# Now the cat is out of the bag: Black, Asian and Maori Hobbits and a strong female presence



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 17, 2021)

Per the rules, this threads gone far enough off topic that it's being locked. We're not on TTF to argue whether Amazon is pushing a political agenda or not.


----------



## Annatar (Oct 12, 2021)

Actor Lenny Henry said in a radio interview:



> _"I'm a Harfoot, because JRR Tolkien, who was also from Birmingham, suddenly there were black hobbits, I'm a black hobbit, it's brilliant, and what's notable about this run of the books, its a prequel to the age that we've seen in the films, its about the early days of the Shire and Tolkien's environment, so we're an indigenous population of Harfoots, we're hobbits but we're called Harfoots, we're multi-cultural, we're a tribe not a race, so we're black, asian and brown, even Maori types within it. [...]
> There's a very strong female presence in this, there's going to be female heroes in this evocation of the story"_











Sir Lenny Henry On Being A Black Hobbit In The Lord Of The Rings


Sir Lenny Henry appeared on BBC Radio 4's Saturday Live show today, talking about his life, his career, getting writing advice from Alan Moore and Neil



bleedingcool.com


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 12, 2021)

Ooh -- now I'm looking forward to the Hobbit Haka!


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 13, 2021)




----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 13, 2021)




----------



## Olorgando (Oct 13, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Ooh -- now I'm looking forward to the Hobbit Haka!
> View attachment 10475


Uh-huh. The tallest "recorded" Hobbits are Merry and Pippin at 4 ft 6 in - at 137 centimeters that's about armpit-high to me, a shrunken 178 cm or 5 ft 10 in.
4 ft as the threshold to "tall" with Hobbits is 122 cm, about lower edge rib-cage. 3 ft 6 in as average is 107 cm - about belly button.

I don't really see how a Hobbit Haka could impress me even at age 65 (as long as they don't have distance weapons ...)


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 13, 2021)

Oh, I don't know.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 13, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Oh, I don't know.
> View attachment 10482
> View attachment 10483


Spontaneous response: Bilbo needs a dentist's appointment ... (yuck!!!)


----------



## Annatar (Oct 13, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Ooh -- now I'm looking forward to the Hobbit Haka!
> View attachment 10475


Yes, this would be a great update for some outdated Hobbit dance-styles like that one:


----------



## Annatar (Oct 13, 2021)

Well, to say something serious again:


Maori would probably have been a good cast for the Druedain/Woses... Likewise, black (or brown) people could have been cast as (Near- and Far-) Haradrim, and Asians as people from Rhun. That way, they could have implemented very good stories or plotlines for the Second Age that fit the canon. Well, chance missed.

I would have found even a small side story with hobbits acceptable, if they absolutely think that a certain expectation has to be fulfilled for the mass audience. But that could have been done more faithfully to the original and more realistically and without politically motivated, illogical nonsense.
For example, if they show Hobbit tribes moving or fleeing west through Rhun and Rhovanion and allying with the humans and dwarves there, that would be okay. But Hobbits are not conceived by Tolkien as Maori, Africans or Asians, but as rural Englishmen. If it were the other way around, one would speak of "cultural appropriation".

I wonder whether Amazon is doing all this out of ignorance, stupidity and blindness - or intentionally for political reasons, which I rather suspect, if you look at other modern Amazon/Netflix series (and other current Hollywood productions). In that case you have to assume that they want to destroy Tolkien's spirit on purpose. This all reminds me already quite a bit of the new Star Wars trilogy and also what will probably happen with Indy 5...
They can obviously scare away the original fans, push their political agenda, and still make enough money.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 13, 2021)

There's only ever one agenda.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 13, 2021)

Fun's fun, but let's try to keep the politics off TTF. 

I once again suggest a reread of the Rules thread


----------



## Annatar (Oct 13, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Fun's fun, but let's try to keep the politics off TTF.
> 
> I once again suggest a reread of the Rules thread


So how to deal with an external Tolkien topic like a series that became the reason for a new sub-forum here, which turns out to be completely political, while we actually want to leave politics out of it here in the forum?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 13, 2021)

Annatar said:


> How should one deal with this when the series that is the subject is very political through and through?


Has this been stated by the producers?


----------



## Annatar (Oct 13, 2021)

I'm still hoping, of course, that this was some kind of bad joke by comedian Lenny Henry. But how likely is that?


----------



## Ealdwyn (Oct 14, 2021)

Annatar said:


> But Hobbits are not conceived by Tolkien as Maori, Africans or Asians, but as rural Englishmen.


On the contrary, "brown-skinned" Hobbits are canon.
And Hobbits might be based on rural Englishmen - but in case you haven't noticed, not all Englishmen are white.

Similarly, Tolkien did not not describe all the western races of Men as white-skinned. or the Dwarves.
I wrote something about that previously https://www.thetolkienforum.com/thr...azad-by-sergio-artigas-lotr.28444/post-537807

It always amazes me how people have no problem accepting the fantastical aspects of Tolkien's work - wizards, dragons, magic rings - and yet seem to have issues with POC.


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 14, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> On the contrary, "brown-skinned" Hobbits are canon.
> And Hobbits might be based on rural Englishmen - but in case you haven't noticed, not all English*men* are white.
> 
> Similarly, Tolkien did not not describe all the western races of Men as white-skinned. or the Dwarves.
> ...


Sorry, I just can't resist this poke at an idiosyncrasy of the English language: what about the English *women*??? 

But what was the percentage of POC in the UK, or even just England, over 80 years ago when JRRT started writing LoTR?
Western Europe becoming more "colorful" seems to me to be a distinctly post-WW II phenomenon; accelerating, is my impression, after de-colonization had been mostly achieved by the early 1960's (except for those stubborn Portuguese). In all too many places, replacing colonial rule by local leaders was not really an improvement (especially if borders arbitrarily drawn by the European colonizers left "hereditary enemies" to try, and all too often fail, to establish a central government ...). I think the concept of "brain drain", the educated fleeing what they see as a hopeless (to them) situation at home, has been an issue for decades. In current Europe, Bulgaria and Romania are experiencing this ... ☹️

On the other hand, the jealous guarding of borders seems to me to be a product of the fairly recent (in Europe - at varying times) establishment of nation-states. Italy and Germany in their more or less current form only achieved this in the last third of the 19th century. And that crazy quilt known as the Habsburg Empire, fraying for centuries at several edges, only fell apart in 1918. Things were more fluid in earlier periods - rarely seen as a good thing by all sorts of locals. It seems to be a sad fact of Homo "sapiens" that xenophobia probably goes back to the paleolithic ("that tribe of §$%&ß@€ in the next valley!").

So in which time of real history do we localize, say, the Third Age? Especially if Hobbits, so central to LoTR, are concerned? Appendix B "The Tale of Years" for the Second and Third Ages, does not mention them until 1050 TA: "The Periannath are first mentioned in records, with the coming of the Harfoots to Eriador."
Could they, in what we know (or believe to know) of our history, ever have had a chance to establish something like The Shire? That would then have remained basically intact for *1,400 years*?!? What political entity in "real" history comes even vaguely close?!?

There are periods of mostly remoter history, it seems to me, where we can imagine a more varied population in all sorts of places. But just not in the period of European colonization of the rest of the world, a period in which extreme racism and racist "theories" flourished in Europe (and the US). And JRRT was born in the last decade of the Victorian Era (a term restricted properly to the UK), about which my opinions are definitely not publishable on TTF.


