A question about class in Middle Earth

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

It would depend on exactly the Age you are referring to and what specifics you are inquiring about. Elves had effectively removed themselves from most traffic with Men by the 3rd Age (save for the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood, who still did business with the Men of Laketown), but in the 3rd Age one doesn't find the fealty extant in the 1st Age between Elves and Men (where the Edain in many cases were under vassalage to Elvish Lords).

Men independently of Elves had caste systems (readily apparent in Rohan, as there was a definite feeling of inferiority among the Dunlenders towards the Rohirrim), and certainly there was a nobility present in Gondor (where lineage to Numenor would play an important role). Dwarves had their lords as well, and even the Hobbits had a squirearchy of sorts, with leading families holding sway over territories in the Shire (the Brandybucks and the Tooks for instance). There is certainly an intimation of class in the manner in which Bilbo and Frodo have employed the Gamgees.

[Sauron the White]

May I ask a question here? It seems to an American that the British are absolutely obsessed with the idea of social class and where one stands on the class structure. Could someone explain this? Over the years, it seems that every other British film, or films set in British life, have class as its central or one of its more important themes. Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.

I think of the excellent film REMAINS OF THE DAY and its fixation on the roles of the classes and I could come up with hundreds of other examples.

I do not mean to hijack this thread and do not want to do so... but the topic introduced here seems central to this understanding.

Thank you.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Over the years, it seems that every other British film, or films set in British life, have class as its central or one of its more important themes. Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.

There were no classes in early human history. Indeed the classes were introduced by the advent of neolithic (and pastoral) cultures about 8000 years ago. From there (modern day Iraq) they spread to Egypt, Greece, Rome... and then to Europe - the same developement can be seen in India and China as well; places where agricultural societies replaced the old hunter-gatherer societies. So the class society has it's roots in the earliest civilizations - in good and bad.

American indians were hunter-gatherers.

When the Europeans started to flux to America during the 16th century, they were mainly outlaws and protestants who were persecuted for their faith. In the "promised land" they thought the doctrine that fit only too well to their own status would be fine: every man is the maker of his own fortune - and God will follow closely how it goes. Calvinism - one of the major faiths of those immigrating to the Americas - says that those who are rich are approved by God and those who are poor are abhorred by Him.

Looking at the available "empty land" (the original Americans eg. the indians were not counted as humans having a pledge to their country) to be taken and the individualistic thread of European thought that started to evolve from the 14th century onwards (William ockham & Duns Scotus and their voluntarism added with the ideas of reformation a few hundred years after) the idea of a free Man being able to make his fortunes became a myth sought after by many and felt real in the new continent open for all possibilities.

There were no classes then in the becoming U.S., just free individuals doing their best and earning what was fit to them. But in part that was self-deceiving already at that time as some people had very different angles of departure as the others, like the aristocracy of the old world settling to the U.S. beside these outcasts...

Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.

Ahh.

Class is nothing important? Look at the statistics of black males with no education and compare it to highly educated parent's white children... No classes? Or look at the so called "white trash"... Education, wealth of the family... class.

Rising and falling on your own abilities? Well Napoleon in France got this idea two hundred years ago. It's called meritocracy. He decided to get away with the old aristocracy in his army and appointed capable soldiers to his staff.

Everyone for his merits, right? But how do you gain merits from starting points where you have no chance for education or benevolence?

Yes, some people do it. The story of Obama sounds like a fairy tale proving the point. But then again millions of people never achieve it.

You know, anyone can win a national lottery. Yes, anyone. But only one does and the millions of others do not win but lose. The stories that tell you about a guy who was a poor kid and became a millionaire are true, but not possible for everyone. Anyone can be a millionaire, but everyone can't - and the ones who are, are that by luck (my opinion) - it's the same logic as why everyone can't be celebrities.

It's a question of rarity - according to which being fat was sexy during the Middle-ages and the early new age...

Only a few can be rich / different / celebrities / whatever...

And that pertains to the classs-question as well. We can't all be high-middle-class... If we are, being high middle-class will wane and become nauseating mediocrity and leaves us with a great nausea towards the very rich and in shame in relation to the really poor.

It's the law of the market economy that those who have will get more and those who have not will lose even the little they have. Jesus had insight to say this in the Bible already - even if I find it troubling that he seems to approve of that...

So you can say it's the individual and not the class but I'd say it's (sadly) the class still whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

May I ask a question here? It seems to an American that the British are absolutely obsessed with the idea of social class and where one stands on the class structure. Could someone explain this? Over the years, it seems that every other British film, or films set in British life, have class as its central or one of its more important themes. Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.

I think of the excellent film REMAINS OF THE DAY and its fixation on the roles of the classes and I could come up with hundreds of other examples.

I do not mean to hijack this thread and do not want to do so... but the topic introduced here seems central to this understanding.

