Anti-Dwarves

[Snorri Swifthammer]

There is nothing against dwarves because we are too tough to corrupt and too intimidating to stand against!

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

Now let me explain, with the other races the good/evil dichotmy is an external struggle. The elves and orcs fight physically and externally. However, with the dwarves it is a fight of their noble self vs. their base desires (best represented by their greed.) Dwarven greed is the Dwarves' greatest enemy and leads to their greatest conflicts. It is greed that drove the Dwarves to kill elves and take the necklace (with the Simral) and it was greed that caused the dwarves of Bilbo's group to turn against the elves and humans which led to the Battle of Five Armies.

So it goes to show that since Dwarves are so impressive the only respectable enemy is another Dwarf.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

So it goes to show that since Dwarves are so impressive the only respectable enemy is another Dwarf.

Sounds a lot like Star Trek's Klingons...

And though I understand your point, I'm not sure that the 'internal struggle' qualifies. It's known that Sauron used the Seven Rings to 'tip the scale' in the bearer's internal struggle, but these same did not turn them into wraiths, uber-orcs, dragons, etc - just greedier dwarves.

And there's a line in the books that says something like, "surely to other dwarves a greedy dwarf may appear different, but..."

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

There is nothing against dwarves because we are too tough to corrupt and too intimidating to stand against!

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

Now let me explain, with the other races the good/evil dichotmy is an external struggle. The elves and orcs fight physically and externally. However, with the dwarves it is a fight of their noble self vs. their base desires (best represented by their greed.) Dwarven greed is the Dwarves' greatest enemy and leads to their greatest conflicts. It is greed that drove the Dwarves to kill elves and take the necklace (with the Simral) and it was greed that caused the dwarves of Bilbo's group to turn against the elves and humans which led to the Battle of Five Armies.

I'd have to agree with this post. The only true anti Dwarf is a Dwarf himself.

I think we can see the dwarvish resistance in Gimli's account of "Sauron's offer." Sauron offered them land, wealth, and power, what dwarves supposedly want right? He was also using the element of fear (the black rider), but Dain said "ummm...no." Also, it is Gimli who first rejects the voice of Saruma in the...Voice of Saruman chapter.

Interesting point, but let us not forget the seven rings of power. Even when the Dwarves had the rings Sauron could still not bend them to his will, as he had hoped.

[Groin Redbeard]

Wait a minute, I think I have the answer!

I think the anti-Dwarf is the Easterling.

From what I know of Easterlings they were skilled in craftmen, skilled warriors, and may even be half Dwarf.

I was reading a book on the cultures of Middle Earth and it said that during the War of the Ring itself, Easterlings are described as perhaps belonging to more than one culture, plus the Variags of Khand. One group is described as a "new" kind of Easterling that the men of Gondor had previously not encountered; fierce bearded men with axes.

[zxcvbn]

The evil counterpart to the Dwarves are simply evil Dwarves. Yes, Dwarves were not as corruptible as Men, and few ever directly served the forces of evil(referring, I suppose, to Sauron and Morgoth). But they were still prone to evil sometimes and committed 'their fair share of rash and greedy acts'(quoting wikipedia which I know isn't all that accurate). In general, the Dwarves of the Western Houses(Longbeards, Firebeards, Broadbeams) were on the good side, but the Dwarves of the Eastern Houses did get corrupted. According the the essay 'Of Dwarves and Men'(sadly, I don't have it with me now) they fell into evil and some even fought for Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance. Also, some tried to enslave Men in early days.
The Hobbit makes this clear.

in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them

and

some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots

Note that in FOTR at the Council of Elrond Gloin says

we knew already that the power that has re-entered Mordor has not changed, and ever it betrayed us of old

indicating that the Dwarves were only friendly with Sauron.

Also, Gimli clearly distinguishes his Dwarf-House's status WRT Sauron

My folk have never had dealings with any of the servants of the Enemy

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

The evil counterpart to the Dwarves are simply evil Dwarves. Yes, Dwarves were not as corruptible as Men, and few ever directly served the forces of evil(referring, I suppose, to Sauron and Morgoth). But they were still prone to evil sometimes and committed 'their fair share of rash and greedy acts'(quoting wikipedia which I know isn't all that accurate). In general, the Dwarves of the Western Houses(Longbeards, Firebeards, Broadbeams) were on the good side, but the Dwarves of the Eastern Houses did get corrupted. According the the essay 'Of Dwarves and Men'(sadly, I don't have it with me now) they fell into evil and some even fought for Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance.

I don't get this stuff with the opposite of the Dwarf race is the Dwarf race. You can use that type of logic for anything.

You could say that Grima and the Wild Men of Dunland fought against the kingdom of Rohan. Does that mean that the opposite of the race of men is the race of men? By all means no, it just means that a small part of the race was bad; that doesn't mean that they're the Anti-Men, and it's the same with Dwarves.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I don't get this stuff with the opposite of the Dwarf race is the Dwarf race. You can use that type of logic for anything.

Then what are the anti-Dwarves, or did Tolkien (via Melkor etc?) not create them?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Then what are the anti-Dwarves, or did Tolkien (via Melkor etc?) not create them?

Were there any? It seems Eru had a plan of sorts - he made his Ainur, they created a vision of the world, Eru brought it to life. That whole shebang included Morgoth, Morgoth's visions, his creations etc. It seems reasonable to think Eru may have caused things to be 'paired', maybe as a response to what Morgoth sang of, maybe it was intended that way all along...but Dwarves are outside of this.

They were made outside and away from the Music. They only got life because Eru felt sorry for Aule's creations. So it would make perfect sense if Dwarves didn't have any natural enemy or opposite.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by alatar

Then what are the anti-Dwarves, or did Tolkien (via Melkor etc?) not create them?

I've given this some thought and I've given up the idea of the Easterlings being Anti-Dwarf's, if anything they're Anti-Gondorian.

I'm still not going for that Anti- Dwarf is the Anti- Dwarf, because, like I said before, you can use that kind of logic with any scenerio. Probably Goblins with be the next likely source for me.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

From what I know of Easterlings they were skilled in craftmen, skilled warriors, and may even be half Dwarf.

Say what...?

[Groin Redbeard]

As in my previous post I explained on how the men of Gondor encountered heavily bearded Easterling men wielding axes. Now, as far as I know, Easterlings and Dwarves are almost always at war. It is my theory that maybe these races mingled and made a new type of race: DWARFSTERLINGS!

But that's just my own opinion.

[Kuruharan]

It is my theory that maybe these races mingled and made a new type of race: DWARFSTERLINGS!

But that's just my own opinion.

At least you're not claiming that its something based on Tolkien.

Given the secretive nature of Tolkien's dwarves toward outsiders, I find it unlikely that they would be willing to intermarry with anybody else...especially when you consider how few of them married in the first place.