----------



## Annatar (Oct 14, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> On the contrary, "brown-skinned" Hobbits are canon.
> And Hobbits might be based on rural Englishmen - but in case you haven't noticed, not all Englishmen are white.
> 
> Similarly, Tolkien did not not describe all the western races of Men as white-skinned. or the Dwarves.
> ...



Ealdwyn, overall I can understand your reasoning here and in the Dwarves thread you linked, but must note that your arguments are often based on false premises:

1. You extrapolate the current social conditions of modern Europe (and USA, especially in big cities) to Middle-earth, as Olorgando has also already stated. But we know for sure that Tolkien wanted to create a European, and mainly English mythology. Many modern circumstances were a horror to Tolkien, his thoughts always went far back into the past. Tolkien even once wrote that the Third Age probably ended around 4000 BC in his fictional history (see https://middle-earth.xenite.org/when-did-the-third-age-end-in-our-calendar) and that the world of Arda is in fact our world. However, as any historian will tell you, until about 1900 or even later, there was no multiculturalism as we are used to it today. The peoples were extremely homogeneous, even if there were many travelers and traders (or sometimes warriors) from other regions at that time. So for this weird Amazon-Harfoot-mixture to make at least halfway some kind of sense, the Proto-Hobbits would have had to come from a big and central city like ancient Rome, where in historical times perhaps an almost similar multiculturalism prevailed as today. But since there have never been many Hobbits and there is no world-famous, large Hobbit city, where Proto-Hobbits from all over the world used to come to, this is all just a lot of nonsense. Maybe this might exist in Faerun, but not in Middle-earth...

2. Not only the people of Eriador and Rhovanion (and partly Gondor) are primarily inspired by Celtic and Germanic myths. Especially the Dwarves, Elves and most other non-real beings have their origins in very old (northern) European myths, fairy tales and stories. It's quite clear that these are not inventions of Tolkien, but at most "further developments" of Norse or Breton or even Finnish mythologies... And their inventors as well as their protagonists were white, homogeneous and for the most part didn't even know that there were Africans and Asians at all.

3. When Tolkien writes "browner" there is a relation. And this relation refers here to the Stoors and Fallohides. So if the Harfoots are described as browner than the very light-skinned Fallohides, that doesn't mean that they look like Africans, Asians or Maori at random. Mixed societies made up of people apparently descended from all corners of the earth have only existed since modern times, and only in larger metropolitan areas like New York, London, Paris...

4. Your insinuation that everyone who argues similarly to me would have issues with POC is simply quite wrong and actually also offensive. As mentioned above, I'd be in favor of having many different POC and Asians and Maori in the show - but please just in realistic and logical roles (both in terms of real history as well as the Middle-earth internal history ). And in my opinion, these roles should also be as true to Tolkien's original as possible. As also already shown in my former posting, there would be many good opportunities to do so... Anything else would be bringing modern politics to Middle-earth. That has nothing to do with Tolkien's ideas, and I don't want to see that in a show about Middle-earth. To me, that would be like replacing the Palantiri with the latest Korean OLED 4K TVs.  And how would you like it, for example, if in a film about Japanese samurai, white, black or other non-East Asian main characters were constantly fencing around? I therefore find "47 Ronin" with Keanu Reeves, for example, already very borderline...

So, all in all, a coherent, logical, and cohesive fantasy world is more important to me than a fantasy world that pushes the current zeitgeist at the expense of book fidelity and credibility. Of course, you can see it differently, but if the show moves too far away from Tolkien for me, I just lose interest in it.


----------



## Starbrow (Oct 14, 2021)

I can see both sides of this issue. In my opinion, I don't think a storyteller has to use a particular race or ethnic group for a character or group of characters. After seeing POC portray historical figures in _Hamilton, _I realized that this can happen in other stories. This series is not a documentary. I don't think skin color is a defining feature of hobbits, even if their lifestyle is based on rural England in the early 1900's. If Lin-Manuel Miranda can successfully ignore race when casting characters portraying historical figures, I don't know why Amazon can't do that when portraying a fictional race.


----------



## Aldarion (Oct 15, 2021)

Annatar said:


> Well, to say something serious again:
> 
> 
> Maori would probably have been a good cast for the Druedain/Woses... Likewise, black (or brown) people could have been cast as (Near- and Far-) Haradrim, and Asians as people from Rhun. That way, they could have implemented very good stories or plotlines for the Second Age that fit the canon. Well, chance missed.
> ...


Political reasons, definitely... muh multiculturalism etc. etc. Fact that people simply _didn't move much_ in premodern times - conquests were done by relatively small groups of warriors, not enough to significantly alter the genetic makeup of the local population, and moreover by small groups of warriors that typically were not from so far away as to be a completely different racial group - is completely ignored.


----------



## Goku da Silva (Oct 16, 2021)

Makes no sense, that's just the "politically correct" agenda talking nonsense. If you want Maoris ask for a series about then or their rich mitology and culture, don't try to squeeze then or any other minority were they simply don't belong.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 17, 2021)

Per the rules, this threads gone far enough off topic that it's being locked. We're not on TTF to argue whether Amazon is pushing a political agenda or not.


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 17, 2021)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Has this been stated by the producers?


Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Oct 17, 2021)

A couple of points:

Let me begin by saying that the addition of a Sub-Saharan African “Hobbit” is not outrageous.

And, the attempt to justify it by referencing the Harfoot’s *IS OUTRAGEOUS.*

Tolkien, when using terms like “brown-skinned” for the Harfoots, or other people in NW Middle-earth *IS NOT A REFERENCE to Non-English or NW Europeans*.

But, to return to the original point.

That Tolkien didn’t include such Cultures in the Shire is because the Shire was and is Victorian England, as a metaphor (Metaphors are not Allegories, for the reactionary among the readers who want to light their hair on fire over its usage) for the readers interacting with the world _*Outside the Sire.*_

Tolkien created these stories as a *Mythology*.

Mythology is *not the same as ‘Fiction,’* despite most of it being explicitly fictional. Myth is a specific subcategory of fiction that pre-dates fiction purely as entertainment, although myths were meant to entertain as well.

But myths are *explicitly cultural and ‘national’ or ‘ethnic.’*

This is why we speak of Greek/Hellenic Myth, or Norse Myth, or Hopi Mythology, or Navaho, or Polynesian, or Chinese or Mongol, or Indian/Hindu/Sikh/etc. Mythology, where the Myths are *about those people.*.

Now, to get into why a _*Sub-Saharan African *_*Hobbit is NOT OUTRAGEOUS*.

Because Tolkien’s universe is about a ‘Universal Faith’ (I am not Catholic, nor even Christian, but Tolkien was/is), and thus about ‘Universal Truths,’ and about a Global/Universal Population.

While the Myths are explicitly dealing with a Saxon/Gothic/English Mythology, and thus prototypical culture that gave rise to “England,” the world in which they exist admits to the entire world , and everyone in it being involved as well.

We have Humanity leaving Hildórien in various “waves,” beginning with the Edain, and possibly many others, who fled Morgoth’s entrapment of the Early Humanity.

That Humanity spread to all corners of the Earth, i.e. “Middle-earth” in his Mythos, such that some of them were either _Created as Hobbits_, or _Became Hobbits_. And because St. Augustine, St. Francis, St. Aquinas, and others tell us that “God made the world to be knowable by Humanity,” and thus subject to the Sciences (See _*The Letters of JRR Tolkien*_, Letter #153 to Peter Hastings), which would include the versions of Evolution accepted by the Vatican I and Vatican II Ecumenical Councils which were central to Tolkien’s conceptions of Middle-earth, *meaning that a Sub-Saharan African equivalent of a Hobbit would exist someplace in Harad, and NOT in the Shire*.,

Now, to get to *why* the producers of the show included a Hobbit who is African decent, with such a terrible justification for it:

*People, when they read fiction, want to see themselves in the stories they are reading.* They want to imagine themselves as a part of that story, usually by association with the protagonists of the story.