As an American, I am sure it would be presumptuous for me to answer for the English contingent; however, since Americans are, as a rule, regarded as rude, I shall sally forth with a brief explanation anyway.

First, Universal Male Suffrage was not an established fact in Britain until well into the 20th century. Even though there were important reform acts in 1832, 1867 and 1884, much of the voting rights for men were based on income requirements (voting rights were originally only available to Protestant -- particularly Anglican -- landowners for the most part). For instance, up until 1832 great industrial cities like Manchester and Birmingham had no representation in parliament; whereas a 'Rotten Burrough' out in the country -- which might consist of perhaps 100 souls and a few sheep (and controlled by a single family for generations) -- had an MP representing them. An excellent summarization can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A545195

Second, for most of the history of British Parliament there was no direct salary for MP's. A member of the House of Commons was expected to be well-off enough to be able to maintain himself and his family without the need for recompense from the government (and thus govern the country with irreproachable discernment and enlightenment unmuddied by the crass need for actually working for a living). It was not until 1911 that MPs received a regular salary:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf

This patrician view of a ruling class was self-perpetuating, and almost hereditary (with such famous families as the Churchills, Cecils and Pitts as examples), and reached its zenith in the Edwardian Age preceding WWI. An excellent book regarding class in that time period in Britain (as well as political overviews of France, Russia and the U.S.) is Barabra Tuchman's The Proud Tower.

Thus, a rigid stratification of class structure evolved over many centuries, and the rule of law was reserved for those constituents who were the landed part of the establishment. One only has to read the novels of Dickens or Austen to ascertain what a middle-class person could aspire to (but not step beyond one's station), or what was the eternal lot of the inveterate poor.

Sorry for the brevity of the explanation, but I don't think it's necessary to go into it further and drag this thread too far afield.

P.S. StW, Nogrod has a valid point regarding class in the U.S. Your statement "Here in the States, class is nothing important" is naive. Though there has always been the ability to pull oneself up by the boots straps and be successful in a stereotypical Horatio Alger manner, the fact remains that class stratification is a fact in the U.S. as a careful study of American government will confirm.

[Sauron the White]

Nogrod - I am not arguing that class is not a fctor in ones life. I only aksed why in British films it seems that class is THE ISSUE in so many films.

By the way, I taught for 33 years in a Detroit high school and saw all kinds of people make it well beyond their parents status. Smarts, hard work and a bit of luck all helps. Everyone got, and still does get, a free public education. Some make the most of the opportunity while others flush it down the toilet.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Nogrod - I am not arguing that class is not a fctor in ones life. I only aksed why in British films it seems that class is THE ISSUE in so many films.

Sure. No problem. You just gave me a lead I couldn't resist to follow...

And yes, the Brits seem to be so attached to their centuries of glory to whitewash all their problems today... That's why they cling to the films of aristocracy as a national passtime or as the "good old" workers... Like the world hadn't changed and reshuffled the cards already...

By the way, I taught for 33 years in a Detroit high school and saw all kinds of people make it well beyond their parents status. Smarts, hard work and a bit of luck all helps. Everyone got, and still does get, a free public education. Some make the most of the opportunity while others flush it down the toilet.

That's the argument for individualism: one can rise above the expectations. And some people do it. And that's great.

The story still is that looking at the statistics those who are children of white (or black) high-educated parents will do well with percentage X (a high one) and those who are the children of low income black (white) single-parent households will do bad with a percentage Y (a high one).

Having these numbers can you still say it's a question of a personal merit only? I mean, yes it in a way is. A few people jump over the fence and a few fall down. But what is the foreseen career you're able to reach unless you perform extremerly well / poor? Some people just have better starting points - and in today's world I'd call that a class-difference. In the eighties it was smoother but now we're going back to the class society of the early 20th century or the late 19th.

And that's sad.

[Bêthberry]

Dragging this back to Tolkien . . .

There are kings among several of the races in Middle-earth, men, elves and dwarves. There are also hereditary positions, such as Gondor's Stewards. There are many references to noble blood, with the idea that the highest form of behaviour is shown by those with such blood. Gondor's ruling class seems mighty concerned with its Numenorean heritage, as if that gave them some sort of special dispensation. Both Rohan and Gondor have formal burial grounds for their kings/stewards, but we don't hear (as I recall) much about where the ordinary folks are buried. Aragorn must earn his throne, but he is still a king in waiting and his son--right of primogeniture--inherits his throne. (We aren't even ever told the name of his daughter.)

Contrasted with this pervasive backdrop are the Hobbits, who might not have a king but they do have, as Morthoron points out, a class society, as evidenced in the Gamgees and the Tooks/Brandybucks and Sam's term of address for Frodo. Of course, the fact that Sam becomes mayor many times over adds a suggestion that the class society which is otherwise displayed all over Middle-earth will have some mobility in the 4th Age, yet even there we have the paternalism of the King decreeing who shall have access to the Shire.

