Support NeoGAF

[veloxStrix]

It's strange that people would accuse Tolkien's works of being racist (edit: being racist and having racism within are two different things and I have adjusted my wording to account for that) when every single character who has racist tendencies within his novels are punished for those. There is a whole theme of Elves, Dwarves, and Men judging each other by race and suffering for their ignorance and hatred.

 

[Dmax3901]

it's yours a stock parody reply?

post #5


post #7


just two examples of many posts

People is saying that Tolkien was racist, it may be true, i'm not denying that, what i'm saying is that racism or not it's completely plausible that LOTR didn't have afroamerican characters since its setting was inspired by medieval north europe.

Try reading the whole thread next time.

 

[Crankshaft]

It's strange that people would accuse Tolkien's works of being racist (edit: being racist and having racism within are two different things and I have adjusted my wording to account for that) when every single character who has racist tendencies within his novels are punished for those. There is a whole theme of Elves, Dwarves, and Men judging each other by race and suffering for their ignorance and hatred.

You're asking people to do research and make up their own mind though. That's too much work in today's age. It's easier to get the cliff notes version of what is happening and then make a snap decision and condemn it. "Light vs Dark? Dark equals racism!"

 

[Skilletor]

Guys i understand that there are racism and inclusion issues in media in general, but let's not make the error to say that everything has to be inclusive otherwise it's racist, would you really want caucasian and asian people in a story set in ancient Africa? Would you want caucasian and afroamerican people in a story set during the battle of the three reigns? Unless the origins of those characters are crucial for the story I don't think so.
LOTR is set in an imaginary land inspired by the north of Europe, so obviously it has north european-looking people.

People of Color just as mythical as dragons in Tolkien threads.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Tolkien is a racist because he compares black people to trolls. Weird that so many of you evidently haven't read Return of the King:

"There they had been mustered for the sack of the City and the rape of Gondor, waiting on the call of their Captain. He now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues."

This quote is so famously upsetting to modern readers that it shows up *in other people's novels*.

 

[veloxStrix]

There is this discourse in modern culture about inclusiveness in media. This is excellent. Television, film, games, and all the visual mediums have suffered from being mostly by-white-for-white industries since their inception. We can clearly see, literally and abstractly, the lack of these other other ethnicity in those works.

I am not sure that this need for inclusiveness translates as well into the non-visual world of the novel.

Tolkien is a racist because he compares black people to trolls. Weird that so many of you evidently haven't read Return of the King:

This quote is so famously upsetting to modern readers that it shows up *in other people's novels*.

The usage of "black" throughout the series is rarely directly indicative of coloration and more towards the serving of Sauron or the "black powers". This particular phrase is fairly ambiguous.

Tolkien's personal letters don't seem racist to me, but I have been wrong before. Notably these:

"I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White."
― From a valedictory address to the University of Oxford in 1959

"As for what you say or hint of ‘local' conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort[unately], not many retain that generous sentiment for long."
― Letter 61 — Written to Christopher Tolkien who was stationed in South Africa during World War II

"Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge—which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."
― Letter 45

Seem fairly negative towards the concept. Of course, its difficult to find a really revealing source because most people don't write "I'm not a racist!" with a written defense of any potentially damning sentence they have ever formed and then send that in a personal letter to their relations.

 

[Skade]

When Tolkien started to work on the stories of the Silmarillion, he was intending them to become some sort of English mythology that would explain the origins of English history and culture.

So, taking this into account, of course his stories had to be mainly composed of white folks. That does not make Tolkien racist.

He could have been, of course, but i doubt he was more than any other white dude at the time.

 

[Skilletor]

When Tolkien started to work on the stories of the Silmarillion, he was intending them to become some sort of English mythology that would explain the origins of English history and culture.

So, taking this into account, of course his stories had to be mainly composed of white folks. That does not make Tolkien racist.

He could have been, of course, but i doubt he was more than any other white dude at the time.

lmao

 

[Steve.1981]

Cool. It's always good to see more diversity in the characters of our stories. Better representation is always a good thing.

I've loved The Lord of The Rings ever since I was a child. It's one of my absolute favourite books. As I grew older I started to notice problematic aspects of Tolkien's creation and it bothered me.

It still does bother me that, just for example, "Black" is a word he chose to use, to describe so much that was bad in the world. The Black Riders. The Black land of Mordor. The Black speech of the Orcs. Yet on the other hand we have Gandalf, who returns as the absolute pinnacle of goodness and guess what, becomes Gandalf the White.

