# Racism in Tolkien



## Inderjit S (Feb 13, 2003)

Lord of the rings is one of the greatest novels ever. Yet it is also fraught with controversy. One of the biggest ‘gripes’ that people have with it, are the perceived racist overtones that exist in Tolkien’s works . Supposedly, all dark skinned peoples are evil worshipers of Sauron. Yep, so I suppose that Sam, Tom Bombadil and the Breemen are secretly worshipping Sauron sacrificing goats testicles and rebelling against authority, spraying ‘Eru sucks’ on the classroom walls? So do we automatically assume that every dark skinned person in Middle-Earth is evil, since Tolkien was racist? I don’t think so.

Firstly, let’s start with those little fellas the Hobbits. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. If you’re a grumpy old wizard that is. Many people think that all Hobbits have pale skin, yet this is not true.

In their origin, when Strider was a Hobbit named Trotter and Treebeard was a malevolent megalomaniac Bond villain, Hobbits were said to have be like Aborigines. Of course this was changed, but the diversity of skin colour exists in Hobbits as much as it does in Humans. 

The Harfoots, were said to have ‘nut-brown’ skin, and it is probable the Gamgee’s were of the Harfoot clan, as there is a brief reference to Sam’s ‘brown-hand’ in Book Six, though I cannot remember where it was exactly.

And now we come to Mr Unknown identity himself-Tom Bombadil. Tom, the enigmatic jackass also had brown skin, which is shown by the following passage, in the chapter, ‘In the House of tom Bombadil’, in which he asks Frodo to give him the ring.

“ It seemed to grow larger as it lay for a moment in his on his big brown skinned hand”

So these examples show that there were some good dark skinned people in Middle-Earth. “ But hang on!” you say, surely all dark skinned men are evil? Look at the Easterlings, the Haradrim and the Variags of Khand (Such nice names.)

Well, let’s delve into the history of men. In their origin, men were corrupted by Melkor not long after they first arose, and so all men fell into the shadow, and were forsaken for a while by Eru, and their life expectancies were cut dramatically short. 

Well, Melkor left them to their own devices as he went off to the war in Beleriand. Many men then revolted, against the ‘men of darkness’. Now, just because they are called the ‘men of darkness’ doesn’t mean they are actually ‘dark-skinned’. Dark is often associated with evil, and so I think that by saying ‘men of darkness’, Tolkien is just saying that they were evil men, and it I probable that they were of mixed races. 

O.K, to continue. It is probable that the first main migrating camp for men, was on the Sea of Rhun. The Beorians (House of Beor) were the first to reach the Sea, followed by the Marachians. (House of Hador), whilst it seems that the Haladin (House of Haleth) had passed on to lands further east, with the Druedain, another good dark-skinned people, though I will be picking up on that later on.

Now, the Beorians, were described as having dark hair, and were most like to the Noldor. But a lot of them were also said to have a swarthy complexion, due to interbreeding with other Easterling tribes, such as the Borrim. (House of Bor.)
So we see that there is a race of good dark-skinned men. 

We can stretch this further, by looking at the Dunedain of Middle-Earth. Now, it is probable that most of the survivors of the Downfall of Numenor were of Beorian descent, as their descriptions match the descriptions of the house of Beor. (Dark hair, grey eyes etc.) Now, several times, the Rangers are described as having a rather dark complexion, and the cartoon version of Aragorn certainly seems to have a light brownish skin colour.

Now assuming that Minas Tirith is in the region of Florence, Italy. Then couldn’t 
They represent the roman empire? Albeit, this conception may be far fetched, due to Tolkien’s dislike of allergy, yet it is still a possibility.

It also seems to me that the Third House of the Edain, the Haladin, also may have been dark-skinned, since the majority of their descendants in the Second and Third Ages, such as the Dunlendings were dark skinned and the men in ‘Tal-Elmar’ may have been some Haladin who excavated to the South.

Let’s look at the Borrim. Now, a lot of you who have read The Silmarillion, and thus you will know of the two swarthy tribes, the evil followers of Ulfang and the good ones of Bor. Now, before they excavated into Beleriand, the Borrim resided in Eriador, with other mannish tribes, and probably the followers of Bereg, of the House of Beor. 

So, we can see that the majority of the indigenous mannish population of Eriador, were dark-skinned, though most of the Borrim of Beleriand were slain in Unnumbered Tears or it’s aftermath. (A few of Turin’s ‘wolf-group’ may have been followers of Bor or Ulfang. This is a possibility, as one of the men was named Ulrad. Which is similar to Ulfang.)

So the men of Eriador, who were in the majority good natured, set another example of a good dark-skinned people. Though it was a hugely mixed population of many tribes of men, that unfortunately suffered greatly due to the war with Sauron and later with The Witch-King, and so they were pretty much wiped out, as many probably marched with Elendil in the last alliance. 

Now, let’s look at the Druedain, the ancestor’s of the Pukel men. The Druedain, and their descendants were another good dark-skinned peoples, who were the first men to ever cross the Anduin (So the Gondorian loremasters say) and they went into the white mountains, though many went with the Haladin into Beleriand, and so got involved in the war with Morgoth. Some survived, and went to Numenor, though when Tar-Aldarion began his journeys to Middle-Earth, claiming evil would come out of his voyages, and by the time that Sauron came to Numenor, they had all gone to Middle-Earth. It was these peoples who later helped Theoden in the War of the ring.


The Dunlendings were another group of good dark-skinned peoples. In the beginning, they had come to the lands the were later known as Gondor, and resided their, but they were pushed out by the Dunedain of Isildur and Anarion. Later on, they went to Rohan, but the Rohirrim pushed them out. 

So who can blame the Dunlendings for their misgivings against the Rohirrim? Even then, most of the Dunlendings remained a ‘good peoples’. Some fell into evil, whilst some excavated north and some interacted with the Rohirrim and some even had interracial marriages. Wulf, the leader of the dissension in the time of helm was of mixed Rohhirm-Dunlending race. Another possible ‘mixed-race’ person was Erkenbard, the mighty warrior in LOTR. He was unusually friendly with the Dunlendings when they were defeated and he also knew their language, and so couldn’t he have some kind of Dunlandish ascendancy?

It seems that the Dunlendings were simply misguided by Saruman, who merely inflamed their grievances against the Rohirrim, and later on the lived peacefully in Dunland.

Meanwhile, their northern Arnorian relations settled in Bree, were also living ‘good’ lives (with a few exceptions, such as Bill Ferny, whose evil behaviour was unusual since he was the talk of the village). But Bree was probably not fully mad up of Dunlendings and Hobbits, and it was originally founded by some Haladin, and the Butterbur’s were probably descendants of the Haladin, hence Buttebur’s red cheeks.