There is much niggling over class in Middle-earth, as there is over many of Tolkien's themes.

EDIT: I rather like Morthoron's patrician to describe the sense of class in LotR.

[Nerwen]

StW, Yes, England has a reputation for being particularly class-obsessed. Morthoron has outlined some of the historical reasons why this may be the case.

However, inequality is a fact of life everywhere– including America.

I am Australian, and here you also get people saying that we live in a classless society... even though this clearly contradicts daily experience.

Yes, people at the very bottom of the heap can be there because they're feckless, and many people rise through their own efforts– but overall a lot depends on opportunity. Middle class and upper class kids get much more of it than working class ones. From everything I know of the United States, it's much the same there.

EDIT: X'd with Nogrod and Bethberry.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Dragging this back to Tolkien . . .

A good idea.

I think - and all you cognoscenti should teach me about this if I'm wrong - that Tolkien was an aristocrat. And there being a possibility of being an aristocracy requires a class society to begin with...

One may say that he wrote the legendarium of the old world which was not his contemporary world and the society he portrays can be explained from that angle.

But yet I feel it was a world not totally unattractive to him. Like the ideas Plato brings forwards with Socrates as his mouthpiece in his dialogues: they were not things he thought were the final truth but nevertheless they were not totally against his own position...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Dragging this back to Tolkien . . . I rather like Morthoron's patrician to describe the sense of class in LotR.

Interestingly enough, Smeagol's Stoor line that remigrated from the area of the Angle and settled back in the Vales of Anduin was matriarchal (or at least, that's the assumption based on the gleanings we get from Tolkien), one of the few instances (Haleth and perhaps Galadriel -- being equipollent with Celeborn -- being others) where strong female leaders were present. I suppose you could add the ruling queens of Numenor before Ar-Pharazon usurped the crown and forced marriage upon the last presumptive queen, Miriel. Sadly, thereafter primogeniture seems to have been the rule in Gondor among the kings and ruling stewards (as you perceptively stated, the daughters of Elessar didn't even warrant a mention).

[Lindale]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

May I ask a question here? It seems to an American that the British are absolutely obsessed with the idea of social class and where one stands on the class structure. Could someone explain this? Over the years, it seems that every other British film, or films set in British life, have class as its central or one of its more important themes. Here in the States, class is nothing important. It is understood that you will rise or fall on the basis of yourself and your abilities.

I think of the excellent film REMAINS OF THE DAY and its fixation on the roles of the classes and I could come up with hundreds of other examples.

I do not mean to hijack this thread and do not want to do so... but the topic introduced here seems central to this understanding.

Thank you.

A risky business, to equate a man's literary work with his political stances. But then, you may also argue that no literary work is not political.

In my experience, class has everything to do with one's life. A man from the lower classes strives to get up the social ladder, while those in the upper echelons (who aren't Paris Hiltons) strive to keep their place. That is in the Philippines.

Being a former American colony, I can say from our history books (those written by Filipino and American scholars), class is also valuable to the latter. Why else would they suppress the ilustrado class during the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century?

But good point, Mansun. You barely hear of any little one from a nobody-family doing great things. Radagast was an exception, but how was he looked upon by Saruman? Beren had to be descended from Beor. Erendis from Beor's sister (unmentioned anywhere else except UT). Even the hobbits in the quest were descended from the "noble" families of the Shire--Brandybucks and Tooks. Sam only became a part of it because he was... at the right place at the right time, but he became a sort of "noble" after returning.

[Nerwen]

Mind if just drag this thread back to the original topic for a moment? Mansun, you didn't simply ask whether social classes existed in M-E, you said:

Originally Posted by Mansun

Did a class divide exist between all the races in Middle Earth? Elves and great lords such as Gandalf being of the upper classes, with Hobbits, Dwarves and lesser men perhaps being the working classes?

Now, that question is answered pretty comprehensively in the next post. However, I'm just curious about what made you think of it to begin with.

Because, you see, though societies with species-based class-systems do crop up in speculative fiction, I can't recall any sign of that in Middle-earth (apart from the example Morthoron gives). Or have you seen something I've missed?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Interestingly enough, Smeagol's Stoor line that remigrated from the area of the Angle and settled back in the Vales of Anduin was matriarchal (or at least, that's the assumption based on the gleanings we get from Tolkien), one of the few instances (Haleth and perhaps Galadriel -- being equipollent with Celeborn -- being others) where strong female leaders were present. I suppose you could add the ruling queens of Numenor before Ar-Pharazon usurped the crown and forced marriage upon the last presumptive queen, Miriel. Sadly, thereafter primogeniture seems to have been the rule in Gondor among the kings and ruling stewards (as you perceptively stated, the daughters of Elessar didn't even warrant a mention).

Well now, I am glad you did not assume I was referring to Coleridge's definition of patrician.

