"Lord of the Rings" Trilogy of films: Racist?

[Delano]

I just finished watching the entire "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy with my kids. As beautiful, exciting, and stirring as the films were, it did occur to me that there was not a single HUMAN of color in the whole thing. The orcs and uruk-hai were darker but also evil and hideous.

Is "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy of films racist (intentionally or unintentionally) or just being true to the novels/times and places depicted?

[Fenris]

1. Oh, geez...

:eyes:

[Brahma Bull]

2. What? Are you serious?

Racist???? Geez...:eyes:

[Delano]

4. Didn't say I thought so.

But I bet some do. Just wondering what people think.

I loved them exactly as they were.

[TexasSissy]

109. That was my first thought...."Are you serious?"

[brainshrub]

3. Would you be happier if some of the Elves were wearing sombreros?

[ericmaxy]

5. now that was racist!!!!

just kiddin

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. Do you have a problem with sombreros, you racist.

j/k lol.

[stavka]

56. ...actually I always pictured them with sombreros

Movie ruined a lot of imagery for me.

Orcs struck me as the teller at the bank who would insist I roll my coins in front of her for deposite.

[thebigmansentme]

6. it's people like that

that make liberal look 'looney'

you wouldn't expect any asian people in a film about american indians before columbus

[Nevernose]

7. The Southern men were supposed to be black

They were the only black folks who appeared in the books. The film changed them to white guys wearing tatoos in order to avoid being racist (accusations of "The only black people in the film are bad guys"). I don't think Tolkien was a racist, at least not intentionally; there just weren't a lot of black guys in England when he wrote it (certainly not of prominance, and race wasn't a big issue at the time), nor are there a lot of black guys in European folklore.

[Demonaut]

33. they talk of blacks in the books but the southrons were dusky

more arabic.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

62. As far as sexism goes, the bravest character and best warrior is female

Case closed.

(not sure why I posted this here, mind)

[Leprechan29]

8. Half and Half

It was both just part of the typical European folklore (my vote), and there has to be something to say about writing about people similar to yourself. Just as I could not write a book set in spain or something along those lines, tolkein would make characters bear some resemblance to himself - an imprint if you will.

[Mizmoon]

9. jar jar binks

Now THAT character was racist.

[brainshrub]

10. Yeah, and I'm amazed no-one said anything about Watto.

A big-nosed, money-grubbing merchant with a Yiddish accent.

Sound like any stereotypes you know?

[Gildor Inglorion]

12. That is so cool! I tried to post a picture of Watto this PM...

and couldn't get it to work. There was a question in the DU Lounge as to what Star Wars character *bush would be. I think Watto fits him to a T. Ugly, shrewd but stupid, brutal....

[Liberal Classic]

23. What about the Trade Federation

And they Asian-sounding accents?

Don't get me started on Boss Nass and Jar Jar.

:puke:

[Gildor Inglorion]

11. Not racist at all -

Tolkien made it clear that hobbits, elves, and dwarves were "races" in their own right. By that standard, the books and the movies are marvellously inclusive, demonstrating that even heretofore mutually-antagonistic races can work together to defeat a common enemy. The movies are a triumph of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic cooperation, with talents from the USA, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia, and most especially New Zealand contributing to the finished product. The soundtrack features a Maori male chorus as well. It would have been silly and insulting to insert gratuitously some Africans, Asians, and Amerindians into a quintessentially European saga. The story is what it is, and you don't have to be Caucasian to love it. I was deeply touched by the tender love story of the heterosexual Aragorn and Arwen (two different races!), and not at all offended that Gimli and Legolas didn't fall in love. ;-)

[Liberal Classic]

14. An elf of the house of Finrod would say so!

Ha!

:)

[Terran]

80. Thank you

You make an excellent point regarding the races of Middle Earth. If anything, the books and films should be construed as being the OPPOSITE of racist. It's absurdly parochial to think otherwise.

[Liberal Classic]

13. Some people have too much time on their hands

Kind of like thinking that Neptune's castle in The Little Mermaid was a phallic symbol or the tiger from Aladdin was saying "take off your clothes" or seeing a guy on the package of Camel cigarettes taking a leak.

However, you're not the only one to think along these lines.

Here is a satire based on this concept, which I find hilarious.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

U N U S E D
A U D I O C O M M E N T A R Y
B Y H O W A R D Z I N N
A N D N O A M C H O M S K Y ,
R E C O R D E D
S U M M E R 2 0 0 2 ,
F O R T H E F E L L O W S H I P
O F T H E R I N G
( P L A T I N U M S E R I E S
E X T E N D E D E D I T I O N ) D V D ,
P A R T O N E .

BY JEFF ALEXANDER AND TOM BISSELL

- - - -

Chomsky: The film opens with Galadriel speaking. "The world has changed," she tells us, "I can feel it in the water." She's actually stealing a line from the non-human Treebeard. He says this to Merry and Pippin in The Two Towers, the novel. Already we can see who is going to be privileged by this narrative and who is not.

Zinn: Of course. "The world has changed." I would argue that the main thing one learns when one watches this film is that the world hasn't changed. Not at all.