The Haradrim, certainly have a Arabic or Indian feel, and as for the Easterlings and the Variags of Khand, Tolkien never gave us any information on their skin colour, which left many to assume they were had a Chinese/East European look. Well, for one, the Wainriders, the most evil of all the Easterling groups were white, and though doubtless some may have been Chinese-esque, we don’t know for sure.

Yet, we still see that even the good ‘white’ tribes of men can be bad. The Numenoreans had the greatest fall of man since their first fall, and Boromir tried take the one ring, whilst Isildur failed his people by not throwing the ring in Mount Doom when he had the chance.

Yet Tolkien held that all men were ‘fallen’, due to the ignorance of their forefathers. (Except perhaps for a few exceptions, such as Hurin, Huor, Beren, Tuor, Amandil, Elendil and Aragorn) So one can see that man is a very complicated race in M-E, and as we see in Tolkien’s last book, which he abandoned (The new Shadow?) men were destined to fall again, and again and again, no matter what race they were.


----------



## Maedhros (Feb 13, 2003)

A very well research topic Inder.
The thing that made me wonder too is the fact that while Men despite their race tended to fall again and again, all of Tolkien elves are depicted as white. His fairer race in the mythology.


----------



## Inderjit S (Mar 5, 2003)

The only possible explanation I can come up with is that Elves are based on North-European legends.


----------



## Chymaera (Mar 15, 2003)

> _Posted by Inderjit S_
> One of the biggest ‘gripes’ that people have with it, are the *perceived* racist overtones that exist in Tolkien’s works.


 I would just like to state here that Tolkien was born in South Africa,(a fact which by itself means nothing)and this exposed Tolkien from very early on to the natives of that land. His mother Mabel Tolkien found the Boer's attitudes to natives objectionable. I am sure that Tolkien taking his mother's cue also found such racist attitudes objectionable. 

Tolkien is no racist, and as stated above these attitudes are only perceived.

To illustrate my point I direct you the 'The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien' to letters No. 29 and 30. These letters are in responce to inqueries from the publishers of the German language edition of 'The Hobbit' in 1938! The Germans wanted to know if Tolkien was an Aryan and did he have any Jewish ancestery!! 

I don't have the letter in fron of me at the moment but I dearly enjoyed Tolkien's responce.

[paraphrase] Sadly, I have the misfortune of not being able to claim any of that most nobel blood.

I will dig it out and post it as soon as I can.


Inderjit S I enjoyed your post well reasearched.
unlike my poor post


----------



## reem (Mar 16, 2003)

wow! i didn't get to read all that, but i want to comment on the term 'men of darkness'. Inderjit, the fact that tolkien used 'darkness' instead of plain 'dark' or 'black' proves that he's not really racist and he wasn't saying that dark men were evil...they were just sun tanned
darkness has more of a refference to the night, or lack of light, which eveil is associated with. 
but if you did want to complain about tolkien being racist, then i would object to the refferance to the men of the East! what's that all about? their all evil crude people who follow the dark lord. evil men, eh?? what's he hinting at?? i don't like it one bit
...if that doesn't satisfy you then you can say that most eatern people have dark skin!
reem


----------



## baragund (Mar 16, 2003)

I never perceived even a smidgen of racism in any of Tolkien's works, and even the idea that there is a controversy in the matter surprises me. I agree with Inderjit's points about good groups of men who happen to be dark skinned and evil groups of men who happen to be light skinned. The King's Men of Numenor were about as bad as you can get and they were fair skinned.

I would go farther to say that the mixture in the races of men is kind of beside the point. Tolkien intended Middle Earth to be an English mythology and the English are fair skinned. It makes sense to me that the mythology of a given culture would mirror the physical makeup of their societies.

How many blond haired / blue eyed characters are there in your typical African or Aborigine mythology?


----------



## reem (Mar 17, 2003)

...good point. i won't be complaining about anything that sounds suspciously racist from tolkien anymore.
reem


----------



## Mirabella (Mar 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Maedhros _
> *A very well research topic Inder.
> The thing that made me wonder too is the fact that while Men despite their race tended to fall again and again, all of Tolkien elves are depicted as white. His fairer race in the mythology. *



It's true that on the whole, the Elves a nobler and higher race than Men, but they weren't perfect. There were evil Elves: Feanor, Celegorm, Curufin, Eol, Maeglin, Saeros are ones I can think of. And let's not forget that on three separate occasions, Elves fought against Elves. The point being that there is good and evil to be found in all of ME's races.

I wish I could find a reference for a quote I am about to paraphrase, but I can't. I remember reading this not too long after TTT came out. But the author of the article I read said, in effect, that people who read Tolkien's works find such meanings as they already have in their hearts. In other words, if people find racisim in his books, it's because they already have racist views in their hearts.


----------



## Niniel (Apr 9, 2003)

I never believed anything of the whole story of Tolkien being racist, but thanks for spelling it out at such length


----------



## Idril (Apr 9, 2003)

The racist issue did cross my mind while reading the book, but that was the extent of it. Wow Inderjit S, good work


----------



## BlackCaptain (Apr 9, 2003)

Well... for someone to be colored in tolkien's works, they would have to come from a very heated place. Harad, being a very heated place, people would recieve alot of tanning, and after a period of a thousand years or so, they would become a black race. Now, if I remember correctly, all of the Haradrim, or most, were servants of Sauron. 

It's all just a cooincindence realy. No racism


----------



## Eriol (Apr 10, 2003)

To go around looking for racism, even subconscious racism (which strikes me as nonsense), is a favorite pastime of some groups, especially in developed countries (unlike Brazil, so far -- thank God). 

The funny thing is that they accuse the so-called racists of "hate". Not exactly a loving accusation. "I hate haters" is somewhat quaint...


----------



## Sirion (Apr 11, 2003)

I thought the people complained more about the idea of the superior Numenorean race and the purity of its blood.


----------



## Elendil3119 (Apr 11, 2003)

> The funny thing is that they accuse the so-called racists of "hate". Not exactly a loving accusation. "I hate haters" is somewhat quaint...


Yeah, it is. BTW, very nice work Inderjit.


----------



## Walter (Apr 13, 2003)

What a great summary, Inderjit - too bad you didn't post it at the Wiki too 

Anotherone of the main reasons for these accusations was Tolkien's statement in one of his letters (#210):


> The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.



But if we see Tolkien's statements, which caused these accusations, in their historical and mythological context, litle remains that can seriously be considered racism from Tolkien's side. 

