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

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

The thing is, whether any given group of people in Tolkien's work is described as pale or swarthy or what-have-you-got, ascribing certain qualities or character traits to somebody based on their hair and skin colour is a racist mode of thinking either way, positive or negative; and explaining that away by saying that e.g. the Vanyar just happened by coincidence to be both the most fair-skinned and the most holy/noble of the Elven kindreds is IMHO opinion just a cop-out. He chose to write it that way, nobody forced him to.

When Sam is described as brownish-skinned (and I remember, off the top of my head, a passage about the light of Galadriel's phial in his brown hobbit-hand, somewhere in the Cirith Ungol chapters, that I can't be bothered to look up right now), I read that as the natural tan of the gardener used to working outside all day, as opposed to the pale, posh Bagginses sitting in their studies poring over their books and letters. Nothing to do with race.

But whenever people of clearly non-European racial phenotype show up in Tolkien, be it Hunnic Easterlings or Moorish Haradrim, they're presented as faceless mooks of the Enemy, little better than Orcs. There is, of course, Sam's one moment in Ithilien, a glimpse of the enemy as a human being who perhaps would rather not have fought in this war if he had a choice, which I suspect may be an echo of Tolkien's WWI experience, reflections that may have occurred to him at the sight of a dead Boche; but before and after that, the Haradrim exist only to be slaughtered by our heroes in a just war. Of course this is rationalised in the legendarium by presenting those peoples, by the sheer bad luck of their geographical position, as far removed from the enlightening influence of the Valar, Eldar and Númenóreans, and thus long steeped in the corrupting influence of Morgoth and Sauron, to the extent of worshipping them as God-Kings; whence the need to send the Ithryn Luin to them as missionaries. I find it hard not to see a colonialist discourse at work here.

Now I think mindil has it right that Tolkien, like most white people of his time, thought nothing of these matters and saw no evil in writing what he wrote (which I suppose you could say is part of the problem). But we don't read LotR in the 1950s, we read it today, and I think if we wilfully blind ourselves to the parts of it which might be problematic in this respect we become part of the problem.

(Note that this is no longer about Beowulf and Tolkien's interpretation thereof, which I'm in no way qualified to comment on, unlike other posters on this thread like WCH and Squatter. But I'd like to note that I found the knee-jerk hostility at the suggestion that there might be anything the matter about Tolkien and race earlier in this thread rather disturbing.

I agree with a lot of points here, and yet I disagree with the overall impression. I would have agreed in my early years of Tolkiening. However, in my last couple LOTR rereads, and especially in my recent Sil reread, I saw the matter very differently. Going through things one at a time, to start with the Haradrim and Easterlings of LOTR. Yes, we have Sam's glimpse, but we also have other elements that give a vague outline of shape in their character. For instance, when the battle at the Black Gates is lost and everyone knows it, unlike the orcs, they actually close ranks and fight to the bitter end. They stand despite the lack of Sauron's driving will and in the face of sure defeat. It's a courageous act, comparable to Hurin and Huor's stand at the Nirnaeth, regardless of what motive drives it (and that we do not know, because of perspective). If something doesn't sit right with me in the LOTR race issue, it's not that the racial geographical distribution parallels the real world, but that Aragorn is given so much credit as a great and merciful king for making peace with them. It doesn't impress me that he made treaties with them after defeating all their strength; I would be much more impressed with how he manages the politics with these countries when Gondor has military superiority and a lot of cultural and economic influence, but doesn't succumb to the typical Numenorian egotism and convert their culture to the "Numenorian type but lesser by blood". Will they be allowed to maintain their customs (aside from raiding Lebannon and Belfalas)? Will they be allowed to maintain their leaders and social structure, even if it is one that seems weird to Gondor? Will they be given a cultural protection even half as good as the Shire? It's the glorifying of tolerance which costs nothing that bothers me and makes me, in fact, more interested in the fate of Harad and the rest of the lands. So if we talk purely about the high horsed "fair" people, I have no quarrel there. But I do not think that the East and South are necessarily put down racially. More that there is a strong sense of collonialism where the colonizers strongly believe in the superiority of their culture - and are, in fact, supported in that opinion by Tolkien himself (see Noldor, early Numenor). Yes, the newcomers have a lot of knowledge to share, but my gut feeling is with the proud Thingol who declares that he and his people will stand independently of the so skillful and wise Noldor, and judge and accept all their wisdom on its own merit rather than in blind trust of their implied superiority in skill. The Noldor could have learned a trick or two from the Sindar too, had they been less superior-like. And same for the Numenorians, who came to be seen as kind gods and later destructive gods by the people of Middle-earth. The early Numenorians looked at other people as deeply inferior, and taught them how to live more Numenor-like. This seems to be a good deed according to Tolkien, and in this I see again an echo of the honest belief of history that Europe was bringing civilization to distant places. However, later Numenorians which exploit the "lesser races" rather than teach are clearly condemned, and in this I see an echo of crossing the line, where colonization becomes exploitation and subjugation. So to conclude this ramble, is it really that the Haradrim are worse people, or that the Edain become benevolent colonizers, and geography trumps race here in the reason why they are seen as misguided (ie by virtue of being on the receiving end of colonization)? Is it different to say that Europeans are more civilized vs white people are more civilized, when historically that often came to be synonymous? The main difference to me is that the "others" in the first case are inferior by virtue of race, while in the second by geography, with colour being a secondary, not necessary, and possibly coincidental feature. So while I see colonial echoes - which evolved just as much as the ideas of race in the last couple centuries - I don't necessarily see subconscious racism, at least in a form that is detached from the colonial connecition.