Chomsky: We should examine carefully what's being established here in the prologue. For one, the point is clearly made that the "master ring," the so-called "one ring to rule them all," is actually a rather elaborate justification for preemptive war on Mordor.

Zinn: I think that's correct. Tolkien makes no attempt to hide the fact that rings are wielded by every other ethnic enclave in Middle Earth. The Dwarves have seven rings, the Elves have three. The race of Man has nine rings, for God's sake. There are at least 19 rings floating around out there in Middle Earth, and yet Sauron's ring is supposedly so terrible that no one can be allowed to wield it. Why?

Chomsky: Notice too that the "war" being waged here is, evidently, in the land of Mordor itself — at the very base of Mount Doom. These terrible armies of Sauron, these dreadful demonized Orcs, have not proved very successful at conquering the neighboring realms — if that is even what Sauron was seeking to do. It seems fairly far-fetched.

Zinn: And observe the map device here — how the map is itself completely Gondor-centric. Rohan and Gondor are treated as though they are the literal center of Middle Earth. Obviously this is because they have men living there. What of places such as Anfalas and Forlindon or Near Harad? One never really hears anything about places like that. And this so-called map casually reveals other places — the Lost Realm, the Northern Waste (lost to whom? wasted how? I ask) — but tells us nothing about them. It is as though the people who live in these places are despicable, and unworthy of mention. Who is producing this tale? What is their agenda? What are their interests and how are those interests being served by this portrayal? Questions we need to ask repeatedly.

Chomsky: And here comes Bilbo Baggins. Now, this is, to my mind, where the story begins to reveal its deeper truths. In the books we learn that Saruman was spying on Gandalf for years. And he wondered why Gandalf was traveling so incessantly to the Shire. As Tolkien later establishes, the Shire's surfeit of pipe-weed is one of the major reasons for Gandalf's continued visits.

Zinn: You view the conflict as being primarily about pipe-weed, do you not?

Chomsky: Well, what we see here, in Hobbiton, farmers tilling crops. The thing to remember is that the crop they are tilling is, in fact, pipe-weed, an addictive drug transported and sold throughout Middle Earth for great profit.

Zinn: This is absolutely established in the books. Pipe-weed is something all the Hobbits abuse. Gandalf is smoking it constantly. You are correct when you point out that Middle Earth depends on pipe-weed in some crucial sense, but I think you may be overstating its importance. Clearly the war is not based only on the Shire's pipe-weed. Rohan and Gondor's unceasing hunger for war is a larger culprit, I would say.

Chomsky: But without the pipe-weed, Middle Earth would fall apart. Saruman is trying to break up Gandalf's pipe-weed ring. He's trying to divert it.

Zinn: Well, you know, it would be manifestly difficult to believe in magic rings unless everyone was high on pipe-weed. So it is in Gandalf's interest to keep Middle Earth hooked.

Chomsky: How do you think these wizards build gigantic towers and mighty fortresses? Where do they get the money? Keep in mind that I do not especially regard anyone, Saruman included, as an agent for progressivism. But obviously the pipe-weed operation that exists is the dominant influence in Middle Earth. It's not some ludicrous magical ring.

Zinn: You've mentioned in the past the various flavors of pipe-weed that Hobbits have cultivated: Gold Leaf, Old Toby, etc.

Chomsky: Nothing better illustrates the sophistication of the smuggling ring than the fact that there are different brand names associated with the pipe-weed. Ah, here we have Gandalf smoking a pipe in his wagon — the first of many clues that link us to the hidden undercurrents of power.

Zinn: Gandalf is deeply implicated. That's true. And of course the ring lore begins with him. He's the one who leaks this news of the supposed evil ring.

Chomsky: Now here, just before Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday party, we can see some of the symptoms of addiction. We are supposed to attribute Bilbo's tiredness, his sensation of feeling like too little butter spread out on a piece of bread, to this magical ring he supposedly has. It's clear something else may be at work, here.

Zinn: And soon Gandalf is delighting the Hobbits with his magic. Sauron's magic is somehow terrible but Gandalf's, you'll notice, is wonderful.

Chomsky: And note how Gandalf's magic is based on gunpowder, on explosions.

Zinn: Right.

Chomsky: And it is interesting, too, that Gandalf's so-called magic is technological, and yet somehow technology seems to be what condemns Saruman's enterprises, as well as those of the Orcs.

Zinn: Exactly.

Chomsky: But we will address that later. Here we have Pippin and Merry stealing a bunch of fireworks and setting them off. This might be closer to the true heart of the Hobbits.

Zinn: You mean the Hobbits' natural inclination?

Chomsky: I think the Hobbits are criminals, essentially.

Zinn: It also seems incredibly irresponsible for Gandalf to have a firework that powerful just sitting in the back of his wagon.

Chomsky: More of his smoke and mirrors, yes? Gandalf conjures the dragon Smaug to scare the people.

Zinn: One can always delight the little people with explosions.

...

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I Have To Say...

That I spent a good period of time working for a chain of indie video stores, including some of the time that the original "Little Mermaid" stuff got, uh, recalled...