If we accept Tolkien's declared intention that he wanted to _"create a mythology for England"_ as true, his tales (or at least part of them) would have to be closely connected to the "oral tradition" brought to England by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (which was "history" back then rather than "mythology"). And if we keep in mind the main cause for their migration to England - the invasion of the Huns - we get a pretty good explanation. 

How would the Huns who killed the people of the Goths and burned down their houses be described by them (or their descendants)? Probably as _"sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"_...


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 17, 2003)

> The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.



Note the language here too:

They were 'degraded and repulsive' versions of Mongols, not Mongols themselves, and they were repulsive TO EUROPEANS. He never says they were ugly, that they were only ugly in the mind of the Europeans.


----------



## Beorn (Apr 17, 2003)

Inderjit S, please do not post something (specifically this thread) twice. I've merged the old one from the Guild of Scholars Hall with this one.

You may also wish to see this, and this, and this.


----------



## Hama (Apr 17, 2003)

I don't think Tolkien can be termed a racist in the traditional sense. And I know that some overly-PC types love throwing about such accusations (people have also noted that the Fellowship was all-male but that's another matter.) 
However, we must also look at his background. Tolkien was writing a mythology with the English people in mind, and was influenced by the Norse Sagas to a heavy degree (read any Norse myth and you'll see exactly what inspired a lot of the Silmarillion ) However, I think it is impossible to deny a general trend of darkness hinting towards evil. Look at any description or sketch in detail and you'll note that most of the protagonists were caucasian. I'm not saying this is racist. Inder, although I appreciated your detailed analysis on the subject, I can't help but feel you were clutching for the proverbial straws. The "brown hands" of Sam or Tom Bombadil, could easily have implied a tan or burn from overexposure to the sun. "Dark" complexions are as often used in Anglo-Saxon literature to descibe those with dark hair and features (Mediterranean peoples for example), not those of sub-continental origins. The Haradrim, on the other hand, are far more clearly (I hate using this phrase) "people of colour". I'm not implying that all evil people were dark-skinned (I'm not sure Bor or Ulfang were dark skinned; and there were evil Elves) but having read about Tolkien's background and upbringing I believe that there was a slight bias - not intentional racist bigotry.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 17, 2003)

> (I hate using this phrase) "people of colour



What the hell?      People of colour? Isn't 'white' a colour? What gives you the right to call any dark skinned people a person of colour? If you hate using the phrase then don't use it....



> The "brown hands" of Sam or Tom Bombadil



Yeah the tanning of the whole Harfoot clan of which the Gamgee family were a part had 'nut-brown' skin due to excessive sunbathing.


----------



## Hama (Apr 17, 2003)

It is unfortunately a commonly used phrase, especially among many minorities in the United States to refer to themselves. I put it in quotation marks because as I said I did not like it. I was only using it because it was the first word I could think of that swept non-Caucasians together (something again I am not in the habit of doing.) Don't be too offended - mein bhi desi hoon.


----------



## Elfhelm25 (Apr 17, 2003)

I remember an interesting email i received a few months black. 
A black man entered a restaurant and sat down. No sooner had he sat down then a white waiter came up to him and stated that no "coloreds " were allowed in the diner. The black mans reply was 
Sir, when Im angry Im black 
When Im sick Im black 
When Ive been out too long in the sun Im black
When Ive been out too long at sea Im black
When Im embarassed Im black
When I am full of jaundice Im black
When you choke Im black
When I die Ill still be black

You sir
When your sick youre green
When youve been out too long in the sun youre red
When youve been out too long at see youre green 
When youre embarassed youre pink
When youre full of jaundice youre yellow
When you choke youre blue
When you die you turn gray

And youre calling me colored ???????????


I missed a bit but I think you get the picture


----------



## Idril (Apr 18, 2003)

That was funny - I like that 

Basically anyone not 100% white (Caucasian) is referred to as 'black' . I beg to differ here: "people of colour" is not a term used by the 'black' minorities but by the majority caucasian population. 'Blacks' have no need for the colour reference, they already know they aren't 'white' - a lesson drummed in from birth, least they forget.


----------



## Gil-Galad (Apr 18, 2003)

hm..............I do think there is no place for racism here.I read some thoughts about elves and why they are all white.It is simple:cause Tolkien's world is based on scandinavian and north-european myths and legends.I doubt there is racism in them only because there are not black elves,nymphs etc. ...
I think that the best prove of Tolkien's attitude is best examplified by the words:
"Children of Iluvatar",all people are His children and they all have same rights.


----------



## jallan (Apr 20, 2003)

Seems to me that mostly people who _noticeably_ aren’t of pure Caucasian are often called “non-white”.

The problem with Tolkien’s work is that much seems very _congruent_ with an attitude of white superiority, though Tolkien himself is on record strongly decrying racism:


> I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; ...


But many white supremists, white separatists, Italian ultra-conservatives and many Aryan metal bands find some of what they like in Tolkien’s legendarium: societies where the most intelligent and capable and best folk are _on the average_ lighter skinnned than their more uncivilized and barbaric and evil oponents.


----------



## Gil-Galad (Apr 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *But many white supremists, white separatists, Italian ultra-conservatives and many Aryan metal bands find some of what they like in Tolkien’s legendarium: societies where the most intelligent and capable and best folk are on the average lighter skinnned than their more uncivilized and barbaric and evil oponents. *


Everyboy can interpretate Tokien as he wants.It's just a matter of attitude and even propaganda.The Germans need prooves of their superiority and Tolkien world was a good way of propaganding theri ideas.
If I have to talk about music and Tolkien,I'll be probably rude,so I want say anything but:If Tolkien was alilve he would probably get a heart attack when he finds what metal bands are doing with his world amd they interpretate it.


----------



## jallan (Apr 27, 2003)

Tolkien does mention his attitude to something of the same kind in _Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, letter 45:


> I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters (in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia). There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the ‘Germanic’ ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was, I suppose, dabbling in paint, and had not heard of it), in reaction against the ‘Classics’. You have to understand the good in things, to detect the real evil. But no one ever calls on me to ‘broadcast’, or do a postscript! Yet I suppose I know better than most what is the truth about this ‘Nordic’ nonsense. Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge &#8211 which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.


There are numerous websites containing English translations of medieval Germanic material, sites which obviously lean toward white separatism, abrogating to themelves works that have nothing of that kind in them.

There are also fudamentalist white-only “Christian” websites.

Tolkien was writing in a semi-medievalist fantasy tradition, begun by the arch-socialist William Morris, and both of them were not adverse to putting into their fantasy bits of medieval ideas about noble birth and such, Tolkien more than Morris.

