That passage, in particular, reflects Churchill's quip about "separated by a common language." Comments about the racial implications of the "squint-eyed-Southerner" at Bree invariably come from Americans who are unfamiliar with British English- because in the UK, a "squint" means that the individual is cross-eyed; it has nothing to do with eyes pressed nearly closed, much less caricatures of Asians. (Also, naturally, it applies to that particular spy, not to Saruman's breeding experiments generally).

Where does Tolkien ever describe the Dunlendings as "swarthy?" At most he says that they are darker-complected than the ultrablonde Rohirrim; to me, anyway, the Dunlendings are calqued upon the Britons/Welsh, still resentful of being driven out of their lands by the Saxons. And the Welsh are "darker" than Nordic types, but certainly not African or even Mediterranean.

Now, one 'race' Tolkien regards as being do definitionally swarthy as to carry it as a name, with Capital Letters, are the Swarthy Men of the First Age. And the people of Ulfang and Uldor do turn out to be rat-bastards; but on the other hand those of Bor are noble and go down fighting against the traitors.

I beg to differ:

Thanks for pointing out the other meaning of squint-eyed. But it wasn't just the one Southener at Bree, he was just the first of Saruman's lot that we see of that physical description.

I was using the word liberally, as it's used in, say, Gondor, to indicate darker-complected regions. But you're right - it seems they were never called that, and maybe the description is not suitable for their actual appearance. I think this is a good point and a good parallel.

'Sallow', for what it's worth, is defined in the OED as 'Having a sickly yellow or brownish yellow colour'. They include one reference to 'the sallow Tartar', so it was sometimes applies to Asian people, but mostly it's a sickly tone when used of white people.

Lord Byron (the very same) manages to hit the Tolkien Racism Trifecta in his OED quote, from 'Corsair': "That man..Whose name appals..And tints each swarthy cheek with sallower hue."

And then, of course, there's the other 'sallow' race:

You know, since we're discussing Tolkien on racism. :)

The view I get from all of these quotes is that when he bothered to think about it, Tolkien was pretty good on racism. He specifically qualifies his Orc description as 'degraded and repulsive' - ie, this isn't what actual 'Mongol-types' are like - and throws in a 'to Europeans' on his 'least lovely', which seems to me an acknowledgement that it's the Europeans who are at fault in making that judgement. There hasn't been anything which jumps out as Tolkien thinking deeply about something and then making it unabashedly racist.

But, when he doesn't think deeply - when he writes about the generic Elvish appearance, or makes everyone from the South and East into The Enemy - he mirrors the racist attitudes of the time, with white-to-olive Goodies and brown-to-black Baddies.

To come back to Beowulf: yes, Tolkien probably did view the poem through a white, male gaze, and may have had difficulty pulling back from that. But what I've seen no evidence of is the notion that he insisted everyone else had to see things the same way he did, and that (to my memory) is what the article baselessly asserted.

hS

To be entirely frank, I don't see the problem here. Its a European piece of literature centered around a male(and white) hero. If it were say Mulan, or Oroonoko that deal primarily with non Europeans, then sure you can read that in the context of their culture.

Beowulf isn't intended to be understood from Grendel's perspective or his mother's perspective.

The very idea that "marginalized" voices must be given center stage is one of the most pernicious aspects of critical theory and postmodern "thinking" in general.

I think this is pretty much what I said when I first responded, so yeah. :)

There's nothing wrong with reading and analysing Beowulf from a perspective close to that of its protagonist. What would be wrong would be if Tolkien had insisted that there was no other way to read it. Of course there are other ways! What does it tell us about the Geats' attitude towards strangers that their big story is about monsters? What does it tell us about the Saxons that their big story is about Geats? What can we speculate might be the Geats' attitude towards women, or disabled persons, based on the information contained in Beowulf (and the information not contained in it - if there are no women in prominent roles, for instance, that tells us something about both the mythic society, and the society of the people who preserved it). There's a dozen dozen ways of looking at it.

But one of those ways, and the one that should be the foundation of study, is the question of what the writer thought about what they were writing about. And that, as far as we know*, was indeed a white, male gaze.

hS

*I think? Wikipedia talks about monks, so... I guess male. Almost certainly white.**

**The question here is 'would a woman or an ethnic outsider have composed a poem about a big burly man killing an ethnic outsider and a woman?'

Middle-earth was calqued upon western Europe, in fact is feigned to have been a prehistoric western Europe... where, historically, the invaders and ravagers always came from the south and the east.

Um, less "ethnic outsider" than "supernatural monster." Do we class Cthulhu as an "ethnic outsider"?

People actually have, as nonsensical as it is.