Even more interesting is the fact that, if I recall correctly, the only pure incidence of shunning in LotR is that of Smeagol by his matriarchal clan, although the parochialism of the hobbits suggest all hobbits harbour that potential. Didn't the ruling queens of Numenor rule only because they lacked male siblings?

But as I mentioned, Elessar's decree about limiting access to the Shire suggests at least a paternalism, as if the hobbits were regarded as children, as they didn't labour for Gondor.

Of course, we don't know who worked the tobacco fields.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Mind if just drag this thread back to the original topic for a moment? Mansun, you didn't simply ask whether social classes existed in M-E, you said:

I must apologise to Mansun, as I assumed his use of between represented the common confusion of between and among, but Nerwen's post suggests that between is indeed the operant word.

Originally Posted by [QUOTE=Nerwen

Now, that question is answered pretty comprehensively in the next post. However, I'm just curious about what made you think of it to begin with.

Because, you see, societies with species-based class-systems do crop up in speculative fiction, I can't recall any sign of that in Middle-earth (apart from the example Morthoron gives). Or have you seen something I've missed/

Did Dwarves ever hold fealty to the Elves? I had always assumed they were thoroughly independent. Certainly the Appendix "Durin's Folk" speaks only of the awakening of Durin's people and their coming to Azanulbizar, and the pure line of the dwarven monarchy.

The views of Gandalf on Hobbits from the Shire in general, and the reluctance of the Elves to welcome other races within their realm, suggested some evidence of a class divide in Middle Earth. Even Rohan was seen as a poorer and less mighty a country than it's neighbour, Gondor.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

The views of Gandalf on Hobbits from the Shire in general, and the reluctance of the Elves to welcome other races within their realm, suggested some evidence of a class divide in Middle Earth. Even Rohan was seen as a poorer and less mighty a country than it's neighbour, Gondor.

Class has nothing to do with what you are talking about in most cases.

Gandalf can be condescending, patrician or elitist to anyone he chooses, Mansun. He is neither a different class, nor a different race, he is an elemental, angelic being in a humanoid form (a Maia).

Again, with Elves there may be views of a racial (or genus) superiority, but it is not a matter of class, and the reasons they no longer have commerce with other races does not necessarily impute they feel racially superior. The elves were withdrawing from the world (from the Now or Present you might say), and retreating into the Past Perfect. With the aid of the Elven Rings they created artifical paradises at Rivendell and Lothlorien (but let it be said that the Last Homely House always welcomed wayfarers of good will if they could find the correct paths). The Silvan Elves under Thranduil traded regularly with the men of Laketown, and there was no imputation of superiority (they even aided Laketown when it was destroyed by Smaug).

Regarding Gondor and Rohan, there was originally a vow of vassalage between the leaders of both lands (the Oath Of Eorl), but almost all the actual fealty and bonds of vassalage had long since been suspended by the time of the War of the Ring. Did Gondorions feel superior to the Rohirrim? Again, it would not be a 'class-centric' view, but rather a national egoism or racial pride (of Numenor), and except for some disparaging remarks by Denethor (who was rather disparaging to everyone, even his own son), there is no evidence of it among other Gondorions toward the Rohirrim in the books.

The closest one gets to actual class warfare or animosity is between the Dunlenders and the Rohirrim (rather like the oppressed Celts against the Romano-Britons, or the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans). Because we know far more about the Shire than any other realm, we have a fairly good idea of society and class structure among the Hobbits (the Victorian or Edwardian relationship between Sam and Frodo being the most pronounced), the views of Hobbiton regarding the queer folk of The Marish, and the Squires of the Brandybucks and Tooks.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Did Dwarves ever hold fealty to the Elves? I had always assumed they were thoroughly independent. Certainly the Appendix "Durin's Folk" speaks only of the awakening of Durin's people and their coming to Azanulbizar, and the pure line of the dwarven monarchy.

No, I can't recall any such bonds of fealty. The Elves and the Dwarves were always distinct and separate (sometimes malevolently so), even when they had great friendship such as arose between Hollin and Moria.

[Nerwen]

Mansun, class divide = stratification within a society, not one society looking down on another.

[Lalaith]

Yes, I agree - for the Rohirrim to look down on the Dunlendings, or for the Elves to look down on Men, has nothing to do with class and everything to do with cultural/racial prejudices...
Hobbit society seems to me to be a slightly more egalitarian version of the class systems of early 20th century rural England.

Elrond and his family, and Galadriel and her family, were presumably considered 'grander' than the ordinary elves who populated Rivendell and Lorien. I also get the feeling that the Calaquendi looked down on the Moriquendi and that the folk of Thranduil were a bit more rustic and less grand than the Galadhrim or the cosmopolitans of Rivendell.

Gondorian society was more class-ridden, I feel, than that of Rohan. The Anglo-Saxons were much more egalitarian than the Normans that conquered them, and I think there is a correlation.