Then there is Tolkien’s Mongolian Orcs and his black Men of Far Harad who are said to look like half-Orcs, and the darker skins of most of the human foes of Gondor, when skin color is mentioned.

This is unfortunately congruent with white supremist belief, perhaps partly deriving from fictional stereotypes that Tolkien did not detect or notice and certainly intellectually and emotionally detested in the real world.

In letter 294, Tolkien indicates his distaste for racial theories by proponents who made much use of the word _Nordic_:


> _Middle-earth .... corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe._
> Not _Nordic_, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically _Northern_ is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to ‘Middle-earth’. This is an old word, not invented by me, as reference to a dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford will show. It meant the habitable lands of our world, set amid the surrounding Ocean. The action of the story takes place in the North-west of ‘Middle-earth’, equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. But this is not a purely ‘Nordic’ area in any sense.
> <snip>
> The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a ‘Nordic’.


----------



## Chymaera (Apr 29, 2003)

The only instance that I can remember of Tolkien being remotely prejudice is in his insistance that he concideres himself English rather than British.

Now myself I really can't see too much difference there but I am on the outside looking in and I don't think that he thought of himself as superior to the Scots, Welsh, and the Irish. I think that his view was that there was a difference to him and it was more a pride in his Englishness(?) than anything else.


----------



## Tur-nen (Apr 29, 2003)

its like all racism its based on ignorance in this case the people that try and call tolkien a racist but i need to say this im not black but i am dark skinned and when tolkien talks about dark skinned people hes refering to the desert nomadic tribes of the east and no people dont turn black after a thousand years evolution or even in the roughly 12,000 im not sure but in no way can a race of black people emerge, in the time line provided, from a race of probably cuacasian white men. its like the paste white pictures of a middle eastern jewish carpender people call christ. some things dont peace together in are simple minds. but if tolkien was indeed the genius that wrote lotr and the silm and the tons of history on middle earth he was smart enough to be unignorant about race.


----------



## Walter (Apr 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Chymaera _The only instance that I can remember of Tolkien being remotely prejudice is in his insistance that he concideres himself English rather than British.


 ...especially since he had Saxon ancestors...


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 29, 2003)

Hm..I just came across this statement from http://www.imladris.nu (A pretty good site)



> One of the chief differences between the Eldar and the Avari from here on out is their coloring: the Eldar have a range of hair and eye colors, but the Avari are said the be dark haired and a bit darker skinned. Those who took to the woods tend to dress in greens and browns and are called the Sylvan, or woodland Elves. Legolas's father, Thranduil, later came from the west of Middle Earth to rule over them in Mirkwood.



I get the darker hair, since the Avari is made up of Tatyarin and Nelyarin Moriquendi, but the 'bit darker skin'? I cannot find it in any of the main Avarin 'references' ('Quendi and Eldar' and 'Annals of Aman', HoME 10 and 11) so where on earth did he/she get that from? Anyone got any ideas?


----------



## Link (Apr 29, 2003)

everyone is offended by something.

and it's usually something they try to make offensive.


----------



## jallan (Apr 29, 2003)

Chymaera posted:


> The only instance that I can remember of Tolkien being remotely prejudice is in his insistance that he concideres himself English rather than British.


Read the Tolkien’s comments carefully. They indicate nothing about superiority of English and also reveal his disgust with British imperialism. What Tolkien’s is talking about is a his strong feeling of deep roots in the English midlands.
Turn-nen posted:


> ... and when tolkien talks about dark skinned people hes refering to the desert nomadic tribes of the east and no people dont turn black after a thousand years evolution or even in the roughly 12,000 im not sure but in no way can a race of black people emerge, in the time line provided, ....


The problem words are from “The Battle of Pelennor Fields”:


> He now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand. Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.


The idea is probably to show how these true blacks would seem to Hobbit eyes. But in letter 61, written in the same period when Tolkien penned those, Tolkien remarks on arpartheid to his son Christopher who was in South Africa at that time:


> As for what you say or hint of ‘local’ conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort. not many retain that generous sentiment for long.


Inderjit S posted:


> ... but the 'bit darker skin'? I cannot find it in any of the main Avarin 'references' ('Quendi and Eldar' and 'Annals of Aman', HoME 10 and 11) so where on earth did he/she get that from?


Imagined it, I think! 

Link posted:


> everyone is offended by something.
> 
> and it's usually something they try to make offensive.


No, what offens people is not always what they themselves try to make offensive.

People honestly have different sensititivities. Someone may seem to be, may be in fact (as far as such things are facts) over-senstive to racism, because that person’s sensibilities have been rubbed raw by encounters with undenable true racism.


----------



## Chymaera (Apr 29, 2003)

jallan we are in agreement!


----------



## Inderjit S (May 1, 2003)

Could this passage from 'Tal Elmar' be a shot at European conoliazation of Africa?





> Tal-Elmar; HoME 12
> 
> Base and unlovely thou namest us. Truly, maybe. Yet true is it also that thy folk are cruel, and lawless, and the friends of demons. Thieves are they. For our lands are ours from of old, which they would wrest from us with their bitter blades. White skins and bright eyes are no warrant for such deeds.'


----------



## Walter (May 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inderjit S _
> *Could this passage from 'Tal Elmar' be a shot at European conoliazation of Africa? *


 If this is so then Tolkien must have changed his mind at some point:


> Note 1:
> 
> In the rejected version of the opening section of the text the story begins: 'In the days of the Great Kings when a man could still walk dryshod from Rome to York


Here Tolkien seems to be referring to an ancient legend of an isthmus between Dover and Calais ... (c.f. Edmund Spenser _The Faerie Queene_ who had taken this idea probaby from Thomas Twyne)


----------



## Chymaera (May 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inderjit S _
> *Could this passage from 'Tal Elmar' be a shot at European conoliazation of Africa? *


 This quote would not sound out of place in the current Israeli/Palistine upheavals.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 24, 2003)

My two-cents worth of opinion.

those who think there was a racism thing going on - I think they got from watching the films. Cause if they read the book, Legolas wasn't supposed to be pale-skinned, nor Haldir. They were wood-elves, described by Tolkien to be dark-skinned, with dark-hair, and dark-eyes. Not blue, white and Blonde features.

That could have added to the connotation that Tolkien was a racist.


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 25, 2003)

All Elves were pale-skinned Narya.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 26, 2003)

I suggest you review your knowledge of Tolkien's work, because some elves, particularly wood-elves are supposed to be dark-skinned.

Check out this info on THE ONE RING.NET about Haldir:

Physical description: Tall, and probably on the darker side, as is common with wood elves. Though not dark, just more dark than other strains of Elves.

