# MisUnderstanding races



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 3, 2004)

I have always wondered about the "roots" of Tolkien's races. Of course, he has elucidated some: elves represent the highest epitome of men while hobbits represent the best (and the worst) of stolid, ordinary Englishmen, but given the man's classical background, might, for instance, the dwarves with their beards, their love for gold and wealth, their clannish xenophobia and the fact that one only meets their menfolk because their women are kept away from all but their own kind represent a typical medieval view of the Jews? 

Even though Tolkien has taken various races and creatures from myth and legend, yet even these have as their foundation the beings of _this_ world since their authors had no other points of reference. 

I firmly believe that an understanding of the underlying foundation of each race and/or creature would further an understanding of the tales themselves.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Sep 3, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

I have developed an understanding that Elves, Hobbits, Dwarves and ... why!!!... even wraiths  - are all just personifications of the different 'faces' of the human nature.


----------



## Manveru (Sep 3, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

well done, _wraith_

*angelic smile*


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 3, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

That is so, certainly. But there can be no doubt that various ethnic and racial groups have certain "characteristics" by which many people come to recognize that group. Italians are considered out going, the Irish belligerant, the English "low key", the French care-free, the Spanish hot tempered, the Germans orderly and so forth. Of course, these are doubtless stereotypes - but stereotypes with a certain amount of truth behind them. I don't think anyone would mistake a German for a Frenchman or an Italian for a Swede and not merely because of their physical characteristics.

Certainly, Tolkien indicated that the _physical_ characteristics he bestowed upon his orcs were directly related to certain Asiatic tribes who were known for their fierce and bloodthirsty behavior. The elves physical beauty must be considered as being "classic" in nature and certainly in regard to the "ideal" of physical beauty which is limited to Caucasians. Of course, this is understandable given Tolkien's age and the culture in which he grew up. During his youth and in Western European culture, there can be no doubt that the standard of perfection was in fact "white" and not just "white", but certain nationalities among whites. Arabs and other darker skinned Caucasians do not find themselves included in the Elvish standard of perfection.

Does this make Tolkien - as some have suggested - a "racist"? Certainly not! Some of the very worst people in his tales are from the very best "racial" groups. I don't know of anyone who would champion Feanor as a model of perfection! But our present social conceptions of both "diversity" and "political correctness" simply did not exist in Tolkien's world and those who attempt to force his tales into those concepts are doomed to disappointment and failure.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Sep 4, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

Dear Lady,
I haven't had the pleasure of "talking" to you for such a long time!
So, I am truly so happy to have this opportunity now!

But this thread was once opened by the Webmaster with other purpose and I am afraid that the little "show" me and Walter provided with our little 'chat' has lead to full deviation from that original purpose.

The good thing is, however, this thread met us again and we have started exchanging opinions on i\very interesting topics. 

So, my suggestion:

Would you like me to open a separate thread on the subject and then you could move your posts there and so we could continue our conversation?  

I very much hope you'll agree to this. 

_wraithfully_ yours


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 4, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*



Lhunithiliel said:


> Dear Lady,
> I haven't had the pleasure of "talking" to you for such a long time!
> So, I am truly so happy to have this opportunity now!
> 
> ...


I did not wish to deviate from the topic. I merely brought this up as a possible study for the Guild as a means of developing a deeper understanding of the works. Having read some remarks by Tolkien (I'm not sure where) that his orcs - at least physicially - were modeled on certain Asiatic "barbarians", I knew that he in fact did have certain actual human "types" in the modeling of his races and I thought it might be interesting as a Guild to study the matter in some depth.

If you wish to open a thread either here or in the Guild for comments on the matter, I have no objection. Indeed, that was the purpose of the thought. And, of course, it is lovely to "speak" with you again as well.  

God bless and have a wonderful Labor Day weekend.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

Oh, no! It was not *you* the first who got away from the topic, MM! 
But, I'll ask a Mod to split this thread, forming a new one, where we could hopefully continue this topic of discussion.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*

Mrs. Maggot-I discussed with the whole racism issue in the following post, some time ago, check if out if you want. 

Beauty Is Crooked In The Eye Of The Beholder 

Racism In Tolkien 

Also, whilst we are talking about Tolkien's (non-existent) racism, why is D.H Lawrence so tolerated, when he harboured racist views, and other artists such as the composer Wagner, who was a German nationalist? But then again, German nationalism was not rare in his day and age.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 5, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*



Inderjit S said:


> Mrs. Maggot-I discussed with the whole racism issue in the following post, some time ago, check if out if you want.
> 
> Beauty Is Crooked In The Eye Of The Beholder
> 
> ...


Oh dear, oh dear! I sincerely hope that no one attributed to me the belief that Tolkien was a "racist". He was, however, a man of his time and also a classic scholar wherein many different nationalities and peoples were considered to exhibit certain characteristics. There can be no doubt that the dwarves exhibit many of the characteristics that classicists attributed to the Jews including certain physical and social characteristics (pervasive wearing of beards and the exclusion of dwarf/Jewish women from interaction with non-dwarves/Jews). I find it interesting to consider where Tolkien got his inspiration for his various races and as I am not "native" to today's "politically correct" culture - having, fortunately, grown up before it was established - I do not find the author's usages in any way bigoted or racist.

I only wanted to discuss the issue for the sake of a better understanding of the construction of his various racial/ethnic groups within the larger framework of his myths and not to once again bring up (for the umpteeth time) the argument that Tolkien was/was not a racist.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*



Mrs. Maggott said:


> There can be no doubt that the dwarves exhibit many of the characteristics that classicists attributed to the Jews including certain physical and social characteristics (pervasive wearing of beards and the exclusion of dwarf/Jewish women from interaction with non-dwarves/Jews).