Now, look- I'm well nigh impossible to shock, especially about sex. And I thought this whole thing was pretty funny... but..

that said, there was totally a dildo in the castle in the little mermaid. I mean, once you saw it, you couldn't miss it.

Now, I never took any of that stuff to mean Disney was trying to subliminally give kids messages about sex. What I suspect it has to do with, more than anything else, is that animators (speaking as someone who's done some animation-- and spent time around animators) are generally guys who spend long hours, hunched over little desks in the dark.. and don't get out much. Hence the temptation to eke out little bits of self-amusement wherever possible. I think the giant dildo in the castle was an example of that.

But it was there, no question.

[Liberal Classic]

59. Well, in Roger Rabbit

There was a spot that if you watched it in slow motion that Mrs. Rabbit "accidentially" flashed the camera as she spun around. That sort of thing isn't accidental at all, but the hubbub about the spire from Neptune's castle still seems to me to be about *ahem* over-active imagination. I have a tape I bought in '90. I was living in Arizona at the time when the supermarket chain pulled it from the shelves and then put them back the next day. Personally, I thought the whole castle was rather phallic to begin with, if I'm thinking along those lines.

[Eccho]

15. You have to read the books.

I just finished reading the trilogy for the 6-8th time in my life last month. It is made clear that the northern characters tend to be Nordic and the southern ones are Arabic or African (ie the 'Oliphants'). Racist is a very out of left field charge to toss at this beloved series.

[Dukkha]

16. Heard the same crap about ATOC

http://www.detnews.com/2002/entertainment/0205/18/d01-492788.htm

"Latino critics in particular charge his latest Star Wars epic, Episode II: Attack of the Clones, toys with American paranoia about Mexican immigration with its cloned army of swarthy lookalikes who march in lockstep by the tens of thousands, and ultimately end up serving as Darth Vader's white-suited warriors."

Even though Temuera Morrison, the actor who plays Jango, is a New Zealander of Maori descent.

weak

[DarkPhenyx]

17. Oh For Fucks Sake!

Simply proving once again that when you go think you'll find racism everywhere you are sure to find it everywhere.

[Ripley]

19. LOL!

And I couldn't agree more.

But there are some here who will tell you that Star Wars is racist, because the Dark Side is really referring to dark skinned people in the world, not...the Bad Guy.

[brainshrub]

20. Then why are storm-troopers white?

[Ripley]

24. Ask George Lucas about his...

creative vision of storm troopers. Are you telling me that if they all wore black uniforms, you'd not have a problem? I bet then, you'd say...why are the bad guys (storm troopers) in the movie all in black?

Black and white have meanings outside of "race."

[Dukkha]

30. He's stated the Galactic Empire was primarily inspired by

the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will"
The imperial officers in particular resemble the Nazi SS officers. The Emperor represented Hitler. Vader's look was pattered after the Japanese Kauto armor and the Death Star represented the Soviet superpower capable of destroying an entire planet. Lucas also made sure the empire had no color. It was all black & white and shades of grey. The only exception is the blood red royal guards.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Everything You Need To Know About "Star Wars"...

Right Here.

[rinsd]

73. Let's not forget Hooper X's elegant rant ;-)

Holden (Ben Affleck): Ah, c'mon, that's a bunch of horseshit! Lando Calrissian was a black guy, y'know, he got to fly the Millenium Falcon! What's the matter with you!
Hooper: Who said that?
Holden: (standing up) I did. Lando Calrissian is a positive role-model in the realm of science fiction fantasy.
Hooper:], FUCK Lando Calrissian!
(Holden shrugs and sits down)
Hooper: Uncle-Tom nigger, heh. It's always some white boy got to invoke the holy trinity. Bust this! Those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother-man down--even in a galaxy far far away. Check this shit. You got cracker farmboy Luke Skywalker, Nazi poster boy blond hair blue eyes. Then you got Darth Vader, blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian god!
Banky (Jason Lee): (standing up) What's a nubian?
Hooper: Shut the fuck up! (Banky sits down) Now. Vader, he's a spiritual brother, down with the force and all that good shit. Then this cracker Skywalker gets his hands on a lightsaber, and the boy decides HE'S gonna run the whole fucking universe! Gets a whole KLAN of whites together and they go bust up Vader's hood, the Death Star! Now what the fuck do you call that?
Banky: Intergalatic civil war?
Hooper: Gentrification!! They gonna drive out the black element to make the galaxy quote-unquote safe for white folks! In "Jedi," the most insulting installment when Vader's beautiful black visage is SULLIED when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty old white man! They trying to tell us that deep inside, we all wants to be WHITE!!!
Banky: Well, isn't that true?

[starroute]

25. Was is it so hard for you to believe Tolkien was a racist?

Almost without exception, the people of his generation who were inclined towards fantasy and mythology also had strong racist or elitist leanings -- Tolkien, H.P. Lovecraft (though he worked he way out of a lot of it), Robert E. Howard, Joseph Campbell. It had a lot to do with their strong negative attitudes towards the modern world, science and technology, and philosophical materialism. You've just got to accept that aspect of their writing and move on.