Biography: Haldir, an elf of Lorien, guided Frodo and company to the city of Lothlorien. He was the one who gave Samwise his rope after the stay in Lorien.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 26, 2003)

Narya said:


> I suggest you review your knowledge of Tolkien's work, because some elves, particularly wood-elves are supposed to be dark-skinned.



Perhaps you can provide a quote substantiating that.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 26, 2003)

I just did.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 26, 2003)

Narya said:


> I just did.


Perhaps you can provide a quote from JRR Tolkien, not a fan based website, to substatiate your claim.
For example, I will provide this quote from LotR:
"An Elven-maid there was of old,
A shining star by day:
Her mantle white was hemmed with gold,
Her shoes of silver-grey.

A star was bound upon her brows,
A light was on her hair
As sun upon the golden boughs
In Lórien the fair.

Her hair was long, *her limbs were white*,
And fair she was and free;
And in the wind she went as light
As leaf of linden-tree."
Emphasis added.
This is the song Legolas sings of Nimrodel, the wood-elf.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 26, 2003)

Ok, look, even though I got it from a fan-based website, that doesn't mean it isn't well-researched. They wouldn't post it there if it wasn't. Don't worry, I will try to find it cause I did read it in one of the books, it's just that I can't remember which at the moment. But every fan knows this fact, some elves aren't fair-skinned. Not all of them are WHITE.


----------



## Confusticated (Dec 26, 2003)

Narya said:


> Ok, look, even though I got it from a fan-based website, that doesn't mean it isn't well-researched.


It also doesn't mean that it is.



Narya said:


> They wouldn't post it there if it wasn't.


See, this is a big mistake to make if you are looking for information on Tolkien's Middle-earth. Websites can and do give false information. A good site to trust will give you passages from Tolkien, and give reference to books and sometimes page numbers... then you can go read the information for yourself. You're free trust whichever sources you like, but to take things as fact is a mistake. People make honest mistakes when they write about Middle-earth, and even the most learned people may present opinions in a way that a reader can confuse it with the facts.

Please check this thread for an extreme example:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=13146


----------



## Persephone (Dec 26, 2003)

Don't worry, I did read a passage about Wood-Elves having dark skin, Tar. I did say I will find it. So wait for it, ok? 

As for your post of the quote from Tolkien, that doesn't say much, because it only tells of one particular elf. It doesn't mean that all of them are the same.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 26, 2003)

Narya said:


> Ok, look, even though I got it from a fan-based website, that doesn't mean it isn't well-researched. They wouldn't post it there if it wasn't.


I can find a number of things that on the site that I would consider 'not well researched'.



> Don't worry, I will try to find it cause I did read it in one of the books, it's just that I can't remember which at the moment. But every fan knows this fact, some elves aren't fair-skinned. Not all of them are WHITE.


The only statement that JRRT made even resembling something that might support your assertion was that some of the Noldor were "ruddy" in complexion, primarily, it would seem, those of the kin of Nerdanel, wife of Feanor. But I will look forward to reading the quote from JRRT that you provide.


----------



## Persephone (Dec 26, 2003)

Well, you know what you just answered Intejit's statement that all elves are white. 

Thank you Tar. Because of your research, I just proved NOT ALL ELVES of Tolkien are White.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Dec 26, 2003)

Narya said:


> Well, you know what you just answered Intejit's statement that all elves are white.
> 
> Thank you Tar. Because of your research, I just proved NOT ALL ELVES of Tolkien are White.



"Ruddy" ('tinged with red') does not equal 'not-white', nor does it support your contention of "Wood-Elves having dark skin". I would still appreciate seeing the passage you have indicated there is, that notes this.


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 27, 2003)

> I suggest you review your knowledge of Tolkien's work



I suggest you do the same instead of picking off information from dodgy websites. A good reference page for Tolkien is:The Tolkien Wikki 

Tar-Elenion's quote from the 'Shibboleth of Fëanor' in which it is stated that some of Nerdanel's kin had a ruddy complexion doesn't in any way substantiate your claim of dark skinned Elves. I myself have found no such evidence that supports this.


----------



## Confusticated (Dec 27, 2003)

Inderjit S said:


> I suggest you do the same instead of picking off information from dodgy websites. A good reference page for Tolkien is:The Tolkien Wikki
> 
> Tar-Elenion's quote from the 'Shibboleth of Fëanor' in which it is stated that some of Nerdanel's kin had a ruddy complexion doesn't in any way substantiate your claim of dark skinned Elves. I myself have found no such evidence that supports this.


But Inder... what about the swart Meglin? 

PS: his people were ruddy. 

About Nerdanel's kin, it is my personal belief these ruddy ones were probably more pale than your typical Noldor. I just base this on the fact that red hair also ran in that family... and among us people red-heads often burn up rather than tan.


----------



## Inderjit S (Dec 27, 2003)

> But Inder... what about the swart Meglin?



heh. Didn't he have Orks blood in him. 

correct my statement: "...doesn't in any way substantiate your claim of dark skinned Elves. I myself have found no such evidence that supports this. Unless of course that Elf's grandmother was a Orkish princess."  

Anyway, BoLT cannot be taken into account in this matter. (This is for Narya not you Nom, I know you posted that as a joke.)



> About Nerdanel's kin, it is my personal belief these ruddy ones were probably more pale than your typical Noldor





> (5) Carnistir 'red-face' - he was dark (brown) haired, but had the ruddy complexion of his mother.


 _The Shibboleth of Fëanor_ (HoME 12)

'ruddy complexion' always conveyed (to me) someone who had freckles. That might explain why the beautiful Elves felt Nerdanel was a ugly duckling.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 28, 2003)

baragund said:


> How many blond haired / blue eyed characters are there in your typical African or Aborigine mythology?



Exactly!!! Thank you!

Lotho


----------



## Belegmacar (Dec 31, 2003)

J.R.R. TOLKIEN WAS NOT A RACIST!!!! That's all I have to say.


----------



## Bombadillo (Jan 21, 2004)

Tolkien wasn't a racist, but he lived in a time when colonisation was rule and order. 

Think gondor had in past decades handle deals with harad, and before that it were the numenoreans, who had plunderd the natural recources of ME. doesn't this begin to sound a bit like colonialism?

I think that a attack of people from the south, being black brown, yellow or green, is the expression of the feelings against the colonial leaders, the people in the north.

(one question: why should it be wrong for tolkien to be for a tiny bit a racist, which was not thougt strange in his time. While tintin in africa, a world bestseller comic book from about the same age was as racist as can be and still is appreciated?)

