posted
Tres, that's not at all what I said. Put it like this, instead. "People of all backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities, including Asians, Europeans, Africans, rich and poor, educated and simple, can rise above their circumstances and display goodness and nobility that surpass all expectations, or they can fall away into folly and evil." Is that a racist statement? I believe that is the only way you can interpret Tolkien's beliefs as reflected in his writings.
[ December 30, 2003, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: a "crusade" against the "evil doers" in nations that white people have been invading, terrorizing, raping and pillaging in for 5000 years with zero provocation,
This statement invalidates everything this guy says after it. Not even a basic knowledge of history could permit someone to say something so wrong.
quote: In fact all Europe's mathematics, reading and writing and technological advancements in transportation and warfare are all based on African and Asian concepts. The reason that Western medicine has not advanced to the enlightened technological level as Chinese herbal medicine...
Chinese what now? The author's agenda has clearly gotten the best of him.
posted
That by itself is not racist, Anne Kate, but when the "circumstances" are being born into a corrupt race, then racism comes into play. And that IS the circumstances in LotR.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax said: I think you may be stretching pretty far to try and remove the racism. LotR is pretty clear in suggesting that certain races are naturally better or worse than others. There are exceptions, but wouldn't you call someone who believes the vast majority of blacks are stupider than the vast majority of whites a racist? Would you refrain from calling them racist if they admitted that "well, okay, there are one or two good blacks"?
That would be racist. It would not be racist to say that people of sub-Saharan African descent have darker skin in general than people of Nordic descent.
quote:Tresopax said: The Orcs and Goblins are bad. The Men and Elves are good. Hobbits are usually lazy. Men are more corruptable than elves. Dwarves are generally greedy. You sure aren't denying Tolkein describes the races as such, are you?
The point you’re missing is that in Tolkien’s world, the statements you listed are generally true (except for the Hobbits being lazy – that’s a distortion ). They’re not prejudiced stereotypes – they are facts built into the makeup of each species. And since Tolkien created them all except Man, he gets to say what is true and what’s not about them.
Tolkien was an extremely devout Catholic. As such, he believed in the doctrine of Original Sin – that mankind is fallen and required the intervention of Christ for salvation. This underlying belief requires him to make broad sweeping moral statements applying to a whole people, since ultimately he believes no mortals are righteous on their own. He alludes specifically to the Fall in the Silmarillion, and has stated that all his stories with men take place post-Fall, pre-Incarnation.
Both Eru and Yavana (sp?) chastise Aule for making the dwarfs without consulting them, since Aule’s limited understanding of life and natural things means the dwarves will not understand or appreciate these things either. Tolkien believed that different beings had different natures. He absolutely did not believe that any human being, or class of human beings, were better or worse than another.
When he wanted to publish The Hobbit in Germany (pre-WWII), he was asked to certify his ancestry. His response:
quote:I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is, Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.
Then he wrote his agent something like, “I think the German deal just fell through.”
You’ll note that Tolkien never says races w/in particular species are better or worse than other races of the same species. His world was rich because there were recognizable, sentient people within multiple species (races). Each highlighted certain aspects of humanity.
quote:Originally posted by Danogee The point you’re missing is that in Tolkien’s world, the statements you listed are generally true (except for the Hobbits being lazy – that’s a distortion ). They’re not prejudiced stereotypes – they are facts built into the makeup of each species. And since Tolkien created them all except Man, he gets to say what is true and what’s not about them.
The word racist has come to refer to a comment or person who makes comments that espouse a prejudiced stereotype. Tom is right - Tolkien's work is racist, but in the purest sense of the word. Instead of applying derogatory stereotypes, the racist statements that Tolkien makes concerning the species in his works are generalities that are, more often than not, very true on an individual level, and are used to illustrate the character of the race in quesiton. Prejudiced stereotypes do their damage because they aren't true on an individual level.
"Even black people can rise above their circumstances and become as intelligent as white people" is damaging because it assumes, to a person, that the black people are inferior. Whereas, "Dwarves are generally greedy" is the truth, especially if it's spoken from an elvish perspective. To a man (so to speak), if you offered a dwarf either a lavish meal or a sack of uncut gems, they would take the gems.
Granted, prejudiced stereotypes are made in LOTR by various individuals concerning other races, but the ones outlined by Tolkien are accurate and not designed to harm or slight that race - they are the truth, and are used for illustrative purposes.
quote:Tresopax said: So, it's not racism if it's true?
Not, it’s not.
