You think you've read drivel? You haven't read drivel until you've read this

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

In all fairness, the presence of football is not what I look for in a pub.

I don't see how it's possible to address a highly racially charged article (which in my view is deeply and intentionally racist) without engaging with the politics that seem to lie at the very core of its being. This obsession with identity has largely driven me from the internet, because it insists on reducing every individual person to inborn characteristics over which they have no control; every relationship to an inevitable clash of those identities in abusive power dynamics. I've seen it before, from the opposite direction. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Tolkien was very much opposed to literary criticism in his subject and was a champion of the linguistic approach. I'm sure that the lit side of the English School would have welcomed with open arms the modern critical techniques approach, but it was not Tolkien's way. If you want to make it about race you have to earn it. You have to prove that Tolkien didn't want to hear a black man's perspective and that it had nothing to do with his well-documented distaste for contemporary critical theory. Throwing in all those references to Tolkien being South African, which are intended to dredge up memories of Apartheid, is blatantly disingenuous. Tolkien wrote a letter to CRT (Letters #61) in which he explicitly condemns that system, saying "...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."

That, however, wouldn't suit the author's purposes. Her story is the racist famous academic holding back the Jamaican-born Rhodes scholar. Because those are the only grounds on which anybody can judge anyone, apparently. I prefer the provable story of a language specialist trying to hold back the ever-encroaching tide of literary criticism in English schools. Odd, since Tolkien champions in his essay the treatment of Beowulf as literature rather than a mine for information. It was a bitter struggle, though, and hard fought. I'm sure that such injustices were committed by both sides of it.

Writers of articles like these are professional activists. They make a living by declaring prejudice to exist, and arguing against them is considered proof of prejudice that invalidates opinion. You might as well debate theology with Matthew Hopkins as get involved in their game.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

In all fairness, the presence of football is not what I look for in a pub.

I don't see how it's possible to address a highly racially charged article (which in my view is deeply and intentionally racist) without engaging with the politics that seem to lie at the very core of its being. This obsession with identity has largely driven me from the internet, because it insists on reducing every individual person to inborn characteristics over which they have no control; every relationship to an inevitable clash of those identities in abusive power dynamics. I've seen it before, from the opposite direction. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Tolkien was very much opposed to literary criticism in his subject and was a champion of the linguistic approach. I'm sure that the lit side of the English School would have welcomed with open arms the modern critical techniques approach, but it was not Tolkien's way. If you want to make it about race you have to earn it. You have to prove that Tolkien didn't want to hear a black man's perspective and that it had nothing to do with his well-documented distaste for contemporary critical theory. Throwing in all those references to Tolkien being South African, which are intended to dredge up memories of Apartheid, is blatantly disingenuous. Tolkien wrote a letter to CRT (Letters #61) in which he explicitly condemns that system, saying "...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."

That, however, wouldn't suit the author's purposes. Her story is the racist famous academic holding back the Jamaican-born Rhodes scholar. Because those are the only grounds on which anybody can judge anyone, apparently. I prefer the provable story of a language specialist trying to hold back the ever-encroaching tide of literary criticism in English schools. Odd, since Tolkien champions in his essay the treatment of Beowulf as literature rather than a mine for information. It was a bitter struggle, though, and hard fought. I'm sure that such injustices were committed by both sides of it.

Writers of articles like these are professional activists. They make a living by declaring prejudice to exist, and arguing against them is considered proof of prejudice that invalidates opinion. You might as well debate theology with Matthew Hopkins as get involved in their game.

Well said. Kim's paper is nothing more or less than race-based trolling: factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

'Higher caliber of sport' is an interesting phrase here. I'm pretty sure having external gonads doesn't increase your tactical or technical skill, so what I think you're really saying is that it's more energetic. And sure, I can accept that - but why is that the only factor that counts in making it a 'higher caliber'? Could it be because that's the attribute men outperform in...?

Strength and speed. Men have greater muscle density and mass both, have longer legs proportionally and have pelvises better adapted to running, jumping and kicking. If we extend the discussion to basketball, add height: women's basketball is dull (and flopped on American television) because it's played (slowly) below the rim.

And there's no question that networks choose to broadcast the highest level of competition available. Which match is Sky or ITV going to air: Liverpool vs Man City, or Colchester vs Sutton Walden? Over here, TV networks broadcast major-league baseball, not minor-league.

[Rhun charioteer]

The original audience of Beuowulf would not have associated Grendel or his mother with africans, the sons of Ham, or anything of the kind. At best the author is assuming Tolkien or the English scholars would have imposed some sort of 19th century Racial nous on the text-which...maybe happened? Tolkien wasn't however interested in...what did 19th century race theorists or 17th century writers who would have said things like, "the sons of Ham have been cursed into subjection" thought about the text(also it wasn't rediscovered until the 18th century so).


But then again, this is the sort of "scholarship" that is why academia by and large is a useless waste of time.

On that note-the idea of "marginalized" voices is just stupid. It permeates critical theory and modern academic discourse. Essentially it comes down to a Foucaltian idea of the world, those with unjust privilege speak and those who are oppressed can't. Which is not the sort of view the ancient anglo Saxons would have had and is definitely something Tolkien would have found nonsensical.

[Morthoron]

Historical negationism. I find the whole decades-long rush to revisionism a distasteful aspect of academia. One should discount anyone imparting a modern worldview on people(s) in the past, even in a relatively short 50-100 year time period.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Historical negationism. I find the whole decades-long rush to revisionism a distasteful aspect of academia. One should discount anyone imparting a modern worldview on people(s) in the past, even in a relatively short 50-100 year time period.

Sadly, it's a popular pursuit these days. The Holier Than Thou-Moral High Ground approach seems to me just a means for some in Academia to flaunt their "progressive" credentials.
It's doubly disgusting to me when applied to Tolkien. The man was by no means perfect, but his works clearly exhibit a respect and compassion for those of many races and creeds.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Historical negationism. I find the whole decades-long rush to revisionism a distasteful aspect of academia. One should discount anyone imparting a modern worldview on people(s) in the past, even in a relatively short 50-100 year time period.

The wonderful term I've heard for the movement - which goes far beyond academia, although it originated there - is disintegrationism. Basically weaponized Adorno.

Not that Prof. Gibberish linked above has ever read Adorno-- or the Book of Genesis, either. Cain is not Ham, ya maroon!

[Morthoron]

Did anyone notice the editor's emendation at the end of the article:

Editors’ note: This essay has been updated to reflect the fact that while Tolkien may be considered South African by measure of his birthplace, he moved to England as a toddler.

This quite literally shows the author did not do her research and based her diatribe on a false presentiment of Tolkien's view of his citizenship. He was British as a toddler living in South Africa, and he remained British for the rest of his life. His parents were British and only moved to South Africa based on his father's bank promotion. He did not consider himself any more a South African than he did a German based on his Prussian heritage. Therefore, the comment by Stuart Hall:

“But when I tried to apply contemporary literary criticism to these texts, my ascetic South African language professor told me in a pained tone that this was not the point of the exercise.”

Would be impertinent at best, and a wholesale fabrication at worst, because I have never read anywhere that Tolkien referred to himself at anytime as South African. This would be particularly egregious because the quote allegedly was made in the 1950s. I could not imagine Tolkien himself or any of his students referring to him as "South African".