It's just annoying that such a towering work of genius is somewhat tainted in this way. Especially when you consider that one of the most important aspects of LoTR, that Tolkien took great pains to accentuate, is that people of different races can and should come together in friendship and understanding for the betterment of all.

Just look at Legolas and Gimli. As representatives of their races, they overcome ancient hatreds and mistrust to become the very best of friends, and in the end even travel together to try and learn from one another, and better appreciate each other's cultures.

That's great stuff. He also very obviously thought isolationism was a bad idea. The Hobbits of The Shire come to learn that it's unhealthy and actually dangerous to try and close yourself off from the rest of the world. I love that message as well. But yeah, there are parts of Tolkien's work that are unfortunately troublesome. It's just a fact.

 

[veloxStrix]

It still does bother me that, just for example, "Black" is a word he chose to use, to describe so much that was bad in the world. The Black Riders. The Black land of Mordor. The Black speech of the Orcs. Yet on the other hand we have Gandalf, who returns as the absolute pinnacle of goodness and guess what, becomes Gandalf the White.

Thankfully he didn't decide to go with his second choice, Sauron the Brown and Gandalf the Beige.

 

[Skilletor]

Cool. It's always good to see more diversity in the characters of our stories. Better representation is always a good thing.

I've loved The Lord of The Rings ever since I was a child. It's one of my absolute favourite books. As I grew older I started to notice problematic aspects of Tolkien's creation and it bothered me.

It still does bother me that, just for example, "Black" is a word he chose to use, to describe so much that was bad in the world. The Black Riders. The Black land of Mordor. The Black speech of the Orcs. Yet on the other hand we have Gandalf, who returns as the absolute pinnacle of goodness and guess what, becomes Gandalf the White.

It's just annoying that such a towering work of genius is somewhat tainted in this way. Especially when you consider that one of the most important aspects of LoTR, that Tolkien took great pains to accentuate, is that people of different races can and should come together in friendship and understanding for the betterment of all.

Just look at Legolas and Gimli. As representatives of their races, they overcome ancient hatreds and mistrust to become the very best of friends, and in the end even travel together to try and learn from one another, and better appreciate each other's cultures.

That's great stuff. He also very obviously thought isolationism was a bad idea. The Hobbits of The Shire come to learn that it's unhealthy and actually dangerous to try and close yourself off from the rest of the world. I love that message as well. But yeah, there are parts of Tolkien's work that are unfortunately troublesome. It's just a fact.

Here come the people to tell you that "black" has forever been used as a word to describe bad things because of its ties to the unknown and is no way problematic at all.

 

[TsuWave]

edit - nvm

 

[thumb]

Racist white people always getting the benefit of the doubt.

I think you're right on this point. But I do want to note that, at least in English, we have a really limited common vocabulary for talking about racism. I think this leads to some people leaping to the defense of some (lesser) racists because they don't want them dropped into the same category as clansmen, Nazis, skinheads, and so on.

Again, this doesn't mean every white racist should be given the benefit of the doubt. But I do wish we had better terms for describing types and levels of racism that were popularly understood.

Edit - And to be clear, this is not so we can morally unburden "lesser" racists. This is to get people to acknowledge the racism in others and themselves more readily.

 

[The Greek Freak]

I don't know anything about LotR; why weren't there any black characters?

Tolkein was a racist shitstain of a person, he basically considered people like me to be real life savage worthless orcs.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Is this actually true?

Not really. His legendarium was written from a Eurocentric perspective though, as it was Tolkien's idea of a mythology for England, more or less.

Also, what the blazes is the Shelob nonsense in this game? She is a human? This is worse than fanfic writing.

 

[veloxStrix]

Tolkein was a racist shitstain of a person, he basically considered people like me to be real life savage worthless orcs.

Posts like these are the fuel that the alt-right pours on its "racism is fake, everything is fine" fire.

Here come the people to tell you that "black" has forever been used as a word to describe bad things because of its ties to the unknown and is no way problematic at all.

What about earlier writings from cultures that had little to no contact with dark races having a similar connotation to the colors of white and black? The idea that "black" can be used at times with racial connotation and at other times with cultural connotation seems pretty simple. Or is every association we make with the color black a result of our derived from dark-skinned people?

Also, what the blazes is the Shelob nonsense in this game? She is a human? This is worse than fanfic writing.

Seems like some off-beat extrapolation of Ungoliant - Shelob's mother - being a primordial force that simply took the shape of a giant spider. The idea being that maybe they could take the shape of something else being used to justify adding a hot spider babe (disclaimer: I am assuming here, haven't seen screens) to the game.

 

[Steve.1981]

Here come the people to tell you that "black" has forever been used as a word to describe bad things because of its ties to the unknown and is no way problematic at all.