If you don't know this book, click here it's really as reacist as can be... It shows very well how people in the time of tolkien thought about africans.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 21, 2004)

Colonialism was of course prevalent back then. Most European nations (Britain, France, England, Portugal) had colonies. Germany had few colonies in comparison, but that was because of the anti-colonialism attitude of Bismarck (albeit that was some half a century earlier, but Bismarck was the main architect in Germany's foreign affairs in the previous century and by the time of his departure most of the rival European nations had large colonial territories of their own.) 

European nations had effectively colonialised most of the world. (The Middle-East, came under Franco-British control as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement, in which the two agreed to divide the former Ottoman territory between themselves, with Syria and Lebanon under French control and 'Iraq' (formed by joining together Kirkuk and Mosul) was established by Winston Churchill as a consolation to Faisal Hussein for the French take over of Syria, and as a brilliant oil resource. 

Colonialism was more prevalent in Africa then anywhere else. (Even America, the famous anti-colonialists had a pseudo-colony in Africa 'Liberia' where many slaves wishing to go back to Africa went) but colonialism was viewed with disgust in a post-WW2 age (of course the roots for national-self determination had been sown by Wilson's 14 points after WW1.) and many people felt colonialism was incompatible with the U.N charter and many European nations began to let go of their colonies. 

We now of course get the new age neo-colonialism, in which companies and some nations may impose socio-economic hegemony on 'undeveloped' countries in order to gain financial affluence from certain states (a.l.a IMF, Globalisation etc.) 

I nice book, (if you are interested) to read on colonialsm is Chinua Achebe's brilliant 'Things Fall Apart'.


----------



## Thû's Chicken (Jan 23, 2004)

*On the skin-colour of elves...*

In "Morgoth's Ring", Tolkien described the Gnomes (i.e., Noldor) as having skin of "dark hue" (and their eyes were grey). CT mentions that this didn't make into the final Silmarillion (probably just forgotten). Make of it what you will.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 23, 2004)

Can you provide a quote please? I cannot find that in 'Morgoth's Ring'.



> (probably just forgotten).



Or rejected. (Appendix F; LoTR S.A 1966. It is said that the Ñoldor were 'pale-skinned,' This would preclude any notion of dark-skinned Noldor.) If the Ñoldor were dark-skinned then the Teleri and it's branches would be too, since the Sindar were physically similar to the Ñoldor. ('Quendi and Eldar' HoME 11)


----------



## Bucky (Jan 23, 2004)

_Germany had few colonies in comparison, but that was because of the anti-colonialism attitude of Bismarck (albeit that was some half a century earlier,_

Maybe it had more to do with the fact that England & Spain had scoffed up most of the world centuries earlier?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes, but Bismarck failed to seize upon the opportunities when the time came. 'Germany' has also only existed for a short period of time. Originally it consisted of 390 quasi-independent states under the nominal rule of the Holy Roman Empire. (Who at the time was the ruler of Austria, one of the two dominant states in 'Germany'.)

But Prussia and Austria were defeated by France under Napoleon who reduced the no. of states to 39, many smaller states being amalgamated and 14 were under French rule. (The ubiquitous 'Confederation of the Rhine').

Naturally anti-French dissonance arose and Prussia (with a revitalised regime) Austria and Russia launched a united front and defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Leipzig and the victorious allies then marched into France and forced the abdication of Napoleon.

The subsequent 'Vienna Settlement' in which the Dual Powers (Austria and Prussia) ordained that the German Confederation was created with the aim of 'maintaining the internal and external security, and integrity of individual states' This pseudo-German state existed in relative peace for some years, whilst the clamour for a unification by various people grew, things like the German philosopher’s Herder and Hegel's views and the interstate trade union the 'Zollverien' (headed by Prussia who were for (at the time) a unification. The Zollverien acted a tool in which Prussia could establish hegemony over the German Confed. and have more influence and power then their conservative opponents Austria. 

There was a failed revolution in 1848 in which a attempt at a unified Germany failed miserably. Then, after defeating France and Austria in separate wars, Prussia was able to establish an augmented, unified Germany, which was established in 1871, under the rule of William I, though Bismarck (minister president of Prussia) was the real brains behind the operation and he became chancellor. That’s is as a terse history of Germany unification as I can manage and is another factor in it's lack of colonies.  

Also the fact that Germany was a land-locked state and wasn't really interested in marining etc. is a factor.


----------



## Thû's Chicken (Jan 24, 2004)

Inderjit S said:


> Can you provide a quote please? I cannot find that in 'Morgoth's Ring'.



Let's see... p169: "At the end of the paragraph he added to Text A: 'Dark is their hue and grey are their eyes'; this did not get into the later typescripts. See I.44."


----------



## Rangerdave (Jan 25, 2004)

Thû's Chicken said:


> In "Morgoth's Ring", Tolkien described the Gnomes (i.e., Noldor) as having skin of "dark hue" (and their eyes were grey). CT mentions that this didn't make into the final Silmarillion (probably just forgotten). Make of it what you will.


Just to help make things clear, the note in question reads


> $26 In Text A the opening sentence of this paragraph read: 'Next came the Noldor, a name of wisdom, and the Gnomes they may be called in our tongue', with 'Quoth AElfwine. (The word that he uses ...' placed in a footnote. The typist of LQ 1 placed all this in the body of the text; but my father directed that it should all go into a footnote, as is done in the text printed. In the Old English versions of the 1930s Witan was not used, but Noldelfe, Noldielfe (see also IV.212). On one copy of LQ 2 my father struck out 'Gnomes' and wrote above 'Enquirers'; this occurs nowhere else.
> *At the end of the paragraph he added to Text A: 'Dark is their hue and grey are their eyes'; this did not get into the later **typescripts. See 1.44*.


 
Note that this states that this piece of information does not occur in Tolkien's later typescripts of the same material. From this we can derive two possibilities. Either Professor Tolkien abandoned this idea and removed from furture works, or his secretary/typist simply missed it. I tend to subscribe to the former.



Just trying to be helpful
RD


----------



## jallan (Jan 25, 2004)

In other passages the dark hair of the Noldor is stressed, rather than dark hue.

From _The War of the Jewels_ (HoME 11), "Quendi and Eldar", C. The Clan-Names, _Sindarin_:


> In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe.



Of course Christopher Tolkien knew this well and can be relied on to interpret his father's handwriting. It is doubtful that Christopher Tolkien would misread _hair_ as _hue_ (though he might accidently so write it or his father might have miswritten another word for the word meant.)

If dark hue of skin was intended then it is most odd that this concept did not rise before or after in any description made by Tolkien (but not necessarily odder than the single reference to pointed ears).