Hollywood’s business is selling things, which means “attracting eyeballs and attention” (salience). That means having to make the stories such that *more people see themselves in the story.*.

As a purely Business Perspective, that is smart.

As an Academic Perspective, it is debatable as to whether it is a “good idea.” With strong evidence and premises for each “side“ of that debate (for which there are _more than two ‘sides’_ as well).

As a purely Tolkien-centric Perspective, the inclusion is dubious without some incredible effort to work such an addition into the Mythology such that it “Makes sense based upon the *rules of the world as Tolkien gave them*.” These rules don’t exclude “Black Hobbits.” But they do demand some pretty freaking huge constraints about where these Black Hobbits originated.

*Ultimately the problem here comes from trying to continue the bastardized plagiarism of Peter Jackson*. That produced a monetary incentive that was hard to shake, and a perception of Middle-earth based upon something that is *NOT Tolkien’s Middle-earth! *It is Peter Jackson’s stealing all of the nouns from Tolkien’s works are re-arranging them into a similar configuration that is unfortunately too far away from Tolkien’s original concept to _be _that original concept.

Emphasis included to provide salient points.

What Amazon is producing was made clear with Tom Shippey’s departure to be “Not Tolkien’s Middle-earth.”

It is unfortunate given that it is likely the Estate will never again trust anyone with another Tolkien property as a result of Amazon’s flagrant dishonesty or betrayal in obtaining the License to begin with.

MB



Goku da Silva said:


> Makes no sense, that's just the "politically correct" agenda talking nonsense. If you want Maoris ask for a series about then or their rich mitology and culture, don't try to squeeze then or any other minority were they simply don't belong.




1. Such Cultures exist in Middle-earth. They are just not the focus of the principal Mythology.

2. But the addition of them in a story about the Second Age is specious at best, whether it is “Politically Correct” or not. 

3. The fact remains that Hollywood is about selling stuff, and to do that they need to appeal to a broad base. 

Because people want to “see themselves in a story,” that requires the addition of characters who are not the typical “White Northern European or American.” 

That isn’t “Politically Correct” to understand that, or to understand that adding such characters is likely to create a broader appeal, and thus make more money.

But as I allude in the former comment on this issue, the changes Amazon has made are using really bad justifications for the inclusion of such characters as a part of Tolkien’s Mythos. 

*But then they were never making a series about TOLKIEN’s MYTHOS.*

The Amazon series has *always* been about the plagiarization of Tolkien’s works by Peter Jackson, and a part of that Story.

As such, a “Black Hobbit from the Shire, or from *anywhere* in the North of Middle-earth (re: Outside of Far-Harad),” is perfectly reasonable in *Peter Jackson’s *‘Middle’-earth. But such a thing doesn’t exist in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.

I am certain that Black “Hobbits” exist in Tolkien’s Middle-earth. They would just be someplace in Far-Harad, which is the “Sub-Saharan Africa Analogy” in Middle-earth (Harad is the Islamic Maghreb — Northern Africa after the Islamic Conquest in the 7th to 8th Centuries — Islamic Spain, and the near Middle East. Think of Umbar as Constantinople, which is what Tolkien based it upon).

Tolkien indicates that Middle-earth is filled with every “Ethnic Group” (‘Race’ in his parlance and the Metaphysical Foundations he chose) that exists in our World. 

It is just that Tolkien’s vision is one that would cause quite an uproar if it were to be adapted honestly. People who love his work have in most cases not really Fully understood the implications of many aspects of his work, which are things much of the world sees as being “ugly,” right-or-wrong. 

Amazon isn’t prepared to invest in the PR that would be required by a Faithful Adaptation that would require a vastly greater budget to explain than to produce.

MB


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 17, 2021)

I posted this recently in another thread here about the Amazon series.
As it's so short, I wont bother with a link and just plagiarize myself.

There are millions of fans of Peter Jackson's films who probably still have not read either of the books.
Add to those the millions of fans of the Game of Thrones TV series (and probably others I've never heard of), and you have the market Amazon is aiming for.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 17, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> Think of Umbar as Constantinople, which is what Tolkien based it upon


Uh-oh -- I think we'll soon be hearing from Aldarion! 😁


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Oct 17, 2021)

Annatar said:


> Tolkien even once wrote that the Third Age probably ended around 4000 BC in his fictional history (see https://middle-earth.xenite.org/when-did-the-third-age-end-in-our-calendar) and that the world of Arda is in fact our world.




A *bit* of a correction here.
Tolkien *did not say* that Middle-earth *IS* “our World.”
He said it is an *imaginary POSSIBLE past* for our World.
That part is usually missed by people.
To illustrate the point, *The Letters of JRR Tolkien*, Letter #165 to Houghton Mifflin, June 5, 1955, p. 220:



> ‘Middle-earth’, by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Mercury of Eddison).4 It is just a use of Middle English _middel-erde_ (or _erthe_), altered from Old English _Middangeard:_ the name for the inhabited lands of Men ‘between the seas’. And though I have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginatively this ‘history’ is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet.




But he later goes on to explain more fully that the word “_Imaginary_” is the crucial point to that analogy, a _*possible past*_ of this world




> Letter #135, to Stanley Unwin, p. 124:
> You may, perhaps, remember about that work, a long legendary of *imaginary* times in a ‘high style’, and full of Elves (of a sort). It was rejected on the advice of your reader many years ago.
> 
> Letter #131, to Milton Waldman, p. 142:
> ...



I conclude this section with Letter #153, to Peter Hastings (coincidentally, the most cited Letter of all of Tolkien’s by Academics and myself when referencing many topics), because it conclusively shows that Middle-earth *IS NOT “Our Earth.”*

Tolkien, being a Catholic, references _The Creator_ in this letter, where he provides the definition of Sub-Creation that most people miss the salience of. But here it need only be referenced:

”God” (the Catholic one of Tolkien’s Faith, and thus of Judaism and Islam, as well as the rest of Christianity, depending upon who is asked) has not to Tolkien’s knowledge “Given it a Reality” on any plane (much less _*this plane*_), and that one would *”…just haven to enter it…,”* which is something one does not have to do in order to *“Be” in OUR World.*

And lastly, the Letter that causes people so much confusion on this issue, #183, as Notes on the Review of _*The Return of the King*_ by W.H. Auden, p. 238, 243:


> I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of _midden-erd_ > _middel-erd_, an ancient name for the oikoumenē, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). *The theatre of my tale is this earth*, the one in which we now live, *but the historical period is imaginary*. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time.
> …
> Mine is not an ‘imaginary’ world, but an *imaginary historical moment *on ‘Middle-earth’ – which is our habitation.



This, like so many things in Tolkien’s work, which you ironically begin your comment by pointing out that Tolkien’s life was a reaction to Modernity, and thus he has rather specific definitions which are contrary to those used by Modern, Contemporary Humans, this depends upon some rather esoteric terms that Tolkien is using here.

He is pointing out that “Middle-earth” (Midden-erd > Middel-Erd), or the _Oikoumene_, is “real” in the sense that “This is what the ancient Cultures called “The Earth” that they knew.

To the Germanics/Norse/Vikings, this was _Midden-erd > Middle-erd, Middengard_, while to the Hellenic and Levantine it was the _Oikoumene_ (which is *just* the Koine Greek for “Middle-earth” or “The Middle/Center of the World” to be more precise.
That is “Real.” It is “Here.”