Personally I can look past it (though it bothers me) when reading a book written in the 1940s by an otherwise insightful scholar, but I wish fantasy in general would get past the whole Light/Dark, White/Black, Good/Evil thing that it's had going since forever.

It's well past time, in my opinion.

 

[Zakalwe]

Doesn't make it right or ok

They know this, Slayven, and they're not suggesting otherwise. Merely commenting on the reality of the time these things were conceived in.

 

[TsuWave]

I think you're right on this point. But I do want to note that, at least in English, we have a really limited common vocabulary for talking about racism. I think this leads to some people leaping to the defense of some (lesser) racists because they don't want them dropped into the same category as clansmen, Nazis, skinheads, and so on.

Again, this doesn't mean every white racist should be given the benefit of the doubt. But I do wish we had better terms for describing types and levels of racism that were popularly understood.

i'm struggling to understand this, if you're a racist, you're a racist. i don't think when people are discussing these things, being able to say "oh, he's the type that wouldn't give you a job racist but he wouldn't put a burning cross in your front yard type racist" would make any difference, and more often than not people know the context/circumstance/situation they are discussing no? so its odd that people would have a predisposition to jump to defense of so called "lesser racists" (lol)

 

[IggyChooChoo]

But I do wish we had better terms for describing types and levels of racism that were popularly understood.

I feel like the terminology is incredibly clear. Tolkien compared black people's faces to trolls'. Therefore, he was obviously carrying visceral hostility toward black features. "I don't like the way you look" is the most fundamental, animalistic form of prejudice, and it is directed towards a huge category of people. Racism is the perfect word for it.

 

[Skilletor]

i'm struggling to understand this, if you're a racist, you're a racist. i don't think when people are discussing these things, being able to say "oh, he's the type that wouldn't give you a job racist but he wouldn't put a burning cross in your front yard type racist" would make any difference, and more often than not people know the context/circumstance/situation they are discussing no? so its odd that people would have a predisposition to jump to defense of so called "lesser racists" (lol)

It's really weird.

It's can say I love chocolate, a game, and my wife and people will infer the difference.

But with racism, hold up, we need to delineate and define what you mean!

Wait, it's not weird at all. Just another tactic to help racists feel better and avoid discussion on the real issue.

 

[FirmBizBws]

Well there were the orcs and Southrons

What

 

[Skade]

lmao

Yeah, i know.

What i meant is that at that time, being somewhat racist was just the "normal" way of being for white people. If everyone around you is like that and you've been "teached" racism all your life, it take a conscious effort to not be one. Therefore, Tolkien was probably a bit racist by default. But given his stories, i doubt he was a "virulent" one.

I mean, Legolas and Gimli becoming best bros while they are supposed to hate each other because they are an elf and a dwarf. You'd write the same thing replacing elves and dwarves by black and white people and you'd get something that would not be called racist. At least, that's what i think.

 

[veloxStrix]

It's really weird.

It's can say I love chocolate, a game, and my wife and people will infer the difference.

But with racism, hold up, we need to delineate and define what you mean!

Wait, it's not weird at all. Just another tactic to help racists feel better and avoid discussion on the real issue.

Is someone who stabs a black person to death because of their color and someone who thinks the all black people enjoy grape soda on the same level? Would we not use the term racist to describe both? Racism is formed around sterotypes that then self-perpetuate themselves. Calling people evil because they are mistaken doesn't seem like a convincing and effective vehicle of social change.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

i'm struggling to understand this, if you're a racist, you're a racist. i don't think when people are discussing these things, being able to say "oh, he's the type that wouldn't give you a job racist but he wouldn't put a burning cross in your front yard type racist" would make any difference, and more often than not people know the context/circumstance/situation they are discussing no?

Well, as mentioned, the language used in the discussion isn't always the best at carrying across distinction and nuance. Simply saying 'Tolkien was racist', with no other qualification or stated context can imply that he's on the same level as other, more monstrous people, which can seem particularly at odds with well known points like his rebuke of Nazis and hatred of Apartheid. So people, particularly fans, become inclined to defend him entirely of wrongdoing, or leave his potential racism as an abstract up in the air, rather than realise the apparent dissonance within his work, and the ways in which - however much 'smaller' than yeah, burning crosses and shit - he used terrible stereotypes, however much the narrative itself states racism is bad.

And unfortunately, as this thread has demonstrated, people don't necessarily know the whole circumstances of what they're discussing, especially when there is a more recognisably popular version of the work in question that simultaneously trims a lot of the fat. It's an unfortunate aspect of trying to talk about Tolkien in general, nevermind for this particular subject.