Just who are these "classicists" you speak of? They sound like people who conveniently lump groups into stereotypes. You are speaking of the ultra-orthodox, which comprise a very small minority of all Jews. I daresay I could put you in a room full of Jews whose looks you would never identify as Jewish. Your thinking makes my gorge rise at times, M.



> ...I am not "native" to today's "politically correct" culture



You can say that again!

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

I have now split this topic away from the original thread Guild of Tolkienology. Hopefully, the conversation may go on unpolluted from here.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



> Oh dear, oh dear! I sincerely hope that no one attributed to me the belief that Tolkien was a "racist".



Not really no, I stated that he was not a racist, but the topic was about Tolkien's treatment of races, and so I was continuing the discussion by adding a link to two similar discussions I had initiated previously. 



> Just who are these "classicists" you speak of



We are now in the age of antiquity (at least literature wise) in which Jews were reviled by Christian and anti-Semitism was widespread, albeit more widespread in some places then others. (For two main reasons-Jews were stereotyped as being "rich" hence the appearance of moneylenders such as the perfidious Shylock in 'The Merchant of Venice' and the rich Jewish merchant from Antony Trollope's 'The Way We Live Now' "As rich as a Jew was an old cliché", and they also hated Jews for theological reasons i.e. The Jews rejected Christ as the son of god.)

By old classicists, Mrs. Maggot may be referring to someone like Isaac from the novel 'Ivanhoe' by Sir Walter Scott, in which he is described pretty much as Mrs. Maggot describes the stereotypical Jew.



> There can be no doubt that the dwarves exhibit many of the characteristics that classicists attributed to the Jews including certain physical and social characteristics (pervasive wearing of beards and the exclusion of dwarf/Jewish women from interaction with non-dwarves/Jews)



You forget money hoarding. And they weren't that bad. Although they did treat their women-folk with harshness it was to help them cope with the way of the world-and if any of their women were insulted or injured then the males took it as a great injury-greater then one done to themselves. I'm talking about the Dwarves here, by the way.  (Quote from HoME 12)


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Guild of Tolkienology*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Just who are these "classicists" you speak of? They sound like people who conveniently lump groups into stereotypes. You are speaking of the ultra-orthodox, which comprise a very small minority of all Jews. I daresay I could put you in a room full of Jews whose looks you would never identify as Jewish. Your thinking makes my gorge rise at times, M.
> 
> Barley


Dear B. 

Please go and read Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice for I assume you have never done so given your comment above. What I am speaking of has nothing to do with "my thinking" but with my _*OBSERVATIONS*_ of what the "classicists" of Tolkien's time - and before - thought. There's no sense in getting angry with me unless you wish to pretend that nobody every thought anything about anything until our present culture! However, I suggest then that you don't visit any museums exhibiting art of past ages or read any books before the 1990s for if you do so, you may get a rude awakening to discover that people actually _did_ have opinions and observations that don't fit into your nice little philosophy. 

However, I would beg you to separate your annoyance with what those people believed, thought and did from those who _comment_ upon those beliefs, thoughts and actions - unless, of course, you actually _believe_ that someone who writes a biography of Hitler is necessarily a Nazi. It is, I suppose, an interesting concept - if altogether wrong.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Inderjit S said:


> ...We are now in the age of antiquity (at least literature wise) in which Jews were reviled by Christian and anti-Semitism was widespread, albeit more widespread in some places then others. (For two main reasons-Jews were stereotyped as being "rich" hence the appearance of moneylenders such as the perfidious Shylock in 'The Merchant of Venice' and the rich Jewish merchant from Antony Trollope's 'The Way We Live Now' "As rich as a Jew was an old cliché", and they also hated Jews for theological reasons i.e. The Jews rejected Christ as the son of god.)
> 
> By old classicists, Mrs. Maggot may be referring to someone like Isaac from the novel 'Ivanhoe' by Sir Walter Scott, in which he is described pretty much as Mrs. Maggot describes the stereotypical Jew.



We can thank the feudal Christians for beginning the stereotypical notions about Jews (By the way M, I am very familiar with "The Merchant of Venice," and it is indeed a sketch of the worst type of stereotyping. Whether Shakespeare was an anti-Semite or whether he was making a subtle jibe at the anti-Semitism of his time is something still widely debated).

The reason we can thank them is that nobody wanted to hold such jobs as moneylenders or physicians: being a physician was a very dangerous job considering the mortality rates of those days. And nobody wanted to be a moneylender, because it was considered beneath (Christian) contempt. So who was left to take these jobs? The Jews! 

So with their lives on the line, they became moneylenders and physicians because no self-respecting Christian would take these jobs. To stay alive, the Jews of the time had to become absolutely excellent physicians and scrupulously honest moneylenders (they were the cogwheels, the lubricant, the instruments of finance of the feudal wars, handling and processing the money that Christian warlords [for lack of a better term] gave them), and then, thank you very much, they were reviled precisely because they _had_ these jobs — jobs that medieval Christianity forced them to take — an example of quintessential anti-Semitism, complete with its attendant hypocrisy: They were forced to take livelihoods that Christians didn't want, and then reviled for being in them, and murdered for having the affrontery to actually be successful in them. 

(By the way M, since we're making literature recommendations here, I suggest _you_ read a book called Jews Without Money by Michael Gold, and another called Jews, God and History by Max Dimont. One of the things that makes the latter book extremely interesting is, that it is a history of the Jewish people written by a Sephardic, rather than an Ashkenazic Jew, which gives the history a whole different flavor compared to the ubiquitous (and usually unquestioned) Ashkenazic interpretations of Jewish history. I daresay these books will actually fill in a few holes in the boundless range of your universal knowledge.