----------



## Warrior (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally quoted by *baragund*
> I never perceived even a smidgen of racism in any of Tolkien's works, and even the idea that there is a controversy in the matter surprises me.....
> 
> I would go farther to say that the mixture in the races of men is kind of beside the point. Tolkien intended Middle Earth to be an English mythology and the English are fair skinned. It makes sense to me that the mythology of a given culture would mirror the physical makeup of their societies.



I agree. The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil. 

When you see dark shadows, you don't know what may lay beyond or in them, for that matter, wheather it's good or evil. Where as in the light, you know what you are getting into, because it's all laid out before you. I think Tolkien decided to let use color as away of taking the guess work out of it, and use color to show you who are what was good or evil. 

I'd like to know how racism even fits into it. I mean, I cannot believe that there are some who see more into the color angle then there really is, Because that's all it is: COLOR.


----------



## jallan (Jan 31, 2004)

Warrior posted:


> The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil.


That is not a good way to distinguish good from evil unless you want white racists to nod their heads and take refreshment from such symbolism. Some of them do. They _know_ that Tolkien was really one of them from this despite what he wrote outside his fiction about his rejection of racial theories.

I recall as a child possessing an old Oz-type book called _Toodles of Treasure-town_ (probably orginally my mother's or grandmother's). In it some of the villains were black savages dressed in traditional clichéd black-African fashion. At the end of the tale they repented and were rewarded by the Glinda-the-Good clone by being given white skins.

The symbolism is horrible.


> I mean, I cannot believe that there are some who see more into the color angle then there really is, Because that's all it is: COLOR.


If that is all it is, then it is _wrong_ to make more out of it: wrong to symbolise virtue or greater ability by lighter skin and wrong to symbolise vice or lesser ability by darker skin. That becomes strong racist imagery.

But I don't see Tolkien using light skin and dark skin symbolically in that way. His use is more complex. The browner and shorter non-Númenorean folk of Eriador and the Wild probably come imaginatively from a common depiction in adventure historical novels and in popularized racial theories portraying white skinned "Aryans" imposing superior civilization on darker skinned aboriginal European aboriginals. Picts were generally imagined as shorter and darker skinned. Robert E. Howard purposely protrayed them in the style of American Indians.

There is no evidence for this at all ... but light skinned Europeans liked to believe that light skin indicated superiority. Spanish nobility mostly attempted to trace their ancestry to Gothic origin rather than aboriginal origin.

In medieval tales peasants were usually portrayed as shorter, darker and uglier than the nobility. Tolkien's Númenoreans, good or bad, are deemed to be of more noble descent than other men, somehow innately less savage and more civilized, descendants of those who most resisted Melkor (aside from shepherd folk in the central lands who must be meant to be proto-Hebrews).

In his later writings Tolkien partly deconstructed this, declaring that despite what Gondorians and Faramir wished to believe, the Dunlendings were more closely related to the people of Gondor than were the Rohirrim and their grudge against those of Númenorean descent not without foundation.

Tolkien himself had intellectually rejected racist theories and had probably rejected class theories based on nobility but old ideas still have power to move the imagination.

Writers often still prefer Robin Hood to be a wrongfully disinherited Earl of Hungtondon rather than a yeoman as he appears in the genuine ballads. The myth of nobility in bloodlines dies hard in story, even among those who in real life have no belief that those born to privilege are innately better than anyone else. Literary tropes used by an author may not be what the author believes in reality.


----------



## Warrior (Feb 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by *Warrior*
> The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil.
> 
> Response
> ...



No, it's not a *good way* but everyone has his or her own way of showing good from evil. A T.V. show I used to watch, 'Walker Texas Ranger,' the bad or evil persons were shown by a haze of red across the screen. So yes, their are different ways of displaying evil and getting your point accross. 

So, yes there may be better ways of using color to show good and evil, besides black vs white, where black is bad/evil; and white is good. 






> Originally posted by *jallan*
> I recall as a child possessing an old Oz-type book called _Toodles of Treasure-town_ (probably orginally my mother's or grandmother's). In it some of the villains were black savages dressed in traditional clichéd black-African fashion. At the end of the tale they repented and were rewarded by the Glinda-the-Good clone by being given white skins.
> 
> The symbolism is horrible.If that is all it is, then it is _wrong_ to make more out of it: wrong to symbolise virtue or greater ability by lighter skin and wrong to symbolise vice or lesser ability by darker skin. That becomes strong racist imagery.



When you bluntly use ones skin color vs another as being superior to another, then yes, IMO that's racist. I mean if you are going to take actual black-African people and use their skin color as being evil and change it to white as a way of rewarding them, what is that, if not racist? 





> Originally posted by *jallan*
> But I don't see Tolkien using light skin and dark skin symbolically in that way. His use is more complex....



That is what I mean. He is not taking light sking and dark skin and casting it in a racist way.


----------



## jallan (Feb 3, 2004)

Warrior posted:


> That is what I mean. He is not taking light skin and dark skin and casting it in a racist way.


He is and he isn't.

Those of Númenoreans descent, outside of the issue of skin color, are portrayed as mostly superior to the other folk of Middle-earth. That superior people have obviously superior ancestry is a myth that dies hard.

Though Tolkien himself was not racist in his beliefs, the legendarium that he created contains elements very _congruent_ with racism and puts a great emphasis on nobility of lineage.

This cannot easily be glossed over. In part it is simply the conventions of the genre in which he was writing.

On the other hand, in _Farmer Giles of Ham_ the yeoman hero of undistinguished descent is superior to the fops and do-nothings who comprise the hereditary aristocracy of the Middle Kingdom.

Yet Tolkien wrote both kinds of stories.

Sam Gamgee is of undistinguished lineage. Faithful comic servants of low birth are a stock type in earlier tales. But they normally remain in their place. In contrast Tolkien's Sam becomes Mayor of the Shire and founds a new family of distinction among the Hobbits. Such breaking of class barriers is very unusual in European literature in tales where nobility of birth is accorded worth.

Entirely the opposite is found in peasant fairy stories where a poor man often enough ends up marrying the king's daughter and inheriting the kingdom.


----------



## Snaga (Feb 5, 2004)

I very much agree, Jallan. It has always been the emphasis on Numenorean superiority as a race that has been the most questionable element, rather than a crude black/white = good/evil symbolism. It allows a racist reading of the text, even if most us would wish to reject this idea.