But it* is a Theatre*_, and *NOT the thing itself. *_Note: “_The Theatre of my Tale is this earth. … *but the historical period is imaginary.*”_
That means that it *is not our earth, *to which he refers save as a stage, where everything else exists in an _*imaginary world*_.
The Philosopher Jean Baudrillard calls this “Confusing the Map for the Territory.” Tolkien was using a similar concept from Catholic Theology that has to do with _Sub-Creation¹_. The concept that Baudrillard was using was well-known, even to Plato, Aristotle, and possibly earlier, but not by that term. The concept of “Platonic Forms” is related to this, where the objects we see in life are the “Map,” while the “Platonic Form” is the “Territory“ (i.e. “The Actual Thing”).

There are other references that more directly confront this issue far more clearly than Tolkien does here, but they are in the latter three volumes of _*The History of Middle-earth*_, for which I do not have digital copies that can be easily searched (although given how often this topic comes-up, I really out to search for the references and bookmark them, copying them in a text file or something to use when the topic _inevitably does _come up again).

Tolkien is what we would call now “picking at nits” in his definition of “Our Earth” in this reference.

But his letter to Rhona Beare explains that more succinctly.



> Or Letter #211, to Rhona Beare, p. 282
> I have, I suppose, *constructed an imaginary time, *but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place.



Rhona Beare’s and Peter Hasting’s letters make most clear that Middle-earth isn’t our earth, but is an earth that “began as our earth,” to allow for certain basics of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, etc. to be shared, but where the inclusion of a Cartesian and Manichaean Dualism (the latter which ultimately prevented Tolkien from completing the Mythology, much as it has bedeviled Catholic and Christian Theology since the 1st Century) caused a divergence, which, as he says to Peter Hastings: “You would just have to enter it (Middle-earth), and begin studying it” to determine how and why it diverges from our Reality.

MB



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Uh-oh -- I think we'll soon be hearing from Aldarion! 😁



I’ve seen his complaints.

Yet without an explicit statement to that effect we still have a case of an enormously overlapping existence and ontology, to say nothing of history.

Much like the people who react to the term “Metaphor” as if it is identical to “Allegory.”

MB



Olorgando said:


> I posted this recently in another thread here about the Amazon series.
> As it's so short, I wont bother with a link and just plagiarize myself.
> 
> There are millions of fans of Peter Jackson's films who probably still have not read either of the books.
> Add to those the millions of fans of the Game of Thrones TV series (and probably others I've never heard of), and you have the market Amazon is aiming for.



Exactly.

MB


----------



## ZehnWaters (Oct 18, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> A *bit* of a correction here.
> Tolkien *did not say* that Middle-earth *IS* “our World.”
> He said it is an *imaginary POSSIBLE past* for our World.
> That part is usually missed by people.
> ...


TBH, all of this seems but to say that it's our world in the same way Marvel films take place in our world. Obviously not our reality (or Iron-Man would be real) but still on OUR Earth. Earth-Earth, with the Sun, and the Moon, and Mercury, and Venus, and Mars, and Jupiter, etc. Not some other planet.



Matthew Bailey said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> Let me begin by saying that the addition of a Sub-Saharan African “Hobbit” is not outrageous.


I agree but with the stipulation that they live in Harad or further south.


Matthew Bailey said:


> And, the attempt to justify it by referencing the Harfoot’s *IS OUTRAGEOUS.*
> 
> Tolkien, when using terms like “brown-skinned” for the Harfoots, or other people in NW Middle-earth *IS NOT A REFERENCE to Non-English or NW Europeans*.


Yes. We see a range of skin-tones even on the British Isles. Even relatively "dark" peoples (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Danielle Bux, and young Sean Connery come to mind). It's this tone I think Tolkien was referring to.


Matthew Bailey said:


> Now, to get into why a _*Sub-Saharan African *_*Hobbit is NOT OUTRAGEOUS*.
> 
> Because Tolkien’s universe is about a ‘Universal Faith’ (I am not Catholic, nor even Christian, but Tolkien was/is), and thus about ‘Universal Truths,’ and about a Global/Universal Population.
> 
> ...


THIS!


Matthew Bailey said:


> Now, to get to *why* the producers of the show included a Hobbit who is African decent, with such a terrible justification for it:
> 
> *People, when they read fiction, want to see themselves in the stories they are reading.* They want to imagine themselves as a part of that story, usually by association with the protagonists of the story.
> 
> ...


See I think it COULD work in the Second Age purely because the Nùmenoreans were known for their extensive travel. ONLY under these conditions does it work and make sense.


Matthew Bailey said:


> What Amazon is producing was made clear with Tom Shippey’s departure to be “Not Tolkien’s Middle-earth.”
> 
> It is unfortunate given that it is likely the Estate will never again trust anyone with another Tolkien property as a result of Amazon’s flagrant dishonesty or betrayal in obtaining the License to begin with.
> 
> ...


It COULD work under very specific, restrictive circumstances.


Matthew Bailey said:


> 3. The fact remains that Hollywood is about selling stuff, and to do that they need to appeal to a broad base.
> 
> Because people want to “see themselves in a story,” that requires the addition of characters who are not the typical “White Northern European or American.”
> 
> ...


As is often the case with Hollywood and it's changes to make things "more inclusive" (their justifications are also usually backhanded as well ("Minority characters just can't get popular on their own!"))


Matthew Bailey said:


> *But then they were never making a series about TOLKIEN’s MYTHOS.*
> 
> The Amazon series has *always* been about the plagiarization of Tolkien’s works by Peter Jackson, and a part of that Story.
> 
> As such, a “Black Hobbit from the Shire, or from *anywhere* in the North of Middle-earth (re: Outside of Far-Harad),” is perfectly reasonable in *Peter Jackson’s *‘Middle’-earth. But such a thing doesn’t exist in Tolkien’s Middle-earth.


I actually find this to even be debatable.


Matthew Bailey said:


> I am certain that Black “Hobbits” exist in Tolkien’s Middle-earth. They would just be someplace in Far-Harad, which is the “Sub-Saharan Africa Analogy” in Middle-earth (Harad is the Islamic Maghreb — Northern Africa after the Islamic Conquest in the 7th to 8th Centuries — Islamic Spain, and the near Middle East. Think of Umbar as Constantinople, which is what Tolkien based it upon).
> 
> Tolkien indicates that Middle-earth is filled with every “Ethnic Group” (‘Race’ in his parlance and the Metaphysical Foundations he chose) that exists in our World.


Weren't the Nùmenoreans even described as being relatively dark? Mediterranean-like even?


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 18, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> What Amazon is producing was made clear with Tom Shippey’s departure to be “Not Tolkien’s Middle-earth.”
> It is unfortunate given that it is likely the Estate will never again trust anyone with another Tolkien property as a result of Amazon’s flagrant dishonesty or betrayal in obtaining the License to begin with.


I finally found that letter In Humphrey Carpenter's collection with the quote by JRRT himself, showing him to under no illusions, but also hard-nosed.

Letter no. 202 (excerpt) on p. 261, 11 September _(what the ... ?)_ 1957, to Christopher and Faith Tolkien (Christopher's first wife, mother of Simon), last three lines (in the book):

"But it looks as if business might be done. Stanley U. & I have agreed on our policy: _Art or Cash_. Either very profitable terms indeed, or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations."

This is the period in which Forrest J. Ackerman was in negotiations with JRRT and A & U about making an animated film of LoTR. While in the several letters dealing with the topic JRRT does confess to being ignorant of they ways and techniques of film-making, I would be surprised if he believed that any studio / producer / director / script-writer would ever have agreed to "absolute author's veto".