Tolkien himself was certainly not an aristocrat. His father was a bank manager (middle-middle) and his grandparents were shopkeepers (lower-middle).
Tolkien himself though, as an academic, would qualify as upper-middle, so there's a bit of British social mobility for you...

(PS - Remains of the Day was actually written by a Japanese author, Kazuo Ishiguro....and if you want really complex class systems, all you have to do is read To Kill a Mockingbird....small town Alabama....)

[Bêthberry]

While I agree that usually "class structure" is a sociological construct to suggest divisions within a society--divisions determined by economic, political, and/or cultural traits--there is also the use of "class" to mean high social rank or style. "She's a classy lady." "First class tickets" In this sense, LotR is loaded with "class" attributes. As a mythology of ancient times, it follows the pattern of focussing upon the aristocracy--Patrician as both Morthoron and I said earlier--so that we lack much evidence about the huddled masses of Gondor, Rohan, the dwarven kingdoms. (Actually, I have a sense that dwarven culture is far less class-ridden--as in having fewer social divides--than Gondorian or hobbit culture.)

Both meanings can be argued in the story.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Mansun, class divide = stratification within a society, not one society looking down on another.

''You need not speak to me as to one of the fools you take for friends. I have not brought you here to be instructed by you, but to give you a choice''.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

''You need not speak to me as to one of the fools you take for friends. I have not brought you here to be instructed by you, but to give you a choice''.

The correct wording of the quote is "I have not brought you hither to be instructed by you...", and I am not quite sure if what you're quoting is merely obscurant or meant to be insulting (one of the problems with speaking obtusely).

Also, I must say your brief and somewhat vague replies are not the least constructive for the continuance of this dialogue. Please try to be a bit more expansive, and then perhaps we can pick up on this thread's derailed train of thought, which seemingly never made it to the station at its scheduled time.

[Nerwen]

Mansun, what point are you trying to make with that quote?

At most it means that Saruman had the idea that he and his fellow–Maiar might become a ruling class. That wasn't the actual situation.

Besides, this is Saruman we're talking about. He may not have been sincere, but rather planning to enlist Gandalf's aid, then stab him in the back.

[Gwathagor]

Mansun's funny.

[Nerwen]

Well, I am assuming that the quote isn't meant to be directed at anyone.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The correct wording of the quote is "I have not brought you hither to be instructed by you...", and I am not quite sure if what you're quoting is merely obscurant or meant to be insulting (one of the problems with speaking obtusely).

Also, I must say your brief and somewhat vague replies are not the least constructive for the continuance of this dialogue. Please try to be a bit more expansive, and then perhaps we can pick up on this thread's derailed train of thought, which seemingly never made it to the station at its scheduled time.

I sincerely apologise for using here instead of hither. Does that comfort you, Morthoron (this name sounds all too much like foul Mouth of Sauron)?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, I am assuming that the quote isn't meant to be directed at anyone.

Saruman was the ultimate elitest loremaster in Middle Earth, with this theme being even more prevalent in the film version. Though, of course, this was almost totally due to his obssession with power, not social class.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I sincerely apologise for using here instead of hither. Does that comfort you, Morthoron (this name sounds all too much like foul Mouth of Sauron)?

I would explain the difference between a quote and a paraphrase, but it would obviously be lost on you. As far as my online tag, it is Sindarin, and your mention of it has nothing to do with the discussion, or more aptly, the lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Saruman was the ultimate elitest loremaster in Middle Earth, with this theme being even more prevalent in the film version. Though, of course, this was almost totally due to his obssession with power, not social class.

Again, vague, obtuse and not to the point.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Again, vague, obtuse and not to the point.

From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

. (Actually, I have a sense that dwarven culture is far less class-ridden--as in having fewer social divides--than Gondorian or hobbit culture.)

Love the way that all the non-Brits are arguing about class but agreeing that we are obsessed about it . I just think that the great social mobility of the last century provided a rich seam for drama and humour which many writers and film makers have exploited. And the social mobility is reflected in LOTR particularly of Tolkien's works. Think of Faramir talking about Gondor and Rohan and Sam rising to be Mayor and his daughter marrying the Thain's son.

The Shire was changing just as England was. It is a very different place to when (at about the time of Tolkien's birth) that one of my great grandmothers was disowned by her family for marrying into trade and caused scandal by riding a bicycle. The former seems just as ludicrous as the latter now.

Another great-grandmother was an illiterate Irish immigrant so I owe my existance to a degree of social mobility! Certainly my parents had very different backgrounds - my father's feet are crumpled because his widowed mother couldn't afford shoes for him as soon as he needed them, but at least at the time it was possible for a poor boy with a good brain to get an education and a scholarship to university which had a ripple effect throughout the rest of his family.