In fact I feel it is better to acknowledge that there might be some slight difficulties with the text than just deny the issue. Finding counter-examples and indications that Tolkien wanted to move away from "racial purity" elements of the legendarium is useful to a degree, but not if it equates to blinding ourselves to the matter. The real answer is to accept that there is a basis for this interpretation, show how other interpretations are possible and better, and in particular to emphasise the much more positive elements of the text are actually of greater significance. In particular, the choice of the lowly hobbits to defeat the imperialist Sauron is a much more inspiring and more central matter.


----------



## Bathiu (Feb 9, 2004)

...uhhmm... Hi!...
I must admit that I've only read the first two pages... so if someone already said it... I'm sorry...

My question is... why you look at racizm in 'our' (real humans') way... I mean only about skin color?

I mean... there are Elves, Hobbits, Humans, Orcs, Dwarves... in Middle Earth... and while I know that Tolkien din't want to make any alegories... just look how these races co-exist with eachother... what kind of attitude they have towards eachother etc... and in the end there is A fellowship with representation of every race... a fellowship of friends...
I realy can't imagine a bigger anti-racizm message...


----------



## Snaga (Feb 9, 2004)

Hehe us orcs are notoriously cooperative!

Bathiu: I agree that this is a much more positive way of looking at this issue. The reason though why people look at it in terms of skin colour is, as you said, _because_ that is the 'real human' way of racism. Because skin colour is made an issue in our world, people are inclined to look at Middle Earth in the same way, and inclined to ask whether these attitudes are portrayed in the text, and if so is it shown positively or negatively.

I myself like to think that the friendship between Legolas and Gimli is an example of how people can put aside and overcome historical emnities and prejudices. It seems to me to be good that we are shown how there may well be deep roots to these conflicts, but that we see they are neither wished away nor are they insurmountable.

On the other hand, if you wanted you could argue that the orcs are evil by nature, and that we are being invited to accept that they are intolerable 'others' who may be slaughtered without remorse, and yet they are sentient beings. Some of Tolkien's unpublished writings might suggest he too was troubled by the implications of this. With this in mind you could look at Faramir's statement that he would not trap an orc with a falsehood, and elements of the Shagrat-Gorbag conversation to question what their moral status truly is.

My own verdict is that LotR is ambiguous, but that the ambiguities are tolerable.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Dec 10, 2004)

I applaude you all on your discussions of this topic. You have all presented ideas, scripts, etc. in order to explore this topic. I am glad that all of you are willing to discuss such a delicate topic. I am glad that one day you may all be able to convince whomever you want too that proffesor Tolkien was not racist. I myself will not post any on this subject. I believe that it is too late for me to start, and also, you would all out out-research me. I hope you all keep up this discussion and I look forward to reading it. Everything is well researched, well written, and all true, based in fact, not conjecture. A job well done, everyone.


----------



## alphamale (Jan 7, 2006)

Tolkien was definitely not racist. So the discussion should end right there in regards to him. However, I'm not so sure about the filmmakers though. You will notice that the trilogy is portrayed by a completely all white cast (especially the good guys). The Haradrim and Easterlings (who are obviously supposed to be of middle eastern or mongoloid extraction were covered up so I don't know if the actors playing them were coloured. The people coming in on the corsair ships looked ethnic. Bottom line is this, Peter jackson probably could have and should have cast an ethnic minority or two in the films. Is it any wonder why their is such outrage accusing Tolkien of racism? Well newsflash for you guys, It's Not Tolkien's fault! The idea I believe is mainly extracted from the movies. from the movies, the all white goodguys beating up on Easterlings and Haradrim. Really Mr. Jackson, did you not think that people would notice!! So in conclusion, the movie casting tends to give people the wrong idea. I've seen productions of shakespeare portraying Othello as black. The filmmakers might not want to go to such extremes but what is wrong with casting a minority as one of the heros? Or actually portray the Shire, Gondor, or other places as multicultural? Maybe not too realistic, but at least it would stop the accusers from accusing.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jan 8, 2006)

Is this fadhatter in disguise?



alphamale said:


> I've seen productions of shakespeare portraying Othello as black.


Do you know why? He was a Moor - from Africa. Where they have black people...


----------



## Walter (Jan 8, 2006)

alphamale said:


> Tolkien was definitely not racist. So the discussion should end right there in regards to him.


Now that the issue is settled we could make good use of the spare time by reading the previous posts in this thread...


----------



## Snaga (Jan 8, 2006)

What a marvellous post alphamale. Highly entertaining.


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 23, 2006)

I smell a troll.

WolfSmith, you make me laugh. Black people in Africa? You've got to be kidding me!


----------



## Wolfshead (Jan 23, 2006)

Wonko The Sane said:


> WolfSmith, you make me laugh. Black people in Africa? You've got to be kidding me!


I know! I was really surprised when I went there. It was really quite scary


----------



## Wonko The Sane (Jan 24, 2006)

Don't be silly. It's preposterous!
Next thing you know you'll be saying there are Asian people in Asia!!!


----------



## Halasían (Mar 8, 2022)

I miss the discussions of old. This was a fun one.  Wonko, you are missed!
In my mind I get from the texts that the 'Black Numenorians' weren't black-skinned.
I also get that the Far Haradians were, and the Easterlings more Mongolian-Asiatic, and the Variags of Khand more like the Ghurkas or Samurai-like. Why? It's just how I envisioned it when I read the books. Anyway, I wouldn't be me without prying up a long lost discussion from the Marianas Trench.


----------



## LadyGaladriel1980 (Mar 9, 2022)

There is no racism in Tolkiens books, i cant understand, why you have this Thread here. I cant detect any racism in Tolkiens books.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Mar 9, 2022)

LadyGaladriel1980 said:


> There is no racism in Tolkiens books, i cant understand, why you have this Thread here. I cant detect any racism in Tolkiens books.


Totally correct, just compare the extinction of Dark Numenorian and the salvation of Easterling and Harrad in ROTK, and then I think you can only conclude the severest intelligent challenged people will say JRRT has racism in his work.


----------



## LadyGaladriel1980 (Mar 9, 2022)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> Totally correct, just compare the extinction of Dark Numenorian and the salvation of Easterling and Harrad in ROTK, and then I think you can only conclude the severest intelligent challenged people will say JRRT has racism in his work.


Yes, Tolkien was no racist, it is sad, that some people say in our modern days, that he was. Tolkien was realistic....he did know, that people can only have dark skin in very warm areas like them, which the Harad come from, it was a desert area. 
Our ancestors was also black, when they come from Afrika to Europe in stone age, but because of the colder european climate the skin color of their descendants change into white. So Tolkien was very realistic, because in Middle earth the climate is comparable to Europe.


----------



## Halasían (Mar 10, 2022)

This bump was a success. 
 🤣


----------