But the point is, he was realistic and hard-nosed enough about the matter (having read the story line by Morton Bradley Zimmerman by then?) to say "if you want to garble the story beyond recognition, you can do so if you fork across enough hay".
If dad (Priscilla), grandpa (Simon etc.), great-grandpa (whoever) could take this line - why not the current executors of the Tolkien estate?

Christopher was a special case. He was the (main?) live audience for the bedtime story that became The Hobbit. He was witness to the gestation of most of LoTR, including dozens of letters his father sent him to South Africa, where he was in WW II training to become a pilot for the RAF. He drew the LoTR maps. He was named literary executor of his father's writings, producing the published Silmarillion etc. etc. etc. Only JRRT himself was ever "deeper in Middle-earth" than Christopher - and Christopher probably in the end had a better overview of it than JRRT - who was constantly searching for manuscripts misplaced due to frequent moving house, and had sold quite a bit of the stuff to Marquette University, where Christopher had to go to study the originals (or get photocopies of them). With that background, and I thinks it's safe to assume by temperament (though guessing what that was *specifically* is minefield territory where only the greatest fools tread!) no one should be surprised that his reactions were often "not amused".

I just had this thought: would any of us be very happy if someone told us that all of our babblings about JRRT's writing here on TTF (we babble about much else) were hypothetically to be submitted for Christopher Tolkien's stern scrutiny?


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Oct 18, 2021)

ZehnWaters said:


> TBH, all of this seems but to say that it's our world in the same way Marvel films take place in our world. Obviously not our reality (or Iron-Man would be real) but still on OUR Earth. Earth-Earth, with the Sun, and the Moon, and Mercury, and Venus, and Mars, and Jupiter, etc. Not some other planet.



“Our Earth” isn’t “Our Earth” in the sense of an Identity, but as an equivalence.

That is a crucial difference that is prone to misunderstanding and confusion.



ZehnWaters said:


> I agree but with the stipulation that they live in Harad or further south.



That was what I eventually said.




ZehnWaters said:


> Yes. We see a range of skin-tones even on the British Isles. Even relatively "dark" peoples (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Danielle Bux, and young Sean Connery come to mind). It's this tone I think Tolkien was referring to.



Yet in Victorian England, which is what _The Shire_ is a proxy for, the “darker toned” people were still what we would call _Caucasian_ or _White_”, and not Mediterranean Olive, nor Levantine Darker Skinned, and _*especially not *_the Sub-Saharan African “Blacks” that the current production is using.

The current trend toward diversification is long overdue, and well-intentioned, and based upon very real issues. But we need to be careful of revisionism that alters the original works beyond recognition. I would prefer to have the studios spend millions on PR to explain the realities of Tolkien’s reactionary rejection and abhorrence of Modernism (based upon the Catholicism arising out of the 1868 Vatican I Ecumenical Council that formed the basis of his Guardian’s faith and his Catholic Education and Theology) led to some things that we now perceive as being themselves abhorrent than to warp the work beyond recognition.

Doing so waters-down the perceptions of things that are rightly abhorrent, yet are not so within the context of the Metaphysics and Theology *within *Middle-earth (as someone who Tolkien would label as an “abhorrent perversion and corruption,” I recognize the reality of people who want to imagine themselves as being among the “Good Guys” in Middle-earth. But that is a very complex issue that entire libraries of commentary and analysis have been created to explore).




ZehnWaters said:


> THIS!
> 
> See I think it COULD work in the Second Age purely because the Nùmenoreans were known for their extensive travel. ONLY under these conditions does it work and make sense.
> 
> ...



Having worked in Hollywood, the industry is full of all kinds of hideous things (people and _Unwritten Rules_ that are a minefield).

The criticisms of the lack of inclusiveness and exclusion of minorities of all kind have been very real thing, where some people who controlled large portions of Hollywood were what you might as well call _Monsters_. Harvey Weinstein being among the *least reprehensible* of the dinosaurs in the Studios who dominated the industry until the mid/late-00s.

The issue we have now is one of a reactionary rejection of the need for more diversity, combined with a bit too strident push from the opposing side against that.

In the middle are a *lot* of very well-meaning people who just otherwise haven’t had the time nor opportunity to explore the issues sufficiently, and are subjected to a heap of noise from each side, as well as illegitimate “both-siderism” that is meant to obstruct any clarity in the issues, because the “strident demands for more inclusivity” are the ones who are in the right, despite being clumsy, in-artful, and too desperate for changes that have not been sufficiently considered, nor explained. There is thus clearly “one side” that is in the wrong here, even if they are correct in a few specifics.

One of my past colleagues called it “Being Wrong for all the Right Reasons.” 

While the other “side” that has been a bit too strident in their demands was labeled as “Being Right for the Wrong Reasons.”

Things that are distinctions equivalent to the original point about the distinctions between “our World” and “Based-upon Our World.”


ZehnWaters said:


> I actually find this to even be debatable.



You’ll find it a losing debate, given the inclusion of things in Peter Jackson’s films that not just “_do not exist in Middle-earth,_” but rather “*CANNOT exist*_ in Tolkien’s Middle-earth_.”

Tolkien comments upon these *exact points* in *The Letters of JRR Tolkien* during the first attempt to adapt _*The Lord of the Rings*_ into a film.

The attempt collapsed because Tolkien refused to allow his name to be applied to something that wasn’t his work. Roughly from Letters #200 to #215 address this explicitly, while those from #153 onward will often contain references to the “Identity” of Middle-earth, or rather Eä as a whole, in which Arda and Middle-earth exist. 




ZehnWaters said:


> Weren't the Nùmenoreans even described as being relatively dark? Mediterranean-like even?



This is another one of those terms that has a specific meaning within the English Language.

Beginning around 600CE (and earlier, likely, given the trend from Latin and Greek that is somewhat similar), the English Language (then still “Saxon” and “Gothic”) would term people as “Black” or “Dark” as a reference to either hair-color, and eye-color, or to the clothing that was habitually worn by certain people, or populations.

Tolkien tends to use the expression in that sense, where, as an example, the Nazgûl are referred to as “Black Men” by the Gaffer, or others in Bree, along with Strider having a similar expression used for him to refer to his dark hair, and his tendency to “lurk in the shadows.”

The Númenóreans were likewise called “Dark” due to their black hair as a rule (one of the _Rules of Physiognomy_ that apply to Middle-earth, and are connected to the Academic Explorations of Racism in his works, where the Academic Definition of “Racism” isn’t about “Racial Hatred,” but _purely_ the claim that “Races Exist. And they exist in a hierarchy of “Best” to “Worst.” … “High” Elves,” “Light Elves,” “Dark Elves,” “Grey Elves,” “High Men/Kings of Men,” “Middle Men,” “Men of Darkness,” “Dwarves” and then “Orcs,” where we even have the Orcs in a hierarchy of 1st Age “Warrior Orcs” and “Black Morgoth Orcs” — Where the term “Black” is debateable in Tolkien’s usage, given that in the 3rd Age, “Black Uruks of Mordor” was an explicit “BLACK-Skinned.” And not the “Sub-Saharan African,” but _Literally *Black*_, like Charcoal, or Lampblack — Uruk-Hai, and then Snaga, at the low end of the Totem-pole. But within Middle-earth, Black and Blond/White Hair are seen as signs typically indicating a “Superiority,” Red Hair indicating not just being an “outlier,” but in having the stereotypical “Fiery Personality,” and where “brown hair” is indicative of a “Mediocrity.” Black Hair could also be a sign of Corruption or Deception. I cannot recall which Catholic Theologian most explored Physiognomy, but it pre-dates Catholicism. The Catholics were largely interested in the “Inversions or Exceptions” to the _Rules of Physiognomy)_ 

…, and not because they were physically “Darkly Complected.” There is a reference to their being either Roman/Byzantine, and a mention of the sun “tanning” what would otherwise be fairly white skin. 

