Enemies

[Raynor]

the Woses were hunted & killed because they were ugly, secretive & wary?

I guess I will have to restate my opinion several times in this thread. The exact cause of the attacks is not known. Tolkien states that the drugs weren't recognised as humans. These are, more or less, the facts. What I added to them was presenting various circumstances that could have misled any judgement of their race by an uninformed observer. When Merry hears them talking, he thought it was drums he was hearing; their laughter is a gurgling noise; their looks are unpleasant (I accept your points on fairness). Other, more "civilised" features is the use of poisonous arrows and the transfer of magic to objects. These times of deceit and fear, with the enemy always working to spread lies (isn't that Melkor's most powerful weapon?); people of the same race have been turned against each other from the beginning - even more against other races, or races displaying questionable features or behaviours. People of good moral standing have been constantly deceived. What I am saying is that we have much too little information and way too many signs of evil interference to assign moral blame.

This seems like Rohirrim propaganda.

Concerning events of the First Age??

[Lalwendë]

*smashes head against wall*

Originally Posted by Raynor

Before I comment on the difference between cognitive and moral abilities, let me get this straight: do you actually mean this??

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

I'm talking about the Rohirrim.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.

Sorry. Not that clear cut I'm afraid. There are far too many examples of when characters misjudge by appearances, so Tolkien clearly did not equate beauty with goodness and he clearly did ask us to examine our own prejudices.

In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books. I'm not sure why you are trying to gather up evidence which excuses characters from and condones their indulging in racist and prejudiced behaviour? Are you Michael Moorcock by any chance?

[Raynor]

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.

I was and am genuinely puzzled by your idea. I apologise if my comment was out of line. So, I am curious, where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books.

I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

[Rhod the Red]

"The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case."

Thankfully we don't have to face such terrible flaws in our world, lesser ones currently call attention, But the arrangements Tolkien has is both consistant with the real world and sophisticated enough for the storylines to be very interesting.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Concerning events of the First Age??

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.

That is a possibility; although I find this depiction as consistent with the little information we gather about the drugs in LotR. Moreover, I don't see the Rohirrim as influential as to distort the lore of the past ages in other cultures as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of justifying racism, but this does open up a wider question, in that fiction is not reportage, & when a writer introduces these kind of situations into his work he must have a reason even if he doesn't have an agenda.

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable. Now Tolkien is very clear about good & evil within M-e - he makes moral judgements regarding the behaviour of Morgoth, Sauron, the Ringwraiths, Orcs & other servants of evil - he condemns their behaviour out of hand.

So, when we are presented with the Rohirrim's behaviour as regards both the Woses & the Dunlendings we require him to present just as clearly his position on that. Therefore, he must either state that it is wrong or that it is fine - it cannot merely be 'understandable in the circumstances'.

Personally, I feel he does make clear his position - which is that the behaviour of the Rohirrim is wrong - he may not say it in so many words, but in the way he presents Ghan & the Woses in LotR & in the words of Gamling, he shows up the Rohirrim (or at least their leaders) as a people who were ignorant & cruel at times, & who saw the two races who inhabited their land as 'sub human'. Now, I could see Eomer & Erkenbrand hunting the Woses to their deaths, but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords. His words to Eomer regarding the Dunlendings would be completely unnecessary if Tolkien believed that the Dunlendings were 'subhuman'. In fact Tolkien's own tale 'The Faithful Stone' confirms that he didn't see the Woses in the way the Rohirrim did.

The great danger is that we take a simplistic 'good' guys vs 'bad' guys approach, & decide, well, the Rohirrim were 'good' & therefore they had no faults & thus were not capable of 'racism', or at least of 'cultural supremicism'. Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.

So, could it be they believed that they were servants of the enemy? I doubt it. Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them. In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'. And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.

I don;t see any way around this - Eomer typifies an attitude - because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them. If he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Dunlendings it is hardly surprising he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Woses. Yet this is clearly a choice he makes.

But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.

Of course we see the same kind of 'racism' displayed by the Numenoreans in regard to the inhabitants of Endor, & this 'attitude' of cultural supremicism runs right down the ages of Arda, with races claiming the moral high ground & using, abusing & often killing those of a 'lower' race.

As I stated, I think Tolkien meant to depict this kind of behaviour as racist & as morally wrong. I don't think we can deny it is there.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.

Recently it's been observed that some chimpanzees have used crude spears for hunting, yet many people (with the exception of Richard Dawkins) would consider this species 'animal.' However, like chimpanzees, even if the Woses were 'animals,' why, exactly were they hunted? I'm guessing not for food, as no one is observed salivating at the sight of Ghân-buri-Ghân, nor for territory, as the Drúadan Forest did not seem the type of place that the Rohirrim preferred. Maybe the Gondorians hunted them while traversing the Woses' lands early in the Third Age (and before), as they were a nuisance, but not sure why the Rohirrim did unless it were for sport, which to me is more orc-like than not.