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



> We can thank the feudal Christians for the sterotypical notions about Jews



Religious intolerance was pretty ubiquitous back then. Religion has only, paradoxically, become more tolerant as society has become more secularised. Now stereotypes based on religion, race or gender are less prevalent then before. 



> (by the way M, I am very familiar with "The Merchant of Venice," and it is indeed a sketch of the worst type of stereotyping



To be fair to good ol' William, some of Shylock's speeches in the last scene are pretty rousing.

The "Hath not a Jew eyes..." speech, is one of his greatest.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Inderjit S said:


> Religious intolerance was pretty ubiquitous back then. Religion has only, paradoxically, become more tolerant as society has become more secularised. Now stereotypes based on religion, race or gender are less prevalent then before.



Unfortunately my friend, it's on the rise again, especially in Europe. When times are good, it abates, when times are bad it waxes. 



> To be fair to good ol' William, some of Shylock's speeches in the last scene are pretty rousing.
> 
> The "Hath not a Jew eyes..." speech, is one of his greatest.



Good thought, spot on! As I said, the whole thing is open to a debate which still goes on: _what was_ ol' Will's real purpose in penning Shylock?

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

My dear B. I am not arguing with you regarding the evil aspects of "stereotyping" people. As usual, you have created a debate without cause! I am merely pointing out that such stereotypes _existed_ and still exist although today they seem to be directed at Christians in general and traditional Christians in particular (all rednecks, members of the KKK, stupid, gun-toting, etc.) and that scholars like Tolkien would have been familiar with them especially as they existed in medieval literature. Therefore, it would not be unusual if he should make use of some of them.

Of course, some of these so-called "sterotypes" were not that at all, but a recognition of cultural differences. In the Middle Ages, Christians were not permitted to lend money for interest according to Christ's words in the Gospels. Therefore, the only people who could _legitimately_ lend money were the Jews! That is truth, _not_ stereotype. Also, the Jews frequently dressed differently from their Christian neighbors. Anyone who visits an Hasidic area will note that, like the Amish, they still do! Again, this is not stereotype but a simple observable truth! Jews were (and are) also liable to enter into certain crafts and businesses. Most of the diamond merchants and craftsmen today are Jewish. Again, this is not a stereotype but an observation.

Please remember that there is nothing _wrong_ with any of this! When the non-Jewish people from Eastern Europe and Russia migrated to this country, many of them wound up in the coal mines and steel mills in Pennsylvania and the mid-west. The Greeks went into other occupations such as restaurants (diners) and sponge diving. In the same way, the Italians, Germans and Chinese had their own particular spheres of influence and involvement. What's wrong with that?? Nothing! Nor is it somehow crass and biogoted to recognize that all nationalities and races have their differences. Different doesn't mean "inferior" (or "_su_perior" for all of that) - it simply means "different". 

In any event, I wish that you would stop taking observations I make and turning them into my _personal opinion_. It makes it very difficult to post and requires spending far too much time trying to make my point with excessive care or defending myself after I have made it. You will know when I am expressing my personal beliefs and opinions, I assure you! I shall not attempt to "slip" one past you!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Mrs. Maggott said:


> My dear B. I am not arguing with you regarding the evil aspects of "stereotyping" people. As usual, you have created a debate without cause!



Ah, my dear M — "creating a debate without cause" — "as usual," eh? A nice phrase, and what a wonderfully convenient generalization to apply when someone differs with you.



> I am merely pointing out that such stereotypes _existed_ and still exist although today they seem to be directed at Christians in general and traditional Christians in particular (all rednecks, members of the KKK, stupid, gun-toting, etc.)



Thank you for the admission that these types are indeed following degenerate forms of Christianity — and fascinating that you choose to call that brand of Christianity "traditional" — quite a slip of the tongue...



> ...and that scholars like Tolkien would have been familiar with them especially as they existed in medieval literature. Therefore, it would not be unusual if he should make use of some of them.



And did he? I have seen very little mention of anything like that, at least in the Carpenter collection of letters. 



> Of course, some of these so-called "sterotypes" were not that at all, but a recognition of cultural differences. In the Middle Ages, Christians were not permitted to lend money for interest according to Christ's words in the Gospels.



Ah, _there's_ a good excuse, and indeed the one that was used to persecute the Jews who were _forced into_ those occupations. If they were forbidden to lend money because Jesus said it was a no-no, then what are we to think of those who do (never mind that they had no choice, being forced into it by anti-Semitic Christians)?



> Therefore, the only people who could _legitimately_ lend money were the Jews! That is truth, _not_ stereotype.



The truth is, that the Christians kept all the honorable occupations for themselves and _only_ allowed the Jews of the time what was left.



> Also, the Jews frequently dressed differently from their Christian neighbors. Anyone who visits an Hasidic area will note that, like the Amish, they still do! Again, this is not stereotype but a simple observable truth!



So what? Many cultures dress differenlty from other cultures. What's your point? I'm talking about hypocrisy and bigotry: the medieval Christians _forced_ the Jews to wear funnel-shaped hats, much as the Nazis forced Jews to wear yellow stars. They _forced_ them into reviled occupations, and then spat on them (usually worse) for being in them.



> Jews were (and are) also liable to enter into certain crafts and businesses. Most of the diamond merchants and craftsmen today are Jewish. Again, this is not a stereotype but an observation.



Yes, based on what occupations were open to them, going clear back to feudal times, as well as the fact that education in general in Judaism was religionized. Or are you saying that the various human "races" are genetically hardwired to go into certain jobs???



> Please remember that there is nothing _wrong_ with any of this!



Ah, nothing wrong with forcing Jews to wear identifying markings and restricting them to the most reviled occupations and making them live in ghettos? Nothing wrong? You are some piece of work, m'dear.