This is a subject where the issues are somewhat muddied by the changing use of Language that existed in the Post-War 20th Century that no one stopped to demand clarifications over. I think Shippey mentions this in _*The Road to Middle-earth*_. I would need to go back through it on Kindle or the ePub version I have of it to see if it was there, or in another academic work from someone like Hosteter, or Corey Olsen (or someone like them).

MB



Olorgando said:


> I finally found that letter In Humphrey Carpenter's collection with the quote by JRRT himself, showing him to under no illusions, but also hard-nosed.
> 
> Letter no. 202 (excerpt) on p. 261, 11 September _(what the ... ?)_ 1957, to Christopher and Faith Tolkien (Christopher's first wife, mother of Simon), last three lines (in the book):
> 
> ...



I have had some of my comments on Middle-earth submitted to Christopher Tolkien’s “stern scrutiny.” One of the observations about PJ’s films was met by Christopher with astonishing agreement, saying “How is it that so many others have missed such a crucial point, so early in the films?” .. and then congratulated me on the observation. 

But if you go back through _*Letters*_, to look at the letters you are referencing, he eventually decides that the deviations are too extreme, and no amount of money could amend the damage.

The Executors of the Tolkien Estate deal with more than just Middle-earth.

In the encounter I had with Christopher Tolkien (several contacts between 2011 and 2014, on a project that had little to do with Middle-earth) I had what amounted to several days of “Orientation” dealing with expectations, forbidden subjects (and terms/words), and areas where contentions could arise (minefields best avoided).

The experience included that many of the members of The Estate would be swayed by no amount of money, and the suggestion they could would result in pretty immediate and final termination of contact. 

Having grown-up around Religious Extremists, I recognized that this was *exactly* what was being encountered among the members of The Estate, and that JRRT and his immediate children were ALL of the “Vatican I” sort (go have a look at the contents and conclusion of the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in 1868, and the debates within Catholicism surrounding and following it. You’ll discover views that are considered heinous in today’s world, yet are the central pillars of the Tolkien Family’s Religious Beliefs).

JRRT has aspects that are tremendously complicated, yet fairly simple to explain in terms of origins. Only a very few aspects of his personality and work can be considered _Complex_ (Note: Complex ≠ Complicated. The former is an intricate structure of many parts whose function is greater than the sum of its parts. The latter is a simplistic structure than has little to no function, and is nigh impenetrable. A hand and a tangled knot are the most representative examples of each), and in those cases it is largely connected to his academic works.

MB


----------



## ZehnWaters (Oct 18, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> “Our Earth” isn’t “Our Earth” in the sense of an Identity, but as an equivalence.
> 
> That is a crucial difference that is prone to misunderstanding and confusion.


Again, one could make the same argument in relation to the MCU. It isn't "our earth" as it contains many people and events that ours doesn't. It's an equivalent. This seems to be what Tolkien was going for with his "a potential history" (or whatever term he used).


Matthew Bailey said:


> Yet in Victorian England, which is what _The Shire_ is a proxy for, the “darker toned” people were still what we would call _Caucasian_ or _White_”, and not Mediterranean Olive, nor Levantine Darker Skinned, and _*especially not *_the Sub-Saharan African “Blacks” that the current production is using.


I know. I was agreeing with you.


Matthew Bailey said:


> The current trend toward diversification is long overdue, and well-intentioned, and based upon very real issues. But we need to be careful of revisionism that alters the original works beyond recognition. I would prefer to have the studios spend millions on PR to explain the realities of Tolkien’s reactionary rejection and abhorrence of Modernism (based upon the Catholicism arising out of the 1868 Vatican I Ecumenical Council that formed the basis of his Guardian’s faith and his Catholic Education and Theology) led to some things that we now perceive as being themselves abhorrent than to warp the work beyond recognition.


That would require the studios to want to have intelligence and care and we both know they generally cater to the lowest-common-denominator.


Matthew Bailey said:


> Doing so waters-down the perceptions of things that are rightly abhorrent, yet are not so within the context of the Metaphysics and Theology *within *Middle-earth (as someone who Tolkien would label as an “abhorrent perversion and corruption,” I recognize the reality of people who want to imagine themselves as being among the “Good Guys” in Middle-earth. But that is a very complex issue that entire libraries of commentary and analysis have been created to explore).


Also there's literature and media that already has diversity in it. Give that attention as well.


Matthew Bailey said:


> Having worked in Hollywood, the industry is full of all kinds of hideous things (people and _Unwritten Rules_ that are a minefield).
> 
> The criticisms of the lack of inclusiveness and exclusion of minorities of all kind have been very real thing, where some people who controlled large portions of Hollywood were what you might as well call _Monsters_. Harvey Weinstein being among the *least reprehensible* of the dinosaurs in the Studios who dominated the industry until the mid/late-00s.


Such was my understanding judging by what is implied to have happened to the Cory's and allegations against Bryan Singer.


Matthew Bailey said:


> The issue we have now is one of a reactionary rejection of the need for more diversity, combined with a bit too strident push from the opposing side against that.


I know VERY few people who are actually against diversity. In my experience the issue is being given hand-me-downs, bad caricatures, and/or Mary-Sues for "representation". Ew.


Matthew Bailey said:


> In the middle are a *lot* of very well-meaning people who just otherwise haven’t had the time nor opportunity to explore the issues sufficiently, and are subjected to a heap of noise from each side, as well as illegitimate “both-siderism” that is meant to obstruct any clarity in the issues, because the “strident demands for more inclusivity” are the ones who are in the right, despite being clumsy, in-artful, and too desperate for changes that have not been sufficiently considered, nor explained. There is thus clearly “one side” that is in the wrong here, even if they are correct in a few specifics.


In my experience it's not "well-intentioned but clumsy and in-artful"; it comes from a place of paternalism and superiority. "You poor minorities! Let me deign to help you since you clearly aren't capable of doing it yourself. Here, have this character I'm done playing with; you clearly could never succeed at making a minority character popular on your own."


Matthew Bailey said:


> You’ll find it a losing debate, given the inclusion of things in Peter Jackson’s films that not just “_do not exist in Middle-earth,_” but rather “*CANNOT exist*_ in Tolkien’s Middle-earth_.”


I should have been more clear. My disagreement was with whether black hobbits in the Shire would work in PJ's work. I don't think it would. He never portrayed them other than Caucasian. It wasn't until The Desolation of Smaug that we saw dark people who lived in the North.




Matthew Bailey said:


> This is another one of those terms that has a specific meaning within the English Language.
> 
> Beginning around 600CE (and earlier, likely, given the trend from Latin and Greek that is somewhat similar), the English Language (then still “Saxon” and “Gothic”) would term people as “Black” or “Dark” as a reference to either hair-color, and eye-color, or to the clothing that was habitually worn by certain people, or populations.


I know. I was just thinking he'd described the Gondorians as being tan.


Matthew Bailey said:


> Tolkien tends to use the expression in that sense, where, as an example, the Nazgûl are referred to as “Black Men” by the Gaffer, or others in Bree, along with Strider having a similar expression used for him to refer to his dark hair, and his tendency to “lurk in the shadows.”


I know. Tolkien covered this when explaining how Gollum is white despite being called "blacker than black".