With regards to Vanyar, I disagree based on the fact that no Elf that I can think of was ever described as swarthy, and "dark" Elves just had dark hair/personalities rather than skin. All Elves have fair skin, and having fairer skin than most may be more a consequence of aesthetic and personal taste. Paleness was attractive because it indicated non-working status, as much as a tan is attractive because it indicates good health through outdoor activity, and every person has their own preference for paleness or tan that they prefer aesthetically or associate with certain archetypes. That's not on a level of race by skin colour. Besides, Tolkien might have agreed with the Vanyar with his head but his heart was clearly with the Noldor. Therefore I don't think that being super pale vs simply pale is an indicator of racial preference per se.

The point I do concede is the squint eyed Isengarders / Ruffians, who do seem to be evil by definition and for whom appearance seems to be synonymous with character. It's not clear to me whether they are of one race (related to Dunlendings? Corrupted by Saruman? Bred by Saruman? Interbred with orcs?) or various scoundrels who fell on the same path from different starting points and flocked to Saruman when the smell of profit was in the air. But regardless, that is a good point.

And the other point I would add is the remarkable coincidence of pale people being able to put aside their differences and join forces, while the swarthy people of LOTR inevitably end up as the enemy of these forces. Now this I do not see as a reflection of racial influence in Harad, but rather in Dunland, which sort of sticks out amid fair-coloured people around it. Why are the local enemies swarthy too? Though admittedly Rohirrim are migrants from the North and Gondorians are ultimately descendants of Hador and Beor, so who knows what the "natural" melanin levels were on Dunlending lattitudes - but that would be rationalizing a decision that most likely did not involve any such considerations. Within the scope of the legendarium, it's natural that such endlessly warring nations as the Dunlendings and Rohirrim have hostile feelings towards each other and pick out whatever features stand out most to them (the Eorlings are called Strawheads too, they get their share of racial stereotyping and exaggeration of physical differences). There needed to be differences to highlight between the two peoples, and anyone except the Vanyar () would be dark compared to the exaggeratedly Saxonesque Rohirrim. But it was not really necessary. Was there a subconscious thought or a passive reflection of society's thoughts that evil or enmity is related to colour? In these two instances, possibly.

That is not to say that all enemies were dark skinned (I have tried and failed to imagine a dark skinned Variag, for instance). Moreover, there are enough shady characters among the "good guys". In trying to rebuttle my own point, I also came up with Bor the swarthy Easterling who countered the actions of Ulfang the other swarthy Easterling, so at least in The Sil the split can be called even.

I second that I am not one to comment on Beowulf, but in that case the issue of racism falls short on the nature of the material. A case might be made for the legendarium on the grounds of being all in the hands and imagination of the writer. A translation, however, is by definition not in the authors hands. So I cannot comment on any specifics, not beong familiar with the material in the slightest, but would caution against mistaking Anglo-Saxon legends for Tolkien's beliefs.

I think the reason many of us find ourselves in a knee jerk defensive reaction when loud accusations are thrown against Tolkien is that they are thrown so often with the intent to look clever but without the proper thought behind them. You find yourself in a defensive position against an unreasonable argument so often that you anticipate them. There are the legit question once but seriously if you pay attention you won't need to ask. Like, have you ever felt the urge to take the next person to think they outsmarted the Professor by suggesting the Eagles fly into Mordor and lock them up in Orthanc until they read all the core legendarium books thoroughly? Or the downright no idea what theu are talking about - ever wanted to bash the people who comment "LOTR is nice but a rip off from Harry Potter" on the head with the full trilogy in one volume? Not to mention the other popular exclamations, "Tolkien was a misogynist" and "Frodo and Sam are gay". Furthermore, in this thread specifically, the talk started with discussing a particular article, which opens with "J.R.R. Tolkien’s seminal scholarship on*Beowulf centers a white male gaze.*" - as opposed to what, the other Beowulf who was a Black Asian woman who just magically appeared among the Saxons? I think you might be judging this thread a little too harshly, given this context. I do not believe Tolkien himself was racist, in the sense that all I know about him would suggest that his respect for a person would not diminish if it was a non-Caucasian person. Does his writing reflect a tiny portion of the racism norm of his time? That is a whole different question, and for me personally, elicits a very different reaction. Which is, I suppose, why I am actually responding to your post and putting thought into it at very late hours.




I apologize for the initial ramble, which I realize is not very well formulated. I also realize that I am biased by not sharing JRRT's essential moral of The Sil, that ultimately the cure must be divine. I slightly resent the worshipful status the Eldar have among the Edain, especially the House of Hador. I am instead sympathetic towards the Haladin and Thingol, who choose to live by their own decisions. I feel that if I was one of the Men meeting the Eldar, yes I would be fascinated by their advanced skill but I would resist adopting it as my ideal; the better skill is that which I can master and rely on. They may know a lot, but I have my own head to make decisions and judge my beliefs of the world. Yes, the Valar may be upholding the light in this world and may be the ultimate deliverance, but in the abscence of their influence on my world I won't count on them for anything and will count on myself to get things done. Unlike LOTR, which is a lot more subtle in philosophy, the blind... conversion, almost - of the Edain clashes with basic critical thinking. This makes me more akin to the non-Edain and non-Numenorians, whom I do not fault for not being infatuated with the Eldar, which probably skews my view in their favour in terms of portrayal. So as a consequence of a more religious disagreement, my view of the LOTR enemy races shifted in the last few years from evil by definition to cultural unknowns who deserve respect for certain things.

With that said, I do not have much sleep left, and shall respectfully retire.