king to keep it, just as the English don't need the permission of some Italian to be an independent state.

12 hours ago, baxus said:

It's mind-boggling to me how far people stretch the meaning of racism.

Monarchies may be elitist societies but that does not mean they're racist. Sure, only members of one family can inherit the throne and the rest can bugger off, but that's regardless of race. I mean, very close to 100% of Caucasians in UK (or any other European monarchy) will never be in line of succession.

It is certainly not the same thing, but there is a similar principle behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is certainly not the same thing, but there is a similar principle behind it.

Yes, there is and it's called discrimination. Still, monarchy is NOT a racist concept and shouldn't be referred to as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2017 at 6:51 AM, SeanF said:

I've certainly seen that argument advanced, but it's very much a minority viewpoint.

Yeah, I think it is pretty extreme.  It also implies that the ability to exclude people from private property (the idea of private property itself) is, because of its exclusive nature, somehow racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/02/2017 at 10:09 AM, Lord Varys said:

There are also three races of Hobbits (Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots) and we even get literally told that the fair-haired and tall Fallohides were natural leaders and the like. If that's not racist thinking then I don't know what is. That is the same kind of thinking that led to the invention of the Hamitic people in Africa.

They were more extroverted at a cultural level because (unlike the Stoors and Harfoots) they were into hunting, rather than agriculture.

In any case, all three strains interbreed with each other (by the time of the War of the Ring, they're just hobbits, with the occasional regional differences). This "racial mixing" is never presented as a bad thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24.2.2017 at 0:36 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LV,

Is the existence of borders racist?

I'd say that depends on who creates those borders, no? Or what you exactly mean by borders. But we can surely agree that most borders are not exactly very, let's say, rational or progressive.

On 24.2.2017 at 3:00 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yeah, I think it is pretty extreme.  It also implies that the ability to exclude people from private property (the idea of private property itself) is, because of its exclusive nature, somehow racist.

That would depend on what you mean by private property. If I'm rich enough I could easily enough own everything in a country and then it would be rather difficult for the other people to find a place to squeeze in.

7 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

They were more extroverted at a cultural level because (unlike the Stoors and Harfoots) they were into hunting, rather than agriculture.

Tolkien is describing individuals (the group of the Fallohides) in racial terms, just as he is doing with the Vanyar, the Noldor, the Teleri, and other racial groups he is doing throughout the series.

That is implicitly racist, especially with the Eldarin races. There are some intermarriages there but they are exceptional, not the rule. They homogeneous group both racially and culturally. All Noldor are artistically inclined, all Vanyar are close to the Valar, all Teleri like music and like to hang out at the sea, etc. The various characters are just stereotypes of their races.

If we transferred that to our world then we would talk about books where English characters are stereotypes of Englishmen rather than actual individuals.

I'm not saying Tolkien has no individuals but the broader strokes of every character are more often than not based on group identity rather than actual individuals.

7 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

In any case, all three strains interbreed with each other (by the time of the War of the Ring, they're just hobbits, with the occasional regional differences). This "racial mixing" is never presented as a bad thing. 

That is true, but it is just an example for this trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd say that depends on who creates those borders, no? Or what you exactly mean by borders. But we can surely agree that most borders are not exactly very, let's say, rational or progressive.

That would depend on what you mean by private property. If I'm rich enough I could easily enough own everything in a country and then it would be rather difficult for the other people to find a place to squeeze in.

Tolkien is describing individuals (the group of the Fallohides) in racial terms, just as he is doing with the Vanyar, the Noldor, the Teleri, and other racial groups he is doing throughout the series.

That is implicitly racist, especially with the Eldarin races. There are some intermarriages there but they are exceptional, not the rule. They homogeneous group both racially and culturally. All Noldor are artistically inclined, all Vanyar are close to the Valar, all Teleri like music and like to hang out at the sea, etc. The various characters are just stereotypes of their races.

If we transferred that to our world then we would talk about books where English characters are stereotypes of Englishmen rather than actual individuals.

I'm not saying Tolkien has no individuals but the broader strokes of every character are more often than not based on group identity rather than actual individuals.

That is true, but it is just an example for this trend.

In summary, your criticism of Tolkien is that he didn't write his books from a left wing, secular, point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is that he implicitly shows racist tendencies in his works and people should not close their eyes to that. You can still like the books regardless of those things, of course.

I read Tolkien, too, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...