> When the non-Jewish people from Eastern Europe and Russia migrated to this country, many of them wound up in the coal mines and steel mills in Pennsylvania and the mid-west. The Greeks went into other occupations such as restaurants (diners) and sponge diving. In the same way, the Italians, Germans and Chinese had their own particular spheres of influence and involvement. What's wrong with that?? Nothing!



Yes, the Chinese opened laundries, the Japanese became gardners, the Italians started the Mafia, the African Americans became bootblacks and stable hands and house servants and farm hands. They did it because they just loved those particular fields, right? Or was it because of prejudice and bigotry leaving them no other choice? And of course _all_ these occupations have been taken over now by Latinos. What do you suppose was the cause of that? 



> Nor is it somehow crass and bigoted to recognize that all nationalities and races have their differences. Different doesn't mean "inferior" (or "_su_perior" for all of that) - it simply means "different".



You have not been discussing the cultural differences that make various cultures uniquely excellent. That's a far cry from being forced into inferior life situations because of intolerance.



> In any event, I wish that you would stop taking observations I make and turning them into my _personal opinion_. It makes it very difficult to post and requires spending far too much time trying to make my point with excessive care or defending myself after I have made it. You will know when I am expressing my personal beliefs and opinions, I assure you! I shall not attempt to "slip" one past you!



As far as I'm concerned, and I've gotten quite familiar with your views on race, religion, politics and culture wars through your posts ("American law should be based on Christianity," there's a pip, never mind the legitimacy of other religions and spiritual paths) — your "observations" are indeed your opinions (some of which I see as containing — how shall I put this kindly: "unconscious" or "benign" or "unmeaning" prejudice), because you observe through the window of your general outlook, which, as I have _observed,_ has a bit of mud on it. 

And why is it that you made no mention at all of the two books I recommended to you? 

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



> ("American law should be based on Christianity," there's a pip, never mind the legitimacy of other religions and spiritual paths)



I really hate to but in, so to speak, but I think that here Mrs. Maggot has some point. Given that America was founded by, in the main, Protestant Christians (a lot of whom of whom were rather strict a.l.a 'The Crucible' and 'The Scarlet Letter' and Tocqueville's chapters on religion in America), then, naturally, when they set up their government, their laws and their edicts, it would have been based on their faith-Christianity. Although laws and even governments are ever-evolving, and to some extent ephemeral, the Christian basis will always exist in a governing body which was originally set up by Christians. I don't know if Mrs. Maggot is necessarily stating that the Christian culture and rules are _better_ then other cultures, just that America was set up on Christian values, and that it needs some level of continuation in order to work well, and that the influx of too many other cultures is good-but to an extent. I hope I have elucidated my thoughts well-sometimes I can be over-complicated and verbose. 

America is also a pretty new state. Even states such as Italy and Germany who have existed as confederations for some hundred years or so have had a shared background for some time-Italian unification was being pushed for back in the day of Machiavelli, and so it is a lot easier to analyse the base of American culture and politics then it is to say analyse the base of French culture and politics.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

When I said that you make debate where there _is_ none, I meant exactly what you have and had done: that is, taking as _my personal opinion_ those observations I was making regarding what was said and believed by others and especially those of a particular era and society. Thus when you said that your "gorge rose" at "_my_ opinions", you were creating a debate where none existed because, of course, those _weren't_ "my opinions"! Now, if you had said that such beliefs made your "gorge rise", then we could have been of a mind since I, too, have no use for people whose judgment of others is "all inclusive" of any particular group - whatever it may be.

In the same way, when I say that this nation's ideals and philosophy are Christian in their foundation, there is no sense in becoming angry with _me!_ Again, it is an observation, and, in fact, one that has been made countless times by other persons far more learned and intelligent than I. One need only read the founding documents - including the personal papers of the Founding Fathers - to see that this is, in fact, the truth. I am not asking you to _like_ it or _agree_ with it, but, quite frankly, it is useless to _debate_ it as it is a fact! If you wish to debate the wisdom or lack thereof concerning the matter, that is one thing. But you simply cannot pretend that the country was founded on another philosophy or moral principle because it wasn't.

Now, if you wish to debate something that _I_ believe vis a vie something that _you_ believe, all well and good! However, it would be very deeply appreciated by me if you stop attributing to me personally, the opinions, ideals, ideas and actions of _other people_ simply because I reference them from time to time. Believe me, it would serve _both_ of us far better than this endless - and pointless - bickering.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Inderjit S said:


> I really hate to but in, so to speak, but I think that here Mrs. Maggot has some point. Given that America was founded by, in the main, Protestant Christians...their laws and their edicts, it would have been based on their faith-Christianity...



Ah yes, but this is a far different thing than saying, as I believe Mrs. M wants to say, that the government should be run by the church! While the Founding Fathers were Christian, I don't believe that it is anywhere mentioned in the "Founding Documents," so to speak that this nation should be a Christian one; nor was Jesus mentioned, nor even God. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Separation of church and state _must_ be maintained. If the radical religious right had their way, the whole country would be under their dominion, fundamentalist religous law would supplant secular law, and there would be no respect for anyone's right to live as they wish who wasn't a fundamentalist. Vandelay published a long quote defining what they believe, which is concise and to the point.




Madame Maggot said:


> When I said that you make debate...



Your usual tactic, M: Nowhere in your last post did you respond to _anything_ I said about bigotry, nor any of the rest of it. When someone stands up to you, you deflect the issues and claim you were misunderstood.

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

Ah, you know, ever have I hoped for sense rather than nonsense and rationality rather than ideology - but apparently, my hopes are in vain. 