 

[Skilletor]

But why you defending a racist, tho?

 

[lightskintwin]

So much for this being a fantasy.

 

[veloxStrix]

But why you defending a racist, tho?

Because I think the distinction is important in order to change society for the better rather than using a crucial social issue as a convenient platform to elevate myself above others.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Is someone who stabs a black person to death because of their color and someone who thinks the all black people enjoy grape soda on the same level? Would we not use the term racist to describe both? Racism is formed around sterotypes that then self-perpetuate themselves. Calling people evil because they are mistaken doesn't seem like a convincing and effective vehicle of social change.

Social change isn't going to be halted because people are calling Tolkien a racist so I dont see your point.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

But why you defending a racist, tho?

...that directed at me in particular, or the post above mine?

 

[FirmBizBws]

But why you defending a racist, tho?

Apparently there's levels of rascism now so we should feel differently as people of color depending on the type of racism exhibited onto us.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Is someone who stabs a black person to death because of their color and someone who thinks the all black people enjoy grape soda on the same level? Would we not use the term racist to describe both? Racism is formed around sterotypes that then self-perpetuate themselves. Calling people evil because they are mistaken doesn't seem like a convincing and effective vehicle of social change.

We're talking about someone who compared black faces to trolls. We aren't talking about grape soda, and no one is calling Tolkien evil. We are merely using a clear term that describes Tolkien's words accurately.

 

[thumb]

i'm struggling to understand this, if you're a racist, you're a racist. i don't think when people are discussing these things, being able to say "oh, he's the type that wouldn't give you a job racist but he wouldn't put a burning cross in your front yard type racist" would make any difference, and more often than not people know the context/circumstance/situation they are discussing no?

In terms of getting people to accept that others are "racist", I suspect it would make a difference, on average. In the US at least, the term "racist" almost always implies that stronger end of the spectrum. Getting people to realize that racism goes all the way down to subtle, unconscious biases is important.

 

[lightskintwin]

I know people hate any type of nuance or complexity in a lot of touchy subjects, but whether people like it or not there are degrees to racism, just like there are degrees of everything else and it is important to make those distinctions and give it full context.

 

[thumb]

It's really weird.

It's can say I love chocolate, a game, and my wife and people will infer the difference.

But with racism, hold up, we need to delineate and define what you mean!

Wait, it's not weird at all. Just another tactic to help racists feel better and avoid discussion on the real issue.

My whole point was about getting people to accept that others are racist more readily, not to "help racists feel better" or avoid discussion.

 

[Afrocious]

This does nothing for me. Sounds like a selling point.

 

[veloxStrix]

We're talking about someone who compared black faces to trolls. We aren't talking about grape soda, and no one is calling Tolkien evil. We are merely using a clear term that describes Tolkien's words accurately.

And yet you continue harping over that sentence without taking in the overarching message of Tolkien's novel, the post I made quoting you with the letters written by Tolkien that showed what seems to be a clear inclination away from the racist cant of the time, and the generally use of language throughout all of Tolkien's work with "black" almost never being in the way you are suggesting. If you are going to make an argument, make one that isn't embarrassingly poor and lazy. Odds are you'll ignore this post because you can't actually argue your point with anything more complex than "Its racists because it is."

Social change isn't going to be halted because people are calling Tolkien a racist so I dont see your point.

That's because you aren't considering the barriers to social change. People who argue against the ideas of racism in media - the Gamergate crowd, the alt-right, etc - derive more power than they should from the implicit argument that all racists are equal. It's portrayed as an absurdity, because to most sane people it is. Making bad arguments weakens your overarching premise in both the micro and macro. You aren't convincing anyone who isn't already convinced, you aren't changing anything. This thread is, for the most part, a circlejerk for people of the same mind and a reinforcement of the "SJW" profile that the right loves to peddle. If you need proof of this, look at the last election.

 

[FirmBizBws]

I know people hate any type of nuance or complexity in a lot of touchy subjects, but whether people like it or not there are degrees to racism, just like there are degrees of everything else and it is important to make those distinctions and give it full context.

So it's okay if you're a little racist but not if you're very racist? Right?

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Simply saying 'Tolkien was racist', with no other qualification or stated context can imply that he's on the same level as other, more monstrous people.

I've posted the black men/half troll quote three times in this thread. The quote needs no context, because it itself is an indicator of visceral prejudice, which is what racism is. I never said Tolkien was on the level of more monstrous people -- if you're making wild extrapolations, that's on you.

 

[lightskintwin]

So it's okay if you're a little racist but not if you're very racist? Right?