----------



## Olorgando (Oct 18, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> Having grown-up around Religious Extremists, I recognized that this was *exactly* what was being encountered among the members of The Estate, and that JRRT and his immediate children were ALL of the “Vatican I” sort (go have a look at the contents and conclusion of the First Vatican Ecumenical Council in 1868, and the debates within Catholicism surrounding and following it. You’ll discover views that are considered heinous in today’s world, yet are the central pillars of the Tolkien Family’s Religious Beliefs).


Have you ever heard of, or perhaps read writings by, Swiss theologian Hans Küng (1928-2021)? One of the leading periti (advisors) to the *Second* Vatican Council of 1962-1965 together with current pope emeritus Benedict XVII, or Joseph Ratzinger. They were colleagues at the university of Tübingen in Germany in the 1960's, but then parted ways.


----------



## ZehnWaters (Oct 18, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> I have had some of my comments on Middle-earth submitted to Christopher Tolkien’s “stern scrutiny.” One of the observations about PJ’s films was met by Christopher with astonishing agreement, saying “How is it that so many others have missed such a crucial point, so early in the films?” .. and then congratulated me on the observation.


Hm. What point was it?


Matthew Bailey said:


> In the encounter I had with Christopher Tolkien (several contacts between 2011 and 2014, on a project that had little to do with Middle-earth) I had what amounted to several days of “Orientation” dealing with expectations, forbidden subjects (and terms/words), and areas where contentions could arise (minefields best avoided).


Ooo, do tell.


----------



## Aldarion (Oct 19, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> I am certain that Black “Hobbits” exist in Tolkien’s Middle-earth. They would just be someplace in Far-Harad, which is the “Sub-Saharan Africa Analogy” in Middle-earth (Harad is the Islamic Maghreb — Northern Africa after the Islamic Conquest in the 7th to 8th Centuries — Islamic Spain, and the near Middle East. *Think of Umbar as Constantinople, which is what Tolkien based it upon*).


Not even close. Umbar, if anything, is based on Carthage, or at least Maghreb Carthage, post Muslim Conquest. City that is based most obviously on Constantinople is Minas Ithil, as can be seen from quite a few aspects. For one, Constantinople used to be one of major capitals of the Christianity before it fell to Islam, just as Minas Ithil used to be a major city in the Gondorian civilization. There is also the symbolism: Minas Ithil is the city of the Moon, while star is a major symbol in general Numenorean culture. Guess what is the symbol of Byzantium and, later, Constantinople? This:





_A star and a moon_.

Now replace the star with a disfigured face, and you get the symbol of Minas Morgul...

As for Umbar? Look at history: it used to be under Sauron's control, was then captured by the Men of the West and served as a major naval base before being recaptured by Sauron and serving as his naval base. That is almost the same sequence of events as Carthage, which used to be an independent state, was captured by Romans, before being lost to Arabs.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Oct 19, 2021)

What did I tell ya? 😂


----------



## Annatar (Oct 20, 2021)

Matthew Bailey said:


> The Númenóreans were likewise called “Dark” due to their black hair





ZehnWaters said:


> I know. I was just thinking he'd described the Gondorians as being tan.


As for the appearance of the Numenoreans, the matter is not so simple.

The Numenoreans are a mixture of the Edain, with the House of Haleth having been nearly wiped out. The House of Haleth can probably be culturally compared most closely to Celts, though Tolkien's Celtic counterparts, which include the Dunlendings, are strangely always described as darker-skinned in comparison (while the real Celts are known for their extremely light skin tone).

The House of Hador was in the majority or had the most survivors at the end of the First Age. These people are described as similar to the Norse or northern Germanic people, that is, with fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair; see also the Rohirrim, who are related to them.

The House of Beor seems to be relatively mixed, but brown hair and brown or gray eyes were probably common. Here it is not clear to me which "real" peoples might have been the model - perhaps none at all, or some, more southern, Germanic tribes such as possibly the Goths, as they are described as closely related to the House of Hador.

Therefore, due to these majority conditions, not all but most of the Numenoreans should have looked more like members of the House of Hador and should have had rather light hair and skin. (Even if culturally they were - or better: became - more like the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.)

The Faithful, however, were a line that seemed to descend mainly from the House of Beor, which is why the later Dunedain in Middle-earth probably had dark hair and gray or brown eyes.

In addition, Numenor is located near the equator, and one could therefore assume that it's correspondingly hot there and that the people there developed at least a dark sun tan. But there is nothing in the text to indicate this, and before the transformation of the world into a sphere it must not have been necessarily hot at the equator, especially since the island was under the control of the Valar anyway.

The southern Dunedain of Gondor, however, have mixed also with many in Gondor native peoples, after some time.
In Gondor (at least south of the mountains) the climate is Mediterranean. At least some of the native inhabitants of Gondor were distantly related to the Dunlendings. And they were also described as rather dark-skinned e.g. in the story "Tal-Elmar". I guess it makes sense to think of them as visually similar to the peoples around the Mediterranean.
But there were also many refugees from Rhovanion, with whom the Dunedain of Gondor mixed.
All in all, the Dunedain of Gondor probably also had rather a light complexion, but possibly well tanned in summer.

The King's Men (later Black Numenoreans), presumably mostly light-skinned and blond in origin, colonized mainly the coasts south of Pelargir, of which Umbar was the largest city. Due to the intermixing with the Haradrim and also due to the stronger sunlight, these places might have developed interesting
multicultural mixtures. After a few generations, however, the descendants were probably all of a darker type.
In any case, Amazon would have had the best or most book-true conditions for a "woke", multi-ethnic cast in Umbar (and the other, southern colonies, which are only hinted at in the books). So there would have been some possibilities and preconditions to include something like that in a halfway meaningful way, but the producers and writers of the series are apparently not able to deal with the original in a more profound and respectful way.


----------



## Annatar (Oct 20, 2021)

By the way, I've found an interesting map on Wikipedia that illustrates some influence of real, historical places, peoples, events and cultures.







https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Middle-earth%27s_Geographic_Influences.svg/1920px-Middle-earth%27s_Geographic_Influences.svg.png



It's pretty rough and not always correct in detail (or complete), but overall I can agree with it.

The "Black Country", for example, reminds me more of Saruman's Isengard than Mordor, though it certainly does for Mordor as well.






https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/77710000/jpg/_77710962_3322454.jpg



Overall, I think I have a pretty good sense of what real-world influences might have served as models or templates for Middle-earth in some ways.
Some themes still puzzle me, though. For example, the land of Khand southeast of Mordor. How do you imagine that? Persia or Saudi Arabia, perhaps?


----------



## 1stvermont (Oct 26, 2021)

Annatar said:


> Actor Lenny Henry said in a radio interview:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazon is the perfect company to destroy Tolkien's work. Having said that I will watch the first episode while I scream at the television until I refuse to watch anymore. I will then pick it up the next week in defiance of my oath to never watch it again where my actions will predictably repeat. I assume it will take anywhere from 3-5 shows for me to actually keep my word, realize my hope of an accurate portrayal could never happen with Amazon at the helm, and finally discard the show.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 15, 2021)

I think the discussion of race/skin colour and how race in the real world relates to those in ME is missing the point. What the producers are trying to do (and as much as it hurts to defend the evil Amazon empire, I have to give them credit for this) is have colour-blind casting. 

I have no problem with ANY character in ME being cast as a POC. In a way, it is less problematic to simply have a diverse cast, rather than trying to conform to (or invent) specific races of colour to fit with canon.


----------



## m4r35n357 (Dec 15, 2021)

Olorgando said:


> There are millions of fans of Peter Jackson's films who probably still have not read either of the books.
> Add to those the millions of fans of the Game of Thrones TV series (and probably others I've never heard of), and you have the market Amazon is aiming for.