_*NOWHERE*_ have I ever suggested, intimated, recommended, noted, stated, evinced, directed, dictated, demanded, opined or declared that the nation and/or its government should be "run" by the Church. Indeed, such a suggestion is contrary not only to the Constitution but to all of the well documented beliefs of the Founding Fathers. 

Nor, despite your badly flawed "understanding" of traditional Christianity, does any _Christian_ wish for America to be anything other than a nation whose _*MORAL PHILOSOPHY*_ is founded in the morality of The Bible - just as the Founding Fathers indicated. True, I certainly believe - as did our Founders - that our _laws_ should and must be grounded in the moral philosophy of Scripture or this nation will go the way of all those nations whose ethical philosophy was and is based upon Utilitarianism, secularism, relativism and situationalism - but as I have also said (countless times), this has absolutely _nothing_ to do with any concept of a nation "run" by the Church. 

Furthermore, since _all_ morality is _faith based_ and not a matter of science, _then all morality is by its nature "religious" in origin_. I - like the Founders - have stated that this nation was founded on Christian morality and will only survive and thrive so long as the national ethic is based on that morality. If you do not care for it, the most and best that _you_ can offer is the ethical philosophy of _another_ religion: atheistic secular humanism. Since there are far more people for whom traditional Christian _morality_ represents their own morality (including Jews, Muslims and even many Eastern faiths), than there are "humanists", in the matter of "majority rule" alone - not counting the Founding Fathers - Christian morality should "win" the debate. Unfortunately, however, far too many influential, powerful people in the present cultural Establishment belong to that small group who wish to replace Christian morality with Utilitarianism. Thus, year by year, the Founders' vision is replaced by the ethical philosophy of Dewey, Skinner, Kinsey and Fuller et al and this is a very, _very_ poor trade as we will eventually find out - to our great sorrow. 

As for not "responding" to your comments upon bigotry: why should I? I have said absolutely _nothing_ to even suggest that I am a bigot and if you have arrived at that conclusion absent any reason to do so, what good would my responses have been? You would have discounted them as you have discounted every _other_ point I have made, choosing instead to make of them what you wished. Nor did I wish to take the "side" of those groups and/or persons whom you deemed to be bigots as you might have realized had you bothered to read the response that I _did_ make to your comments about stereotyping.

Given the foregoing, I shall now withdraw from this 'debate' - if any reasonable person could call it that. As long as the person with whom one is debating sees fit to 'interpret' what one is saying to suit him or herself, it is an even _bigger_ waste of time than I thought. And so, I leave you to find someone else to misinterpret and misquote. I have far better and more pleasurable things to do - like clean the cat boxes.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 7, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Mrs. Maggott said:


> Ah, you know, ever have I hoped for sense rather than nonsense and rationality rather than ideology - but apparently, my hopes are in vain.



As they always will be, I suspect, whenever someone presumes to take issue with you. 



> NOWHEREhave I ever suggested, intimated, recommended, noted, stated, evinced, directed, dictated, demanded, opined or declared that the nation and/or its government should be "run" by the Church. Indeed, such a suggestion is contrary not only to the Constitution but to all of the well documented beliefs of the Founding Fathers.



Here, you are entirely correct, but later you contradict yourself, as I'll point out presently.



> ...I certainly believe - as did our Founders - that our _laws_ should and must be grounded in the moral philosophy of Scripture or this nation will go the way of all those nations whose ethical philosophy was and is based upon Utilitarianism, secularism, relativism and situationalism ...



Well, there you are! _In your own words, quoted above,_ you obviously think that Christian Scripture is the best of all available choices. You do not recognize that countries could be at least as well-run, if not better run by laws structured upon "Utiliarianism, secularism, relativism and situationalism." You may believe that devoutly, but I think you are wrong, and for me such a belief ("My belief's the only True Belief") is bigotry, because it implies the inferiority of all other beliefs and, in many cases, sets up a rationale for committing violence against minorites in the name of God. (By the way: just exactly WHICH nations ARE run on a basis of "Utilitarianism, secularism, relativism and situationalism"? I'd love to know...c'mon M, gimme just one, name JUST ONE!)



> Furthermore, since _all_ morality is _faith based_ and not a matter of science, _then all morality is by its nature "religious" in origin_.



"All morality is by nature religious." I do hope you understand that there are large numbers of people who are moral, and who are not religious. One does not have to have religious faith to be good, or moral, or ethical in the highest levels.



> I - like the Founders



Ah, now you take power unto yourself by lumping yourself in with the Founding Fathers... And yes, I do I put my trust in science far more than in religion. 



> - have stated that this nation was founded on Christian morality and will only survive and thrive so long as the national ethic is based on that morality.



Morality yes, the religious morality of any specific religion, _baloney._ A high-handed statement of bigotry if ever I heard it: "Christianity's best, and the rest of you are unsaved infidels." And to that I say, "tommyrot."



> If you do not care for it, the most and best that _you_ can offer is the ethical philosophy of _another_ religion: atheistic secular humanism.



When did I EVER say THAT? You find the quote where I said that. And that's interesting: You call atheistic secular humanism (of which there's not a thing wrong) a religion. With the possible exception of Buddhism, I believe that religions revolve around a belief in God by definition... But never mind that. And, there are other philosophies and religions that are as ethical as Christianity. Shall I tick them off for you? (Or are you ticked off enough...)

It is not so much the nature or beliefs of a religion (or philosophy, or spiritual path), _but the way it's practiced by individuals that matters._ And individuals do not need to be religious at all, in order to be as ethical and good-hearted as any ethical good-hearted Christian — or person of any other faith or path.



> Since there are far more people for whom traditional Christian _morality_ represents their own morality (including Jews, Muslims and even many Eastern faiths), than there are "humanists", in the matter of "majority rule" alone - not counting the Founding Fathers - Christian morality should "win" the debate.