I don't think anybody said that, only that there are differences and degrees in racism that's worth noting and discussing.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I don't think anybody said that, only that there are differences and degrees in racism that's worth noting and discussing.

The first part to acknowledging degrees of racism is accepting that racism is present. From this thread it's pretty obvious we aint even at that point yet lol. And for reference I dont really care that Tolkien was racist, it's w/e. New era, new standards of acceptance. I am not stressing bout what some old dude wrote half a century ago.

 

[Skilletor]

Because I think the distinction is important in order to change society for the better rather than using a crucial social issue as a convenient platform to elevate myself above others.

You're welcome to believe that. I believe it'll do nothing but make racists feel better because they're not "KKK" type racists and they don't think they're hurting anybody.

It's not a discussion worth having. I won't take part in it.

...that directed at me in particular, or the post above mine?

Directed at everybody that wants to defend Tolkien on this issue. Racists aren't worth defending.

And yet you continue harping over that sentence without taking in the overarching message of Tolkien's novel, the post I made quoting you with the letters written by Tolkien that showed what seems to be a clear inclination away from the racist cant of the time, and the generally use of language throughout all of Tolkien's work with "black" almost never being in the way you are suggesting. If you are going to make an argument, make one that isn't embarrassingly poor and lazy.

Why should I give a fuck about Tolkien's overall message when it OBVIOUSLY doesn't include people of color within it?

 

[JonnyDBrit]

I've posted the black men/half troll quote three times in this thread. The quote needs no context, because it itself is an indicator of visceral prejudice, which is what racism is. I never said Tolkien was on the level of more monstrous people -- if you're making wild extrapolations, that's on you.

Well, that's just it. Your example is a good case of why people really shouldn't ignore the clear elements of Tolkien's prejudices even as Gimli and Legolas get over their own in the work - particularly as this is a discussion of Tolkien and his direct work, not say, Peter Jackson's adaptation thereof. Unfortunately that quote has gotten glossed over in the discussion, even when you bring it back up again, as Sam's musings about the Haradrim soldier have.

I'm just breaking down the unfortunate perspective that people are stuck in when it comes to critically analysing one of the most beloved authors in history.

 

[lightskintwin]

The first part to acknowledging degrees of racism is accepting that racism is present. From this thread it's pretty obvious we aint even at that point yet lol. And for reference I dont really care that Tolkien was racist, it's w/e. New era, new standards of acceptance. I am not stressing bout what some old dude wrote half a century ago.

LOL OK, you're definitely right about that.

 

[veloxStrix]

Why should I give a fuck about Tolkien's overall message when it OBVIOUSLY doesn't include people of color within it?

Because people are giving you clear examples of why you are wrong. Reverse that exact argument you are making and you will have a strong grasp on exactly what so many rural Americans feel about the current discourse on race. The logic you're standing on isn't so different from the racists you're declaiming.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

And yet you continue harping over that sentence without taking in the overarching message of Tolkien's novel, the post I made quoting you with the letters written by Tolkien that showed what seems to be a clear inclination away from the racist cant of the time, and the generally use of language throughout all of Tolkien's work with "black" almost never being in the way you are suggesting. If you are going to make an argument, make one that isn't embarrassingly poor and lazy.

I take all of that into account, and yet it is all that context is *irrelevant* to Tolkien's visceral disgust at black features, which is the most fundamental kind of racism there is. You can deflect and call me names all day long, but this passage is being quoted by best-selling novelists as hurtful. Tolkien's prejudice is crystal clear. I still like his work, but I'm not going to pretend that passage is something other than what it is.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Personally I can look past it (though it bothers me) when reading a book written in the 1940s by an otherwise insightful scholar, but I wish fantasy in general would get past the whole Light/Dark, White/Black, Good/Evil thing that it's had going since forever.

It's well past time, in my opinion.

I don't think you'll ever see the end of the black and white dualism. It predates the entire idea of race and is probably common across most cultures, not just western.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

LOL OK, you're definitely right about that.

Like I said. I don't care either way. It's just funny reading a thread where some are arguing "hey there is a difference between black people like grape soda and stabbing someone cause they're black" and the other half is arguing "Tolkien wasn't racist, wtf you talking about?"

Really highlights why some people dont wanna entertain degrees of severity here. But I am not personally gonna get worked up about something written over 50 years ago.

 

[Skilletor]

Because people are giving you clear examples of why you are wrong. Reverse that exact argument you are making and you will have a strong grasp on exactly what so many rural Americans feel about the current discourse on race. The logic you're standing on isn't so different from the racists you're declaiming.

Okay.

 

[Falchion]

Looks awesome! Glad they're brining some diversity into the cast.