If there are three classes in Britain now I would say they are those who don't work, those who work and those who don't need to work. The type of work people do is rather more significant these days than accent or the words you use for rooms or meals. And I have to say that I notice plenty of "class" distinction in American programmes and books - anything set in New York seems chocabloc with it for starters, let alone Desperate Housewives, Shark, The Riches, all those films where the girl from the trailer park fights it out with the rich girl to be Prom queen or whatever... And the most class conscious film I ever saw was French (Priez pour Nous) but heigh ho... you keep you national stereotypes and we'll keep ours

To get back to Tolkien, there is a clear hierachy between the kindred of the Elves, and with Men there is an even more refined hierachy - the purer Numenoreans being a cut above even within the superior realm of Gondor. With the Dwarves the line of Durin is top and even the Orcs make distinctions from the Uruk-hai down to the snufflers. It is clearly a very hierachical world from the Valar down... but that is hardly suprising for a mythology which concern generally the great and the good (and the great at being bad), the powers of the world not the "poor ****** infantry".

So having had the first version of this lost in a computer crash,I shall post and wait for the gauntlet... (fish knives at dawn no doubt)....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There are at least two skwerlz watching this thread closely - one for the negative chatting and personal remarks that are being posted, another for the off-topic discussion of issues that are not Tolkien-related. Please return to the topic of the thread - that includes the thread starter, who presumably asked the question because he would like to have it discussed. Quotes that are used in an insulting manner are just as out of place on a public post as one's own words. If you object to remarks that someone else made on a personal basis (as opposed to the treatment of the subject at hand), take it to PM please.

Off-topic posts may be deleted or edited without warning.

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Mansun's funny.

You're welcome, Gwathagor.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Love the way that all the non-Brits are arguing about class but agreeing that we are obsessed about it . I just think that the great social mobility of the last century provided a rich seam for drama and humour which many writers and film makers have exploited. And the social mobility is reflected in LOTR particularly of Tolkien's works. Think of Faramir talking about Gondor and Rohan and Sam rising to be Mayor and his daughter marrying the Thain's son.

The Shire was changing just as England was. It is a very different place to when (at about the time of Tolkien's birth) that one of my great grandmothers was disowned by her family for marrying into trade and caused scandal by riding a bicycle. The former seems just as ludicrous as the latter now.

Another great-grandmother was an illiterate Irish immigrant so I owe my existance to a degree of social mobility! Certainly my parents had very different backgrounds - my father's feet are crumpled because his widowed mother couldn't afford shoes for him as soon as he needed them, but at least at the time it was possible for a poor boy with a good brain to get an education and a scholarship to university which had a ripple effect throughout the rest of his family.

If there are three classes in Britain now I would say they are those who don't work, those who work and those who don't need to work. The type of work people do is rather more significant these days than accent or the words you use for rooms or meals. And I have to say that I notice plenty of "class" distinction in American programmes and books - anything set in New York seems chocabloc with it for starters, let alone Desperate Housewives, Shark, The Riches, all those films where the girl from the trailer park fights it out with the rich girl to be Prom queen or whatever... And the most class conscious film I ever saw was French (Priez pour Nous) but heigh ho... you keep you national stereotypes and we'll keep ours

To get back to Tolkien, there is a clear hierachy between the kindred of the Elves, and with Men there is an even more refined hierachy - the purer Numenoreans being a cut above even within the superior realm of Gondor. With the Dwarves the line of Durin is top and even the Orcs make distinctions from the Uruk-hai down to the snufflers. It is clearly a very hierachical world from the Valar down... but that is hardly suprising for a mythology which concern generally the great and the good (and the great at being bad), the powers of the world not the "poor ****** infantry".

So having had the first version of this lost in a computer crash,I shall post and wait for the gauntlet... (fish knives at dawn no doubt)....

Well written, Mithalwen.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

There are at least two skwerlz watching this thread closely - one for the negative chatting and personal remarks that are being posted, another for the off-topic discussion of issues that are not Tolkien-related. Please return to the topic of the thread - that includes the thread starter, who presumably asked the question because he would like to have it discussed. Quotes that are used in an insulting manner are just as out of place on a public post as one's own words. If you object to remarks that someone else made on a personal basis (as opposed to the treatment of the subject at hand), take it to PM please.

Off-topic posts may be deleted or edited without warning.

From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Love the way that all the non-Brits are arguing about class but agreeing that we are obsessed about it

Ah, there's that legendary British understatement we've all come to know and love.

Actually, if you look carefully I believe only one poster linked Brits exclusively to class obsession (and everyone else disagreed to such exclusivity, be they Euros or Yanks); but I think that the American version of the class divide was more racial in tenor, or due to the point of national origin. My ancestors being Italian and Irish were certainly met with scorn by those WASP's (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) who could recall their descent in bardic cadence from the first settlers off the Mayflower or the veterans of the Revolutionary War. I have a Help Wanted sign dated to the 1850's that carries the disclaimer: No Irish Need Apply.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I just think that the great social mobility of the last century provided a rich seam for drama and humour which many writers and film makers have exploited. And the social mobility is reflected in LOTR particularly of Tolkien's works. Think of Faramir talking about Gondor and Rohan and Sam rising to be Mayor and his daughter marrying the Thain's son.