"CHRISTIAN MORALITY WINS THE DEBATE"???!!! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT? BIG NUMBERS WIN THE DAY? MAJORITY RULE IS BEST? Which implies: FORCE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT IF NECESSARY? Pardon me while I go off in a corner and regurge... Now your true colors are flying high, M, veritably whipping in the wind!



> Unfortunately, however, far too many influential, powerful people in the present cultural Establishment belong to that small group who wish to replace Christian morality with Utilitarianism.



O my God. Talk about deluded thinking... Gee that's funny — and all this time I thought it was the Christian Right trying (and succeeding, if strong steps are not taken, especially in November) to take over the congress, the presidency, the courts, the schools, the military, and big business — to say nothing of the citizenry — jeeze, that's the just about the whole damn country, ain't it?

But you say Utilitarianism, eh? Who'da thunk it? A vast Utilitarian Conspiracy! Run for the hills! Arm yourselves against the Utilitarians! (Just who the hell are they?)



> Thus, year by year, the Founders' vision is replaced by the ethical philosophy of Dewey, Skinner, Kinsey and Fuller et al and this is a very, _very_ poor trade as we will eventually find out - to our great sorrow.



Prove it. _You can't._ This sort of deluded thinking does not even bear comment. 



> As for not "responding" to your comments upon bigotry: why should I? I have said absolutely _nothing_ to even suggest that I am a bigot



You hold beliefs that I believe are bigoted because (1) they put Christianity over everyone and everything else, and (2) you make snide remarks about everyone else's ways.

I discussed at length a partial history, a small slice of the interaction of Jews and Christians in medieval times, and you have nothing to say about it. Oh well...



> Given the foregoing, I shall now withdraw from this 'debate'...I have far better and more pleasurable things to do - like clean the cat boxes.



You threaten to "withdraw from the debate" every time I (or others who dare confront you) make a major post and call you on your assertions and your _opinions,_ which you love to call "facts". 

But you'll be back, as you always are: As I said before, M, you can't do without us!

And if you truly find cleaning cat boxes pleasurable, then I wish you hours and hours of feline defecatory bliss!

Barley


----------



## Gandalf White (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

Good lord, I didn't realize you two were "at it" here as well.  



Mrs. Maggott said:


> Furthermore, since all morality is faith based and not a matter of science, then all morality is by its nature "religious" in origin.



I can't agree that morality is faith-based. Rather, it is inherent in every human being; everyone has a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', though some seek (and perhaps succeed) in supressing theirs. Religion may guide and refine morals, but it does not create them. 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Morality yes, the religious morality of any specific religion, baloney. A high-handed statement of bigotry if ever I heard it: "Christianity's best, and the rest of you are unsaved infidels." And to that I say, "tommyrot."


 But different religions have different types of morality. To merely say "any morality goes" creates chaos due to differing standards. Your little 'bigotry detour' is the only "tommyrot" in that quote. 

I just have one more thing to point out; something which you will both partially agree with and partially disagree with at the same time, no matter in how many instances it has been proved true on this Forum. 

*You're both bigots.  *


----------



## Walter (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Arvedui said:


> Hopefully, the conversation may go on unpolluted from here.


This is called "wishful thinking", I believe... 

Maybe renaming the thread "Understanding Tolkien's races" would help? Another case of wishful thinking, probably... 

Now if someone could throw in a couple of remarks about Elfs, Dwarfs, Black-Elfs, etc. and compare those to Tolkiens Elves, Dwarves and Orcs? Or maybe a remark about the 5 (or 4) ages and the people of those ages? Maybe that would bring the discussion closer to the topic? I doubt it...

I think moving the thread to the religion and politics section (or however it is called now) would be more appropriate...


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*

Walter-you know a lot about Germanic, Scandinavian legends etc.

It would be nice if you gave us some ideas on where Tolkien may have obtained the idea of Elves from-or any other race.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Gandalf White said:


> Good lord, I didn't realize you two were "at it" here as well.



It's a love/hate relationship.





> I can't agree that morality is faith-based. Rather, it is inherent in every human being; everyone has a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', though some seek (and perhaps succeed) in supressing theirs. Religion may guide and refine morals, but it does not create them.



Thank you: that is a much more graceful way of saying what I was trying to say myself. 



> But different religions have different types of morality. To merely say "any morality goes" creates chaos due to differing standards. Your little 'bigotry detour' is the only "tommyrot" in that quote.



Whoa, whoa! I didn't say that! At least, I didn't mean for you to construe that! Let me make an attempt to define what I mean by morality: I think that morality in its most basic form would be centered on the idea "do no harm." Put that way, it would be immoral simply to ignore someone's plight, one needs to actively lend a helping hand. 

To me, morality does not include the concept of "my way's the only way." That kind of "way" implies inferiority for everyone else's "way." That way sets up a rationale for contempt for the other person's "way" which in extreme cases leads to violence, as history demonstrates (the Nazis, the pograms, the Turks and the Armenians, etc.). So when M maintains that Christianity (and I would have responded exactly the same way had she named _any other_ religion or path) should be the basis for the laws of this or any country, that's when I say that that sort of assertion contains bigotry within it. 

When one person (or government) wants to assert his (or its) philosophy over a people within which reside multiple faiths and philosophies (as is the case with the United States — and there are more non-Christian people residing here every day), or even just one (such as the Chinese government over Tibet) that's when I say "bigotry," which contains the potential for developing into oppression. Does that help a bit? 



> I just have one more thing to point out; something which you will both partially agree with and partially disagree with at the same time, no matter in how many instances it has been proved true on this Forum.
> 
> *You're both bigots.  *



A pox on _both_ our houses, eh? Before I can respond to that, I need to know how you define "bigot." On its face, your statement sounds a bit bigoted!