Tolkien, to his credit, does seem to have been completely free of any fascist tendencies -- which is more than you can say about Robert E. Howard. Instead of this thread, how about we have one on whether Conan movies are fascist?

[starroute]

18. The books do have a certain amount of naive racism

It's funny, because on the levels of humans/elves/dwarves/ents/hobbits, they play against standard early 20th century racism. But on the level of the human characters alone, they are very racist. The good guys are all European in appearance, being pale-skinned and often grey-eyed. The Rohirrim are extremely Nordic in their culture, and the elvish languages have elements drawn from Celtic and Finnish.

By contrast, there are no positive evocations of Asian, African, or even Mediterranean peoples or cultures. The few mentions of southerners and easterners all depict them as allies of Sauron -- even as appearing orc-like. The Black Speech is highly gutteral, with lots of -sh- and -gh- sounds that are vaguely reminiscent of Persian.

I believe that the movies made a conscious attempt to play down these racist elements -- but traces of them can't help peeping through here and there.

[Liberal Classic]

22. Tolkien's purpose was to invent some English mythology

Which he felt had all been eradicated by the Scandinavians and Normans.

In his own words:


"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country; it had no stories of its own... there were Greek, Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian and Finnish (which greatly affected me) but nothing English... of course, there was and is all the Arthurian World, but powerful as it is... it is with the soil of BRITAIN BUT NOT WITH ENGLISH..."

[Tansy_Gold]

26. As fond as I am of Tolkien and have been for almost 40 years,

he ignored the natural genesis of mythology.

He wanted an English mythology to supplant the established Celtic mythology that was indigenous to the British Isles. The Angles and Saxons were nordic-germanic invaders with their own mythology based in their own land. It simply didn't translate, especially since the bulk of that invasion occurred in historic, rather than mythic, time.

The Victorian and Edwardian English were as racist as anyone, so it's not surprising to find elements of it in the writing of the period.

But that Tolkien was a sexist is even more evident. Jackson attempted to give the original female characters a little more presence in the film(s), but he only succeeded (IMHO) in making Arwen a caricature and Aragorn sophomoric by playing up the romance. Only Eowyn was allowed -- book and film versions -- to express any hint that women were people, too, and I have always contended she sneaked herself into Tolkien's imagination when he wasn't looking. She was only a minor character, really, not the "star" of the show, so he forgot to keep her in her place. :evilgrin:

Tolkien's anti-feminism is always excused as unimportant and simply a product of his times, and I think that's unfair. I think it's also unfair to dismiss the racism that was inherent in what he set out to do -- create a mythos where none could have grown on its own.

[Liberal Classic]

27. Is it really sexist to not have a female lead character

Only Eowyn was allowed -- book and film versions -- to express any hint that women were people, too, and I have always contended she sneaked herself into Tolkien's imagination when he wasn't looking. She was only a minor character, really, not the "star" of the show, so he forgot to keep her in her place.

I realize that you put a smiley at the end of that, to indicate you're not entirely serious. However, doesn't this contradict your point? An author doesn't accidentially write a character's dialog. Eowyn is not an abberation, much to the contrary. She indicates the women of the Rohirrim, having learned hard lessons, are capable warriors in their own right.

What about Galadriel? She was portrayed significantly more prominently than Celeborn. She's a ring bearer!

Personally, I find a lot of Japaname with it's armored bikini buxom babes a lot more sexist than anything you could find in the Lord of the Rings. I'm convinced that if you seek the worst you're going to find it.

[Tansy_Gold]

52. Replying to this post and #38 below

I don't think Tolkien was maliciously and/or consciously sexist, though I'm pretty positive he was a male chauvinist. (Note that I didn't add the usual porcine qualifier to that.) But I do believe that it would have been difficult for a well-educated adult Englishman of the inter-war generation to miss the feminist movement of that time. The suffragists were extremely active, for one thing, plus "the woman question" had been a feature of English (if not British) literature for at least half a century.

And that's why I ;-) at the notion of Eowyn having slipped almost unnoticed into LOTR. I think Tolkien was affected by the feminism of his day, but not to the point of being fully aware of the influence. Eowyn was not a main character -- for one thing, she was human and outside the immortal/half-immortal "royalty" of the cast -- but she was an important supporting player. She also had to settle for second-best: had Tolkien been writing in another time and in another mindset, Eowyn's heroism would probably have won Aragorn's heart and mind away from that simpering Arwen! (mild sarcasm and only kidding)

IMHO, Tolkien had a conflict that he never fully resolved. The Anglo-Saxon mythos he wanted to create had to be rooted in heroism, warrior deeds and battles fought and won. But he also wanted a magical realm, and beings who are peaceful and virtually immortal may have less justification for killing off their own. So he had to construct a contrast, and when he did that, he had to show one side as being "better" than the other. Aragorn -- and, if you've read the books, Arwen -- were half-elven mixed-race characters intended to combine the best of both worlds.