Yes, Samwise, the gardener who made good; of course, it didin't hurt that he was a war hero (when the Hobbits finally learned there was indeed a war and other civilizations existing beyond their borders), and that his best friends were young scions of the 'great houses' of the Shire, and who eventually became Thain Peregrin and Meriadoc, Master of Buckland (not to mention having King Elessar's ear and a daughter serving as the Queen's Maid of Honor). Just your average Joe fortunate enough not to be the apprentice to Ted Sandyman's dear ol' dad.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

To get back to Tolkien, there is a clear hierachy between the kindred of the Elves, and with Men there is an even more refined hierachy - the purer Numenoreans being a cut above even within the superior realm of Gondor. With the Dwarves the line of Durin is top and even the Orcs make distinctions from the Uruk-hai down to the snufflers. It is clearly a very hierachical world from the Valar down... but that is hardly suprising for a mythology which concern generally the great and the good (and the great at being bad), the powers of the world not the "poor ****** infantry".

But how many epics, from Homer's Iliad to Malory's Mort d'Arthur to Tolstoy's War and Peace to Tolkien's LotR dealt with anyone but the high and mighty (or at least comfortably well off)? Grunts are wiped out at Gallipoli or the Somme or the day after Christmas in All's Quiet on the Western Front. They smell horrid, can't articulate well and come home to find disenchantment, unemployment and life on the dole. That's John Steinbeck or Hemingway, not Tolkien.

I think you're right about the Gondorion penchant to trace their lineage to Numenor (and the bluer the blood, the better), and I agree with your views on hierarchical stratification up to a point; however, the original question concerned a 'class divide' among different races, and although elements of that occurred in previous ages (as I mentioned previously, the vassalage of the Edain to the Noldor), my point was that such a divide from a racial standpoint is not readily discernible in the 3rd Age. There was far too much separation (or self-imposed segregation, if you prefer) for such a statement to be plausible.

[Mithalwen]

But Morthoron I never mentioned exclusivity And I did wonder if the Cabots were still only talking to God

I did state that mythology did tend to concern the great and the good so I am not sure why you are picking me up on that... :S

Yes it always helps to have friends in high places but in some cultures changing your station in life is just not possible. It was possible in the Shire.

However I certainly agree that there was too much separation for a racial class divide at the end of the third age. Even the men of Gondor have little contact with the Elves, the Rohirrim regard them with suspicion tinged with fear and hostility. Only the rangers have much to do with them and they are regarded as vagabonds by the "respectable" folk of Bree.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I did state that mythology did tend to concern the great and the good so I am not sure why you are picking me up on that... :S

Actually, I wasn't picking on you, I was expanding on your comment regarding "the powers of the world not the "poor ****** infantry"; however, I sometimes sound argumentative even when being agreeable. It's that whole curmudgeon thing I've developed as I get older and more irascible.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have a Help Wanted sign dated to the 1850's that carries the disclaimer: No Irish Need Apply.

Hullo! That's uncalled for!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It's that whole curmudgeon thing I've developed as I get older and more irascible.

Ah... I am going for paranoia myself... as you may have noticed

[William Cloud Hicklin]

American indians were hunter-gatherers.

Not by any means universally true. While *some* Indians were as 'primitive' as the Kalahari Bushmen (the Shoshone, various California groups), there were also very highly-developed agrarian and civic societies, (the Pueblo and their ancestors, and the Mississippian culture); and many gradations in between (the Eastern Iroquoian and Algonkian groups were agriculturalists and hunters both; the Northwest Indians like the Tlingit were technically hunter-gatherers in their land of plenty but had very highly evfolved societies).

And then of course there was Mesoamerica, with high civilizations on a par with Egypt's Old Kingdom!

When the Europeans started to flux to America during the 16th century, they were mainly outlaws and protestants who were persecuted for their faith

.

Not really. Sure it applies to the Separatists of Plymouth Rock, but not at all to most of the rest of the colonies, which were founded by men seeking- what else? - wealth. Virginia was started as a money-making scheme by solid Anglicans, and produced its own upper class of planter-aristocrats, from which men like Washington and Jefferson came.

Calvinism - one of the major faiths of those immigrating to the Americas - says that those who are rich are approved by God and those who are poor are abhorred by Him.

Certainly Calvin never said anything of the sort. Say rather that certain rich men tried to justify themselves in pseudo-Calvinist terms.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

And then of course there was Mesoamerica, with high civilizations on a par with Egypt's Old Kingdom!