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 8, 2004)

*Mod's Comment*

I have moved this thread from the forum "Annals of the Eldanyárë" to allow anyone interested in continuing the argument to do so in a more suitable forum. Have Fun.


----------



## joxy (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Thank you for the admission that these types are indeed following degenerate forms of Christianity — and fascinating that you choose to call that brand of Christianity "traditional" — quite a slip of the tongue....


I've just arrived late at this one, and am finding it all rather confusing.
Your quotation above is an example. It followed a quotation from Mrs M:
"I am merely pointing out that such stereotypes existed and still exist although today they seem to be directed at Christians in general and traditional Christians in particular (all rednecks, members of the KKK, stupid, gun-toting, etc.)"
I don't see in Mrs M's remarks any form of "admission", and I don't see why "traditional" is any sort of slip.
I don't see the contents of the brackets as being in apposition to the phrase "traditional Christians in particular".

Then there is a comment from you: "nothing wrong with forcing Jews to wear identifying markings and restricting them to the most reviled occupations", as if Mrs M had suggested such a thing; she hadn't.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 9, 2004)

*An AARP report on the current racial situation in America*

It’s a pity that _AARP The Magazine_ isn’t published on the web, or I could have supplied a link to some fascinating articles in the May/June 2004 issue of the magazine. However, I’ll supply highlights:

71% of Americans now approve of interracial marriage, even for their own children.
Most Americans are open to sharing their life, work, and even love with people of a different color
70% of whites approve of interracial marriages, as do 77% of Hispanics and 80% of blacks

1. Would not object to a child or grandchild’s marrying someone of another race

Overall: 71%
Hispanic: 79%
White: 66%
Black: 86%

2. Prefer to live in a neighborhood that is mostly mixed

Hispanic: 61%
White: 57%
Black: 78%

3. Believe race relations will always be a problem in the U.S.

Overall: 63%
Hispanic: 60%
White: 62%
Black: 72%

4. Think all or most of the goals of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement have been achieved

Overall: 50%
Hispanic: 38%
White: 56%
Black: 72%

5. Have been denied a rental or an opportunity to buy a home

Hispanic: 19%
White: 2%
Black 24%

Discussions, anyone?

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 9, 2004)

*Re: Understanding races*



joxy said:


> I've just arrived late at this one, and am finding it all rather confusing.
> Your quotation above is an example. It followed a quotation from Mrs M:
> "I am merely pointing out that such stereotypes existed and still exist although today they seem to be directed at Christians in general and traditional Christians in particular (all rednecks, members of the KKK, stupid, gun-toting, etc.)"
> I don't see in Mrs M's remarks any form of "admission", and I don't see why "traditional" is any sort of slip.
> ...



Joxy, you appear to be correct: for what you have pointed out, my apologies to MM.

Barley


----------



## joxy (Sep 9, 2004)

B B: Your acknowledgement much appreciated.

One of those figures about the US population is scary: the implication that fully 30% of Americans disapprove of "inter-racial" marriage. I doubt if you'd get a rating one tenth of that in this country.
In fact though, the whole thing is cast into doubt by another pair of figures, which I find very difficult to believe: that far more black people than white people believe that the Civil Rights movements have achieved their objectives - extraordinary, if true.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 9, 2004)

joxy said:


> B B: Your acknowledgement much appreciated.
> 
> One of those figures about the US population is scary: the implication that fully 30% of Americans disapprove of "inter-racial" marriage.



It used to be even worse.



> the whole thing is cast into doubt by another pair of figures, which I find very difficult to believe: that far more black people than white people believe that the Civil Rights movements have achieved their objectives - extraordinary, if true.



I noted that myself, although I don't doubt the figures. My first reaction is, that African Americans have suffered _so_ much discrimination that, compared to it, what's going on now is to many (I would guess the older generations) almost "pleasant" by comparison. And I have met a fair number of men and women, good-hearted and forgiving by nature, who seem to mellow in their bitterness against the whites as they age. I do not by any means assert that this is the characteristic reaction, but cite it only as my own (limited and selective) personal experience.

The thing that scares _me_ however, is that whites are still more prejudiced here by far than any other race (they still haven't learned; the other races are much more mature in this regard), and that they have suffered less discrimination by far (just 2%!) when it comes to housing.

In another article however, it was brought out that although such "us against them" racism appears to be genetically hardwired into human beings as a kind of tribal survival mechanism, _it can be fairly easily defeated_ by a kind of twist in the metaview. 

For instance: Group A (mostly white) is biased against Group B, because it contains nonwhites of various sorts (first photo). However, if it then turns out that Group B are all members of one of Group A's favorite _football teams_ (second photo), virtually all of the bias vanishes in the suddenly new viewpoint (everybody on our team's "good kin"). 

Sort like the plot from a stock 1940s Hollywood war movie: within the American Army, the plot always called for the obligatory Jew, Italian and Irishman (usually all from Brooklyn), and the Black, and the white yokel (from the South). They were all OK because they were all Americans (and because any combination of the above were liable to get knocked off saving the Protestent/gentile Hero and his girl) fighting the _Japanese and Germans!_ 

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 9, 2004)

> The thing that scares me however, is that whites are still more prejudiced here by far than any other race (they still haven't learned; the other races are much more mature in this regard), and that they have suffered less discrimination by far (just 2%!) when it comes to housing.


While I agree that this is scary it is not in the least surprising. The lessons taught by prejudice to whites is different to that taught to other races. Whites did not suffer prejudice and so did not see just how destructive it is. The other races did suffer it and learned at first hand the destructive power of it.