But Tolkien was never able to pull off, at least not in LOTR and certainly not in Jackson's screen version, making the elvish characters as multidimensional as the human ones. (Jackson came closer in his interpretation of Legolas, IMHO, than Tolkien did, and again when Jackson brought the elves to Helm's Deep.) So it was in the secondary characters -- Boromir, Faramir, Theoden, Eowyn, even Sam and Gimli -- that Tolkien did a better job of multi-dimensional characterization and ultimately gave Peter Jackson much more material to work with. Again, and it's just my opinion, this was because he wasn't concentrating on them as closely, and more of the subconscious and contemporary cultural influences seeped in.

Tansy Gold

EDITED TO ADD POSTSCRIPT:

As a writer of fiction and as a teacher of creative writing, I fully understand from first-hand experience how characters can "take on a life of their own" when their creator isn't paying attention. It happens, and it happens all the time, to both good writers and bad. As Joseph Hayes is reputed to have said, "A blank piece of paper is God's way of showing you just how difficult it is to play god."

[dawg]

58. True, Aragorn did not choose Eowyn ...

But Faramir did. And Tolkien is on record as having said that Faramir is the character that he, personally, most identified with.

I think the characters of Eowyn and Galadriel, (plus Luthien/Tinuviel for those who've delved deeper), show that Tolkien had an admiration for strong women.

[starroute]

60. Tolkien originally intended an Aragorn-Eowyn romance

I read this many years ago -- it may be in his letters somewhere.

Originally Eowyn was intended to be Aragorn's love interest. That is why there's the whole romantic setup with her following him in disguise. Arwen didn't exist at that point.

When Tolkien decided that Aragon was becoming too big a deal to be stuck with some little horse-lord princess and really needed a trophy wife, he inserted Arwen into the story retroactively. He didn't even do a very good job of it. Arwen is barely there in the first two books -- as I recall, she makes an almost silent appearance at Rivendell and later sends Aragorn a flag -- and even in the third she never develops any real personality.

Tolkien may have had an admiration for strong women, but I think he was also scared of them.

[Liberal Classic]

65. Thank you for your reply

I just want to say I appreciate your comments, and I can tell you're a fan as well. Women in Victorian England were second class citizens and that chaunvinism of course still existed through Edwardian England in Tolkien's day. Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that fictional characters can take on a life of their own to the author in a sense, and in his forward Tolkien states that the "tale grew with the telling." I don't think that those are the issues at hand.

The lack of a female character among the nine walkers does not in my mind convict Tolkien of sexism, even the unconscious kind. This is only my opinion, of course, nothing more. I do not pretend to be a scholar, even of the Tolkienesque variety.

I believe that if this were true, the two strong supporting female characters, Eowyn and Galadriel, would not be as they are in the story. I'll ignore other minor female characters, such as Rosie Cotton (who Sam fancies) or Farmer Maggot's wife (who worries about her husband being out late) or Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (who stereotypically henpecks Lotho) except to note that Lobelia is thrown in the pokey for standing up to Sharky's men. The hobbits, being somewhat comic characatures of the English, are themselves not without faults. Some male hobbit characters are rather stereotypical as well. I believe this is to give a sense of familiarity to the reader about the hobbits, for the purpose of later contrasing them with the men of the south and the elves.

Eowyn, though only a supporting character, is central to the story. Had she not disobeyed her father, she never would have slain the Lord of the Nazgul during the battle for the Pelennor. This does not strike me as a character painted by someone with a subtle and insidious sexism. I would have thought a sexist author would have made her less heroic, or perhaps her disobedience to her father would have risked the outcome of the battle instead of deciding it. Would the women of the Mark be so tough were this true? As for Eowyn settling for second best, I think it is because Aragorn's heart clearly belongs to another already. This is portrayed during the movie, but in the books is found in the appendix. You're right there's a reincarnation theme with Aragorn and Arwen, implying they are "meant" for each other. This is a common enough literary device to avoid accusations of sexism, I believe.

Likewise, Galadriel is a only a supporthing character, though she plays a critical role. Like Eowyn, she is a strong women: wise, noble and powerful in her own right. Celeborn is referred to first for formality's sake, but it is pretty clear who wears the pants in the family. She is not just a ring-bearer, but she does something few in middle-earth can do: she resists the temptation of the one ring. If the Lord of the Rings were filled with suble sexist messages, why is Galadriel so powerful? Wouldn't Celeborn be the ring-bearer? Might she not succumb to the temptations of the one ring were she a weak woman?

As an aside, manly he-men like Boromir seem to have a hard time with that, almost as if their aggressiveness gives the one ring an "in" to their hearts. More thoughtful men like Aragorn and Faramir seem to be better able to resist. Could it be the one ring works better on those with testosterone poisoning? Hobbits don't have beards, you know. :)

Anyway, we could probably go on forever about this subject. I'll politely agree to disagree. If I go any further I'll have to open them up to look at them, and if I do that I'm afraid I'll start reading them again. In conclusion, I do not personally see pervasive sexist or racist messages, even subtle ones, in the Lord of the Rings. I believe it is unnecessary to raise questions of postmodern political correctness to it. It is fantasy, and as such safe to take at face value. Moreover, it is good fantasy, better than most. There are plenty of positive messages to be gleaned from it without dwelling that it is insensitive to modern standards of multiculturalism and chauvinism.