Make up a new sentient species. Make them smarter than humans – able to calculate pi in there heads to 1000 decimal places.
Make up another sentient species. Make them dumber than humans – say the brightest one among them would have an IQ of about 100 on an unbiased (whatever that means) test, average members about 60. Also imagine that this species is much stronger, has better balance, better special awareness, can run faster, and in general is much more physically capable than the first.
Writing a story with such species is not racist. Intending one species to represent a given human race and the other another human race would be. Holding these general opinions about different races would be. But positing a speculative world in which such species exist is not racist. It is speculative.
Different species have different innate potentials and capabilities. On Earth, only humans are recognized as sentient. We have also come to realize that physically, individual genetic variation is greater than racial genetic variation. Broad sweeping statements about intelligence and physical ability of different races is based on incorrect stereotypes. People who hold those stereotypes are considered racist.
In a fictional world, where different species are sentient, it is possible for these characteristics to vary. If dolphins are ever recognized as sentient, it will not be racist to say “dolphins are better swimmers than humans.” Nor would it be racist to say “humans are better able to manipulate small objects.” It may or may not be racist to say “humans are smarter than dolphins,” because humans may be smarter than dolphins.
posted
That would lead to an interest paradox, if anyone ever claimed to be a racist - and means that you can never convince anyone that they are being racist.
After all, a racist believes one race is better than another, but since they believe their belief is true, they believe there's nothing racist about believing it. Thus, we could conclude telling someone they are racist is by definition pointless.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only to the extent that telling someone they’re wrong with respect to any other moral premise is pointless. Telling a pro-abortion rights person that abortion is murder is pointless in exactly the same way – there’s a basic definitional difference that cannot be reconciled without philosophical discussion of much more basic points.
However, I never thought calling someone racist should be done with the goal of changing the racist person’s mind. This will only work when someone is “unconsciously” racist. If the person is morally honest and genuinely does not want to be racist, explaining why a particular stance is racist may do some good.
An unrepentant racist who thinks XXXX race is superior to all others will likely wear the “racist” name with pride. In this case, a fundamental moral shift is required before change is possible.
posted
Tres, as long as there is no empirical evidence either way your stance is legit. Suppose, however, that we were able to devise an intelligence test that could be fairly administered to both humans and dolphins (not sure if this is possible), and dolphins consistently showed higher scores that humans. Would it be racist to then say, "Dolphins are generally smarter than humans are"?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just who would be designing, administering and funding this test? Never mind analyzing and reporting back on the "results"? There is no such beast as an objective test - (covers ear from the sound of burst bubbles)
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn’t say there was such a test (witness my “whatever that means” comment). Mac didn’t say there was such a test. We’re positing things that don’t exist. It’s like physicist assuming a frictionless surface.
The point is, it is easily conceivable that different sentient species would have different intellectual abilities. Pointing out these differences would not be racist.
quote: The point is, it is easily conceivable that different sentient species would have different intellectual abilities. Pointing out these differences would not be racist.
Absolutely not. I completely concur.
I'm just stirring up the tempest a little.
The whole discussion has been based on hypothetical, imaginative, fanciful works which all-comers keep trying to mesh with "real life". And in considering a "hypothetical" intelligence test, I chuckle - since there really is no way to design one that would be fair, unbiased and objective. That's all -
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To tie this back in with the Tolkien argument, were they any examples that orcs were necessarily stupider than humans?
Well, okay, they weren't bright enough to avoid the giant rocks.
But I think the big problem here is that orcs are portrayed not only as stupider or uglier, but that they're more evil (note how the first Uruk-Hai we see strangles the pureblood orc who frees him from his birthing sac), less decent (note how all the orcs killed each other on a whim when Frodo was being held prisoner, and all over the mithril shirt -- which they didn't even understand was mithril), and more cowardly (observe their frightened reactions to the Rohirrim and subsequent fleeing) than men are.
It makes for a pretty movie where we can cheer guilt-free at the slaughter of the poor bastards, but in my opinion, it's Tolkien's greatest plot weakness.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you really need to get the books and read them. The movie left out many subtle nuances, and painted some things too black-n-white. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I always felt that the books painted orcs pretty black-and-white, too. What redeeming moments are the orcs or trolls given in the books? At what point do we see an orc show mercy, or compassion, or a moment of human feeling?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read the books. Did I miss, as Tom asked, a moment when orcs acted on any opportunity to be kind or decent?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't call it "redemption" - but I think Tolkien tried to make it clear that orcs were twisted versions of elves and therefore wickedly miserable (and wicked). They were failed creations. Saruman played on this and then bred orcs to men to get his Uruk-Hai which was another nastily failed attempt at divine creation. And for some reason, it was the interbreeding to men that made them even nastier and more dangerous. Chew on that one . . . yuck.
quote:To tie this back in with the Tolkien argument, were they any examples that orcs were necessarily stupider than humans?