> In another article however, it was brought out that although such "us against them" racism appears to be genetically hardwired into human beings as a kind of tribal survival mechanism, *it can be fairly easily defeated by a kind of twist in the metaview*.
> 
> For instance: Group A (mostly white) is biased against Group B, because it contains nonwhites of various sorts (first photo). However, if it then turns out that Group B are all members one of Group A's favorite football teams (second photo), virtually all of the bias vanishes in the suddenly new viewpoint (everybody on our team's "good kin").


Not so easily defeated only easily redirected. In fact the example you use is probably the worst one you could have picked. While it is true that the bias against group B would no longer be against group B, it would simply be redirected against group C, any other football team. This is seen all too often in many games of football (soccer) in Britain and other countries. "Fans" of one team will look at those of different teams with "us against them" tribalism often resulting in fights, serious injuries and even deaths, and if a player moves from one team to join a rival team he goes in 30 seconds from "Hero to Sub-zero". The problem is finding the "kind of twist in the metaview" that will put everybody on the One team, then instead of "Us and Them" there will be only "Us and Us". However, nothing worthwhile is ever easy is it? And finding that twist would certainly be worthwhile.


----------



## joxy (Sep 9, 2004)

<Think all or most of the goals of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement have been achieved:
White: 56%
Black: 72%>
B B, you have given a feasible explanation of the "black" figure being high, that the people find the present situation good in comparison with the not-so-distant past, and are good-natured enough to discount the present.
But why is the "white" figure low? If, as you say, "whites are still more prejudiced here by far than any other race", wouldn't they have the attitude that things have gone quite far enough in the direction sought by the Movement? Various possibilities present themselves: seriously, perhaps they answer because of the shame of being aware of their prejudice; mischievously, perhaps because they think that the black people *ought* to want more than they have they achieved - the example of straight people who insist on legalised same-sex "marriage" for gay people, though few of us want it, might be relevant to that one!
Your ideas about football teams make a lot of sense. People of a certain mentality, and indeed most of us at some points in our lives, feel the urgent need to be part of a gang which can distinguish itself from, and contend with, another one. That gang may be of supporters of one team, against another; it may be simply people whose colour is roughly the same as one's own, against those of another colour....or race, or anything.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 10, 2004)

Gothmog said:


> ...Not so easily defeated only easily redirected. In fact the example you use is probably the worst one you could have picked. While it is true that the bias against group B would no longer be against group B, it would simply be redirected against group C, any other football team. This is seen all too often in many games of football (soccer) in Britain and other countries. "Fans" of one team will look at those of different teams with "us against them" tribalism often resulting in fights, serious injuries and even deaths, and if a player moves from one team to join a rival team he goes in 30 seconds from "Hero to Sub-zero". The problem is finding the "kind of twist in the metaview" that will put everybody on the One team, then instead of "Us and Them" there will be only "Us and Us". However, nothing worthwhile is ever easy is it? And finding that twist would certainly be worthwhile.



Unfortunately, what I picked was the _only_ pick (example) cited. And you indeed put your finger very accurately on what's going on: that the prejudice/tribalism is not (never?) eliminated but only redirected. So if we can't get rid of this prejudice, we had better come up with a lot of creative ways to redirect it into harmless-to-positive channels.

I have watched from my perch here in America the violent antics of soccer fans, and I must say I don't understand it. It looks like just an excuse to raise hell. Have the stadium authorities come up with ways to control the crowd yet? I would think that such behavior would at the least be exceptionally bad for business.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 10, 2004)

Yes it is the finding of those channels that is the challenge.

I have watched from closer and understand it no better than you. For some it is just that, an excuse to raise hell. There does seem to have been some improvements. One thing that has helped has been when the media reports fans having been well behaved thus allowing them to "Get Into the Papers" for something positive. As for such behaviour being bad for buisness, it is, very much so.


----------



## joxy (Sep 10, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> ....the violent antics of soccer fans, and I must say I don't understand it. It looks like just an excuse to raise hell.
> Have the stadium authorities come up with ways to control the crowd yet?


Which is precisely what it is, or rather was.
That is what those people went to the grounds for, not to watch the football.
Personally I can't see any attraction in going to watch football, a most boring occupation, but that's a different matter!
The stadiums *had* to, long ago, come up with improvements; the government forced them into doing so.
I suppose the behaviour *was* bad for business, though the improvements have a cost a lot, and have lost some attendances.


----------



## Uminya (Sep 11, 2004)

(deleted and placed in the correct thread)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 11, 2004)

Ciryaher said:


> Once again, you people reassure my faith in the ability of humans to utterly and completely take the subject and throw it in a completely irrelevant direction of mindless political-correctness and babble.



You need to learn something about civility and common courtesy. No one here has attacked you for your views, yet you gratuitously insult ours. If you don't like our posts, don't read 'em.

Barley


----------



## joxy (Sep 11, 2004)

Ciryaher: It would be helpful if you explained your first sentence. I see nothing in it that relates to the discussions in this thread.
By contrast, your last sentence is succinct and sensible; I agree: Tolkien was concerned with culture, not at all with race.


----------



## Uminya (Sep 11, 2004)

(deleted and placed in the correct thread)


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 11, 2004)

*Re: Mod's Comment*

Ciryaher, I think you missed the point of this post earlier in the thread.



Gothmog said:


> I have moved this thread from the forum "Annals of the Eldanyárë" to allow anyone interested in continuing the argument to do so in a more suitable forum. Have Fun.


This thread was originally in Annals of the Eldanyárë with the name Understanding Races and had gone completely off topic. The thread was copied with the original being cleaned and left in the "Annals". This copy was moved to the Forsaken Inn to allow those interested in the argument to continue it. Hence the new name MisUnderstanding Races.

If you are interested in taking part in the original topic of the thread the cleaned out version can be found Here


----------