Edited for television, I mean typos.

[Mechatanketra]

87. Cheerfully withdrawn!

OK, Tansy, this explanation makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clearing it up. I definitely can see the parallel from the relatively straightforward 'core' characters v. the often deeper 'side' characters (though IMHO Tolkien's "Mir brothers" weren't as well-developed as Jackson's).

In re the postcript: as an RPG fanatic (OK, yes, me geek), I understand the idea of characters "getting away from you". But the difference between gaming and writing is that there's no editing phase in gaming. A character can take actions that surprise me while I'm not really paying attention -- but when I'm reviewing my draft, if those actions don't satisfy me, they can be taken back. Characters who take on a life of their own can still be 'smited' later on in a fit of artistic wrath ... :-)

[Mechatanketra]

38. Yeah, I always thought the "English myth" was pretty goofy.

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country; it had no stories of its own... there were Greek, Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian and Finnish (which greatly affected me) but nothing English... of course, there was and is all the Arthurian World, but powerful as it is... it is with the soil of BRITAIN BUT NOT WITH ENGLISH..."

Of course England has no "stories of its own". It has no people of its own. I mean, who are "the English", other than a historical accumulation of Celts, Romans, Germans, and Scandinavians? It'd be kinda like me complaining that that America has no myth cycle beyond what we've either inherited from our immigrant ancestors or adopted from the tribals. Well, duh.

FWIW, I don't think Tolkien (at least, his writing) was outright sexist as infantiley chauvinist. The sense I got rereading the books is that he was, at heart, a little boy making up friends to play with, and those friends were going to naturally be other boys. (I have to note, though, that talking about Eowyn 'slipping out' as if actively against Tolkien's wishes says more about your prejudices than his.)

[REP]

40. Who Do You Mean By "The English"?

Do you mean the Anglo-Saxons who call themselves British (but who aren't; the Britons were Celts) or the Picts, Celts, etc?

I'm sure the Anglo-Saxons have their stories. The Welsh have theirs (The Mabinogian) and the Irish also have theirs, as do the Scots. When the Anglo-Saxons became the majority, they claimed the mythological heritage of the people they defeated while simultaneously trying to kill their languages (and people, of course). Tolkien continued this tradition with his stories, though I don't think he killed anyone, just used an ancient language as the basis of his nonsense language.

[Mechatanketra]

44. I mean "the English"

The people living in England. Right now (well, more accurately, those living in England circa 1940). Tolkien's lament seemed to be that they didn't have a mythology that was 'strictly' their own -- which, I was pointing out, only stands to reason, because the English people's language and history isn't 'strictly' their own.

I'm sure the Anglo-Saxons have their stories. The Welsh have theirs (The Mabinogian) and the Irish also have theirs, as do the Scots. When the Anglo-Saxons became the majority, they claimed the mythological heritage of the people they defeated while simultaneously trying to kill their languages (and people, of course). Tolkien continued this tradition with his stories, though I don't think he killed anyone, just used an ancient language as the basis of his nonsense language.

The only Celtic/Briton "mythological heritage" that anyone in England I know claimed after the Anglo-Saxons showed up was the Arthurian mythos, and that was hardly mustache-twirling Saxon conquerors writing themselves into their victims' legends. AFAIK Arthur didn't get attached to England until Geoffrey of Monmouth, a Welshman writing close to a century after the Norman conquest, who did his own share of cribbing (e.g. sticking Virgil's Aeneas into the lineage of pre-Saxon kings) in the process.

[rman]

67. what is racist about not depicting all races that roam the earth?

from where comes this notion that when some film/book/play does not include for instance blacks, the only reason for not including blacks can be that the creator discriminates against blacks?

If you follow that logic then any film, book etc must include all enicities, gays, fat people, thin people, disabled people, all religions, etc etc etc - or else it is discrimatory in one or more ways.

Which would mean that the vast majority of films books etc in existance are in fact discriminatory.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. I don't see any intended racial malice n/t

[Fozzledick]

29. It's derogatory in it's depiction of Orcs!

A thinly veiled agenda of Elvish supremacy!:tinfoilhat:

[Demonaut]

31. OMG, its based on the book series by Tolkien

read the books then make a judgement, sheesh no hispanics??? its friggen middle earth! Start with the Silmarillion then read The Hobbit then finish the Lord Of the Rings.

[WilliamPitt]

32. "I say rise, Men of the West!"

and a bunch of white guys draw swords.

Racist? How about narrow in scope...but then again, Tolkien wrote it that way.

[durutti]

35. No, but everyone should read this essay:

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html">Starship Stormtroopers

[Reciprocity]

36. It is about friends not race.

I think the LOTR was all about the price you pay for winning the good fight. When the book was first published the press were saying it was about WW11 .I believe it was all about his own experiences in the battle of the Somme in WW1. In his books his best friends never die and come into their just rewards for services rendered.