Pardon the "me too" here . . .

It appears there are billions of "movie-goers" worldwide who feel _fundamentally entitled_ to be able to view the Hollywood-tinted wreckage of _any_ kind of book you can imagine, however impractical the conversion to film, but I have possibly(!) un-endeared myself to some(!) on this forum by saying that. NM 



Olorgando said:


> I just had this thought: would any of us be very happy if someone told us that all of our babblings about JRRT's writing here on TTF (we babble about much else) were hypothetically to be submitted for Christopher Tolkien's stern scrutiny?


As long as his response was "you are all wrong!" I would be OK with it 



Annatar said:


> The "Black Country", for example, reminds me more of Saruman's Isengard than Mordor, though it certainly does for Mordor as well.


I was _born_ in Mordor (well Brum actually), so that imagery is very visceral to me!


----------



## ZehnWaters (Dec 16, 2021)

Artist Morgan Rogers did a good job of making the characters racially diverse, even if it's not necessarily accurate:


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 16, 2021)

Artist Morgan Rogers did a good job of making the characters racially diverse, even if it's not necessarily accurate:


ZehnWaters said:


> View attachment 11051


 Yeah there's been some fantastic diverse re-imaginings of characters. 

I particularly like this one (sorry I can't remember who created it)



And whoever suggested Ghassan Masood as Denethor - I can totally see that too


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 17, 2021)

Per the rules, this threads gone far enough off topic that it's being locked. We're not on TTF to argue whether Amazon is pushing a political agenda or not.


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 17, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> I think the discussion of race/skin colour and how race in the real world relates to those in ME is missing the point. What the producers are trying to do (and as much as it hurts to defend the evil Amazon empire, I have to give them credit for this) is have colour-blind casting.
> 
> I have no problem with ANY character in ME being cast as a POC. In a way, it is less problematic to simply have a diverse cast, rather than trying to conform to (or invent) specific races of colour to fit with canon.


It may be polite, but it is still a lie...


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 17, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> It may be polite, but it is still a lie...


I think you have to ask yourself why you are so threatened by a diverse cast


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 17, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> I think you have to ask yourself why you are so threatened by a diverse cast


Because I see things being changed for the sake of pushing a Marxist-Communist-Progressive-whatever you want to call it agenda. And because I know what happened when this kind of thing was tried before, in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia - latter of which I am very familiar with as my parents and grandparents lived in it.

If you don't see a problem with a political ideology dictating art, then you should really read _1984_.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 17, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> Because I see things being changed for the sake of pushing a Marxist-Communist-Progressive-whatever you want to call it agenda. And because I know what happened when this kind of thing was tried before, in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia - latter of which I am very familiar with as my parents and grandparents lived in it.
> 
> If you don't see a problem with a political ideology dictating art, then you should really read _1984_.


Overreacting much? We're talking about a TV show - a TV show for heaven's sake! 

I think the vehement reaction you have to the suggestion that the cast of a TV show should be more diverse says a lot about your personal values


----------



## Aldarion (Dec 17, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> Overreacting much? We're talking about a TV show - a TV show for heaven's sake!
> 
> I think the vehement reaction you have to the suggestion that the cast of a TV show should be more diverse says a lot about your personal values


Primary value I hold to is _truth_. I don't care whether something is racist or not, mysoginist or not; all I care about is whether it is true.

Amazon show is changing the source material for the sake of pushing a political agenda. I dislike changes where they are not absolutely necessary - _Lord of the Rings _movies didn't have much modern politics going on in them, and I still dislike them for the changes they made: primarily to Faramir, for example - but the fact that changes are being made for the purpose of turning the series into a piece of political propaganda in the vein of Yugoslav or Soviet movies is what makes it really painful for me.

And what makes it even more painful is because I know what will happen. Look at the _Star Wars_: they were always liberal and left-leaning: you had a diverse group of protagonist opposing explicitly white Empire which had Nazi aesthetics to top it off, yet plot of the movies was basically United States against the Viet Cong, except United States were ruled by a disfigured dark wizard. Leftist political leaning of the creator couldn't be more blatant. But I loved the movies, because they worked: and because the setting as a whole was Jackson's original creation, he was free to do whatever he pleased. But even that got ruined, with modern _Star Wars _sequels consisting of plagiarism, propaganda and no original content at all.

_Lord of the Rings_ however are Tolkien's work, with his own history and background. Tolkien's mythos is a retelling of European mythology and history, and is, in fact, specifically an attempt to give Britain a mythology which it lacked. And it is not "un-diverse": Haradrim from Far Harad are present at Pelennor, and are specifically noted to be black. Some of the Easterners may not have been white - it is not clear. There already is a lot of diversity within the original work, so why shoehorn diversity where it didn't exist originally? Unless, of course, it isn't about diversity, but about propaganda.

And yes, I may feel closer to LotR because I am a reactionary. But I also loved it back when I was a liberal, and even during my communist phase. In short, my own political leaning had no impact on which works I liked and disliked.


----------



## m4r35n357 (Dec 17, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> Primary value I hold to is _truth_. I don't care whether something is racist or not, mysoginist or not; all I care about is whether it is true.
> 
> ...
> 
> And yes, I may feel closer to LotR because I am a reactionary. But I also loved it back when I was a liberal, and even during my communist phase. In short, my own political leaning had no impact on which works I liked and disliked.


I think Tolkien would have been _disgusted_ at this use of "liberal" as a dirty word. I'm no Christian, but I can recognize anti-Christian sentiments when I read them. Consider that your saviour was an anti-capitalist "liberal", as well as being non-white (despite his frequent Western portrayal as a white hippy).


----------



## Ealdwyn (Dec 17, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> Primary value I hold to is _truth_. I don't care whether something is racist or not, mysoginist or not; all I care about is whether it is true.
> 
> Amazon show is changing the source material for the sake of pushing a political agenda. I dislike changes where they are not absolutely necessary - _Lord of the Rings _movies didn't have much modern politics going on in them, and I still dislike them for the changes they made: primarily to Faramir, for example - but the fact that changes are being made for the purpose of turning the series into a piece of political propaganda in the vein of Yugoslav or Soviet movies is what makes it really painful for me.
> 
> ...


There is so much nonsense here that I don't even know where to begin


----------



## Olorgando (Dec 17, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> There is so much nonsense here that I don't even know where to begin


Not that I agree with everything Aldarion posts (there's this issue with Byzantium ...  ), but there is one thing we in "the west" who never suffered any authoritarian rule should realize: that view provides those who did suffer under those regimes a different applicability. They will sniff out such propagandistic tendencies much more quickly that we would, having been bombarded by the stuff for decades (at least the older ones).
Two points:
As has often been the case, they may have become *oversensitive* to such perceived propaganda (but there is this basic fact: perception is reality, at least temporarily). It's happened again and again that, say, fire-breathers of the "left" have swung over and become fire-breathers of the "right" (the majority of swings thanks to that PR disaster Joseph Vissarionovich Jughashvili). Perhaps a matter of temperament, they breathe fire whatever they do ...
But they are not as oversensitive as we may view them. There *is* an element of "propaganda" in practically all films - very much so if you have a watchdog organization enforcing any kind of "code" (this hold true for comics, too, recently the major source material for films). The old saw that basic assumptions are shared by large, or at least influential segments of a society - assumptions that are generally not thought about. Others may very well challenge those assumptions, to our surprise. Often make us think more clearly, not necessarily to the detriment of the assumptions, but that is a distinct possibility. But thinking can be strenuous, no doubt about that, like all forms of exercise. Not all flabbiness is centered around our belts ...


----------