Actually it is quite interesting to discus the differences between the greater civilizations of America and to those of Euro-Asia, but I guess your main point was to point out that not everybody was hunters and not inviting to such a talk. . . . I shall just try to restrain my self then.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Not really. Sure it applies to the Separatists of Plymouth Rock, but not at all to most of the rest of the colonies, which were founded by men seeking- what else? - wealth. Virginia was started as a money-making scheme by solid Anglicans, and produced its own upper class of planter-aristocrats, from which men like Washington and Jefferson came.

This is still a subject of much debate.

Who was it that left their home lands for America. . . . Was it "the best" the inovative, the fortune seekers or was it "the worst", the outlaws and hunted?

I have heard many people argue for both points, but I am not yet won over by any of them.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Who was it that left their home lands for America. . . . Was it "the best" the inovative, the fortune seekers or was it "the worst", the outlaws and hunted?

I have heard many people argue for both points, but I am not yet won over by any of them.

The answer, I think, is "all of the above." Just like most mass emigrations.

On the low extreme, there were the transportees- convicted criminals sentenced to indentured servitude (however, they were never as significant in number as British myth would have it- America wasn't Australia!). At the other end, there were indeed members (usually younger) of noble families: West (Lord De la Warr), Calvert (Lord Baltimore), Fairfax; and others of high rank like the Byrd and Digges dynasties (the same families as the famous courtiers). The Washingtons were nowhere near as exalted but were still solid country gentry.

Nonetheless these were also quite small in number, even when we include those of gentle origin who never entered history in those (to us shockingly) recordless and anonymous days. One of my ancestors in his 1712 will bequeathed to his eldest son "my rapier and my gold seal ring which I am accustomed to wear:" the hallmarks of a gentleman, although we know nothing of his origins.

The principal attractant to the Colonies was land: and what land attracted was farmers. In agrarian England land was still the fount of wealth- but it was all spoken for, and rarely sold at the freehold level. Most rural English were tenants, a trend which accelerated throughout the 17th and early 18th centuries. Even the remaining independent yeomen were ill-disposed to divide their acreage, leaving younger sons out in the cold.

But, in America! The Crown was giving the stuff away free! Fifty acres per head, just for clearing and farming it! What a tremendous magnet for those willing to endure the hardships.

Religion was a much lesser motivator. There were certainly some religious 'refuges' after Plymouth, like Maryland and Pennsylvania: but Penn was wise enough to know he needed certain skilled trades, and happily recruited blacksmiths and coopers and whatnot without regard to faith: and at any rate, these religious-based communities were soon overwhelmed by ordinary land-seekers, Anglican and Presbyterian both.

Ah, the Presbyterians- the so-called 'Scotch-Irish' or 'Ulster Scots' (although two-thirds of them were of English origin). The legend persists (and was passed down in my family) that they fled religious persecution (in some versions by the Irish Catholics!!!!!!!)- but the principal reason was much more prosaic: in the early decades of the 18th century the original 99-year leases in the Ulster Plantation were expiring, and the landlords were jacking the rents up through the roof. Were those who therefore migrated to claim the available American lands (chiefly by then in the hardscrabble Appalachians) thus more or less 'worthy' or 'tough' or whatever compared to those Orangemen who stuck it out in Tyrone and Derry? Is chocolate or vanilla better?




In all of this though one thing was certainly the case: social mobility was far more rapid in the Colonies than it had been in the Mother County. A relative nobody like Robert "King" Carter could amass wealth on a baronial scale: 300,000 acres and 10,000 pounds cash. He was obviously the exception: what was however not the exception but normative was that the small farmer on his 100 or so acres was a landowner, nobody's tenant: and therefore also a voter, empowered to choos his Burgess and local magistrates in a manner unknown to most small English farmers. He tended therefore to regard himself 'as good a man' as the planter grandees, notwithstanding their wealth, luxury and slaves (a key element in making this all possible, of course.)


And thus began the American belief or myth that this is a 'classless' society. We aren't of course, and never have been: but the very belief is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the very condition of assuming that you (and everyone else) is "middle class" is an impetus toward making it so. Certainly Americans don't obsess over class in the British manner; if anything we tend to pretend it's not there even when it is. Or as somebody (Hayek?) once said: Americans don't have time to hate the rich because they're too busy trying to join them.


It's also worth pointing out that *birth* has never in itself been much of a factor over here. While there are obviously advantages to be had from growing up with money and opportunity, it's the money and opportunity that make the difference. This is a very different case from the old British system, when no mere merchant or tradesman, however loaded, was ever quite as good as a born aristocrat. (In Vanity Fair, the mercantile Osbornes are clearly much richer, but clearly move in lower circles, than the blueblood Crawleys).

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

solid Anglicans

I would point out that Anglicans are protestants albeit episcopalian protestants with an "I can't believe it's not Catholicism" High Church wing....