Back then whole battalions were comprised of men from the same town, that had enlisted together and serve together and died together. Friends and brothers died side by side, and towns lost all their young men in the same battle.
In real life his two best friends die in the battle for the Somme. Tolkien survives the battle but is stricken by a chronic life long illness just like Frodo ,and they both are never the same afterwards .


Marshes
The Journey through the Dead Marshes in The Lord of the Rings looks like a description
of the marshy and swampy battlefield in Flanders. In the course of the war the
surroundings of the city of Ypres were transformed into a deadly mud swamp with
slithery clay and shell holes filled with water. Countless soldiers drowned in these
treacherous pits.
http://www.lordoftherings.4mg.com/battlesomme.htm

Thorin
“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
But sad are merry, I must leave it now Farwell!”

[Swamp Rat]

39. He could've named it "Hoard of the Blings"

Then all the homeyz would've been cool with it too. :smoke:

[Cheswick2.0]

41. the orks and uruk-hai were not darker

I made sure to look when I watched the movies because I had heard that criticism. All I saw were a lots of light colored people who were in various stages of being covered in mud.

[Kinkistyle]

48. Orcs were almost LUMINESCENT they were so white.

And the Uruk-Hai were made out of mud. What, they were supposed to have pearly white skin?

[komplex]

42. It wouldn't have killed Jackson to

Hire at least one Black guy to have a significant role. Even Lucas gave us a Black Jedi.

[Nihil]

45. Why?

> Hire at least one Black guy to have a significant role.
> Even Lucas gave us a Black Jedi.

So making the effort to write in a brand-new "token Black" character
is somehow better than sticking to the original story?

*It* wouldn't have killed Jackson but I bet *you* would have jumped on
him the same for "catering to the Politically Correct audience".

[Tansy_Gold]

57. I think it might have been interesting if Jackson

HAD cast a few actors of color as elves -- and then simply not made any comment about it.

I think there's a certain racism --subconscious perhaps -- in the notion that actors of color can ONLY play characters of overt color. Whites seem to be able to be accepted in just about any role of any color, but we're still not yet color blind enough to accept an Asian, an African-American, an African, an Arab, or whatever, in a "generic" role or -- HEAVEN FORBID -- an overtly white role.

Maybe somebody oughta challenge that.

[Blue-Jay]

55. Yeah. Sam Jackson as Gandalf.

That would've made everyone feel good about themselves. :eyes:

[mark11727]

108. ...and his magik staff, the "Bad Motherf*cker".

Yikes!

[gottaB]

43. The thing about these mythologies, they ask you to imagine a time

before the advent of the Atlantic slave trade and the rise of modern Euro-American racism. Is that a racist undertaking, to obliterate history in such a way? Potentially. Are Tolkien and/or Jackson viewing this mythical time through a racist lens? Yes and no. Tolkien's worldview is clearly "racialist," if I may. In his imagination, even the trees become a race. While there are examples of similar perpectives on the world's peoples stretching back to antiquity--Herodotus provides a ready example--, Tolkein's racialism is distincly modern, and is best understood within the historical context of linguistic nationalism. As for whether it's racist, then, one question to ask would be whether Tolkien's anti-modernist posture provides an adequate vantage for social critique given the circumstances under which it was written, and continues to be read and retold. There's no simple answer to that.

Turning to color, I also observed in the movie the association of dark skin with evil, ugliness and corruption. Though one finds few expressions of it in Western popular culture, one can view skin color differently. One can see fairness and radiance or other luminous qualities in the complexions of Black Africans, Asians, American Indians, or anybody really. I suppose if everybody saw things that way we'd be well on the road to abandoning "race" as a perceptual category.

The polarization of color values, in combination with an explicit doctrine of racial struggle and racial purity--in Tolkien's world races can mix, but the results are either horrific or tragic--leads me to conclude that the narrative itself is problematic. I suspect it could be read or told in a non-racist way, but I don't believe Jackon's telling takes adequate measures to disallow or circumvent a racist reading of the narrative.

Mitigating factors. There are a few. Peter Jackson did not invent racism in the movie industry or Western culture, he merely chose to tell a racialist tale in such a milieu. And how do we, in the end, interpret the grayish-greenish complexions of the dark hordes? It is hardly Franz Fanon's worst nightmare, and it may well be that Jackson showed a modicum of sensitivity in that regard.

So to answer your question, I think the Trilogy's ambiguously racist. I don't quite believe that it's intentionally or maliciously racist, though I could imagine a less racist telling of it.

[LibInternationalist]

51. I'm gonna pull out the "Tolkien Dork" card here...

and point out that the different "races" as they've been called here are in fact different species, of which only Elves and Humans seem to be able to mate -- the perversion of races through unnatural means (the "twisting" of elves, etc.), which created orcs led to horror, but other combinations did not -- e.g. Elrond "Half-Elven" While relationships between Elves and Men (Arwen & Aragorn, Beren & Luthien) led to tragedy, Tolkien certainly did not suggest that they were a bad thing -- indeed, he identified himself with Beren and his wife with Luthien

[gottaB]

54. indeed, the theme of man-elf love suggests a rich social world

It does probe the Middle-earth construction of racial difference and introduce ambiguity. (I'm going to stick with the term "race" because for one thing I don't believe Tolkien's creatures were based on biological concepts.)