Well, okay, they weren't bright enough to avoid the giant rocks.
Actually, they were so jammed in, it was pretty much impossible to avoid the rocks until a few of them had been cleaned out. And as I recall, (in the movie) one of the orc leaders did simply step aside.
quote:But I think the big problem here is that orcs are portrayed not only as stupider or uglier, but that they're more evil (note how the first Uruk-Hai we see strangles the pureblood orc who frees him from his birthing sac),
Well, I'm sure Saruman would count that a gain since he was going for vengeful, angry, twisted creatures -
quote:less decent (note how all the orcs killed each other on a whim when Frodo was being held prisoner, and all over the mithril shirt -- which they didn't even understand was mithril),
Well, actually, they knew it was a valuable item and the fight was over the fact that Gorbag (orc) wanted the shirt for himself, rather than following orders and taking the goods to "the Eye" which is when he and Shagrat got into it - and like any good bar-style brawl, it just degenerated . . .
quote:and more cowardly (observe their frightened reactions to the Rohirrim and subsequent fleeing) than men are.
Well, as to that cowardly business, it's a good thing a bunch of men were cowardly the first time around so that Aragorn would have an army to collect, hmmm?
At any rate, of course orcs were nasty, slimy, yucky creatures. They were DESIGNED to be that way by nasty, ugly, slimy characters - can you fault them for being what they were made to be? Gee - (sniff)
(Edited to add: I don't consider orcs a plot weakness - in fact, I think their integral to showing just how evil Sauron - and Saruman - are and why they need to be declawed.)
quote:Lalo said It makes for a pretty movie where we can cheer guilt-free at the slaughter of the poor bastards, but in my opinion, it's Tolkien's greatest plot weakness.
Almost any one-dimensional character is a plot weakness – I’ll agree with you there.
But I think the utter lack of any Orcish redeeming feature is supposed to be a testament to both the power and monstrosity of Morgoth/Sauron/Saruman. The creation of the Orcs was considered the worst and most hateful to God of all Morgoth’s deeds – including all the deaths he caused, the corruption of Feanor, and the temptation of Man (i.e., being the snake in the garden). I think the corruption of Elves to make Orcs was worse than the corruption of Man because the former was more complete than the latter.
This may not be enough to remove the weakness entirely; I think it alleviates it to a great degree.
Also, while there may not be any morally redeeming scene with an Orc, Ugluk at least is shown to be brave, courageous, and loyal to Saruman.
posted
This isn't exactly a redeeming moment for the orcs...but perhaps it is, in a way. At the battle of Helm's Deep, when the trees are coming to tear into the Dark Lord's army, Aragorn calls out to warn them--and he doesn't make any distinctions. Aragorn is concerned even for the orcs. Likewise, at some point, Gandalf says, "As for me, I pity even his slaves."
In other words, there is some sense in which even orcs and trolls are worthy of pity; they are not utterly worthless and evil.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to point out that when I refer to people rising above their circumstances, I mean just that. Nothing about being of an inferior race or bloodline. Circumstances means situation or environment. I feel like what I said got corrupted into something revolting, and then people argued against that.
I was thinking mostly of Sam, and how he was from a rather poor family and worked as a gardener, and never got much education, and yet because he was so valiant and loyal he ended up the greatest hero of all.
From his work, Tolkien seem clearly to be ANTI-racist, and ANTI-classist.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate, is it your contention that orcs and trolls are not clearly identified as inferior bloodlines in Tolkien's work?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you see racism if I said "Even black people can rise above their circumstances and become as intelligent as white people"?
Yes, but how about this, which would be more accurate to Tolkien's races - which, as pointed above, are closer to different species than just 'regionally and superficially different' "races":
"Even cats can rise above their circumstances and become as intelligent as dogs"?
Dwarves, Men, and Elves were NOT created equal, nor did they have they same common ancestor. Comparing the different species of Middle Earth to Asians, Africans, and Native Americans is just plain silly.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). They’re not prejudiced stereotypes – they are facts built into the makeup of each species. And since Tolkien created them all except Man, he gets to say what is true and what’s not about them.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