The statues of the Púkel-men, lining the road to Dunharrow, show that at one time men knew more about these mysterious creatures than in latter days.

Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.

[Raynor]

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable.

Orome and his host were hunting down fell beasts, as his fight against evil and I know no incrimination of him. So this sets a precendent of a way to combat evil.

The Eldar hunted the petty dwarves, seeing them as dangerous beasts, which attack them. I am not aware that their actions, as long as they didn't know about the dwarves (which happened later) are incriminated anywhere. Do you think the Eldar did a wrong thing?

but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords.

Then again, one should ask if Gamling really recognised the voices of the dunlendings when they were making their war cries, most likely together with the orcs, or if he simply presumed they were there, knowing of their alliance. My impression is that the later happened. .

Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows.

This presumes they knew that; we have no such evidence. We have zero evidence of what happened then. I don't see what relevant conclusion we can draw, besides noting a tragedy.

Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them.

How many other races use poisoned darts? Chris doesn't rule out their likeliness; after mentioning the idea of orcs being related to humans, he quotes the description of Ghan: "Hh is described as having a scanty beard that "straggled on his lumpy chin like dry moss," and dark eyes that showed nothing"; previously, it was stated that their eyes are red when angry. I don't have a description of orcs handy, but perhaps it would help if someone could present it.

In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'.

I think you are describing an ideal "hunt". Again, we really don't know the context of the attacks.

And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.

If you are intent on speculating on a passing refference, then just as well there may have been no casualty. There is zero evidence either way. Can't we accept that? This is leading nowhere.

because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them.

He doesn't "see" them actually. He hears war cries, most likely mingled with the orcs's. He doesn't know there are any Men there; he simply makes remark on what he hears.

But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.

Where is it stated that Eomer viewed them otherwise anytime??

Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.

This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.

Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).

[davem]

Scene: Edoras before the departure for Helm's Deep. Eowyn takes her brother aside for a final heart to heart....

Eowyn: You know, that's the thing I don't really understand about you, Eomer.
You're a professional soldier, and yet, sometimes you sound as though
you bally well haven't enjoyed soldiering at all.

Eomer: Well, you see, sis, I did like it, back in the old days when the
prerequisite of a Rohirric campaign was that the enemy should under
no circumstances carry bows -- even spears made us think twice. The
kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with
dry grass.

Eowyn: Now, come off it, brother -- what about Druadan Forest, for heaven's sake?

Eomer: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Druadan warriors
armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle,
instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).

Lies have been used to corrupt maiar, to kindle strife among the noldor, and to bring about the fall of Men. It is even mentioned in the Silmarillion that Melkor dispersed his might through lies too - that must account for something, seeing that he falls from being the most powerful vala to less than a maia ("Sauron was 'greater', effectively, in the Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First" ~ Myths Transformed). Melkor sow deceit of "old and ever anew", which bears fruit as long as Arda lasts.

[Lalwendë]

Getting back to the point and using the examples I've found (I will have a deeper look into RotK as soon as I can), something emerges. In the Barrack Room Ballad we hear the voice of the ordinary soldier, the one who actually gets out there and does the fighting in the modern world. He gives his respect for the opposing warrior as a fighter, now although we don't really see this from the leaders in LotR, we do see it from the foot soldiers. As shown by Gamling's deeper understanding of the Dunlendings. He recognises them as a people unlike his leader Eomer, he knows their language and what they say in direct contrast to Eomer's blatant and blinded prejudice.

Actually this recalls Tolkien's own role in war as a signals officer. He would have known and understood different methods of communication and language in contrast to his superiors who would not; his role would have been very much like Gamling's, to interpret and ultimately to correct his superiors.

Also from seeing the responses of Sam and Frodo, another two very low ranking individuals without leadership responsibilities, we see that it could indeed be the more 'humble' involved in this war who do show respect to their enemies. That's in contrast to Eomer's derogatory comments and the disrespectful killing games of Legolas and Gimli. I suspect that if we dig down and look at the words and actions of some of the 'foot soldiers' we might see some different responses. Just like it's a couple of Hobbits who 'save' Middle-earth, not Gandalf or some high-falutin' Elf, it's the ordinary soldiers who view the enemies as people whereas their leaders see them merely as smelly, animalistic obstacles.

It seems as the story develops we see changes happening, the Rohirrim for example moving forwards from their prejudiced ways into learning to accept other races, even enemy ones, which would eventually lead in to the more modern way of viewing an enemy as not merely something almost inorganic to be slaughtered but as a fellow human who deserves respect even in the fury of war. Rather like the move Tolkien saw from the sheer brutality exercised by Nazi leaders against their enemies to the standard of respect for POWs hoped for under the Geneva Convention.