I'll also add that the tragic element of man-elf unions may belong to love, or at least its literary representation.

So I do recognize that Tolkien's world offers a complex web of relations that transcends the rudest kind of allegory one associates with myth, and that non-racist readings of Tolkien are eminently possible, in fact quite common. I still feel, however, that the Trilogy is essentially racialist and therefore problematic.

[Bridget Burke]

64. Two questions:

1) What's your field? Through which academic discipline are you filtering Tolkien's & Jackson's work?

2) Do you write? Tolkien was an academic who wrote LOTR in his spare time. So many modern fantasy writers rip him off instead of creating original work. There are many rich world traditions beyond Tolkien's stomping ground. Why don't you create something yourself?

[gottaB]

69. some answers

What's your field?

I don't have one.

Through which academic discipline are you filtering Tolkien's & Jackson's work?

None. I did explicitly cite Fanon and Herodotus, though. I was introduced to Fanon during a course on racism in a Black Studies program. Later in graduate school I studied African history and culture and found some use for Fanon, though to be honest most of the people who were talking about Fanon were doing comparative literature, which was not my primary interest.

Herodotus came my way via studies in cultural anthropology. I have encountered Africanists, classicists and historians who dug Herodotus, but really I only meant it as a common reference point.

Surely my education is interfering with what I am saying here, for the truth is that I am filtering Tolkien's work through memory--I read his works many times as child--and Jackson's work through my love of cinema, and both through the general matrix of opinions, sensibilities, perceptions and interests which define my personality.

Do you write?

Verily I'm writing now. The mode seems to be a hybrid of literary or cultural criticism and internet message board yakity yak. As it has failed to impress you so far, I won't say any more about that.

I also write creative works that have little connection to my DU persona. If the question is Does gottaB write?, I'd have to say not in the writerly sense I take as your meaning.

Why don't you create something yourself?

Well, I'm asking myself that very question. Why don't I get back to work?--and miss gabbing with you? Not a chance.

;)

[Bridget Burke]

88. Do you know any good African stories?

That sounds odd. What I mean--Tolkien's specialized knowledge of European legend & language was the source of his fantasy world. LOTR is just the most famous result.

So many of today's fantasists copy Tolkien's world but few use original sources for their own work. Surely there are tales from other traditions that would illuminate other aspects of the human experience. (I promise I wouldn't complain if there were no white people in the story!)

Perhaps the real problem is that so many who are over-academicized can only write academically. Far better to analyze someone else's work in terms of one's favored thinkers than to write something people might actually read for pleasure. Those readers might even learn something--but won't be writing the answers in those little blue books.

[gottaB]

112. okay, one more thing since we're talking

gottaB is a fiction. gottaB makes satirical message board posts, keeps an eye on world affairs, strives to make insightful commentaries and to engage in thoughtful discussion with like-minded liberals. gottaB has quirks and obsessions and personality traits which he shares with his author, but the two personalities are not co-extensive.

The author of gottaB is truly sorry that you're not reading gottaB's posts for pleasure, for neither he nor gottaB intend to bore.

To answer your question, yes both gottaB and his author know good stories from Africa, and a few pieces of literature as well. However, gottaB is neither storyteller nor novelist.

As it happens, gottaB's author does create recognizably literary works, though not in the genre that primarily interests you, and never under the pseudonym of gottaB. Being as deeply involved in creative writing as you are, perhaps you might understand why gottaB's author would want to keep some distance between his various expressive selves.

Anyway, gottaB's author would like to give you a few reasons why gottaB will not be honoring your exhortation to tell stories instead of making pretentious criticisms of Lord of the Rings.

• It would be out of character. Wrting fiction would do terrible violence to the author's understanding of gottaB, and could possibly lead to his (gottaB's) demise.
  
  
• It would detract from the integrity of gottaB's author's literary self. gottaB's author is capable of sustaining several well-developed creative personalities, but he only has room for one literary ego.
  
  
• Democratic Underground is not an optimal forum for sharing works of literature.
  
  
• On principle, both gottaB and his author reject the suggestion that one needs to practice writing in order to offer insightful opinions about literary works. They respectfully maintain that if you dislike or disagree with gottaB's opinion, the reason for that is not gottaB's underdeveloped skills as a writer.
  
  
• gottaB does not share your disdain for academic writing styles. He feels that it suits him from time to time. He doesn't feel constricted by it, but rather liberated. He believes that he can move back and forth between a variety of registers with relative ease and even, in rare moments, grace. That gives him pleasure, his sense of his own grace.
  
  
• gottaB stands by his opinions about Lord of the Rings. He presents his opinions as such.
  

That last item merits elaboration. For the record, gottaB has claimed among his favorite thinkers Arendt, Bakhtin, Bourdieu, Derrida, James, Kristeva, Lyotard, and Rorty. He has expressed appreciation for Guattari, Jefferson, Levinas, Said, and Thich Nhat Hanh, to name a few. gottaB's author shares those tastes, but is more widely read. He is currently tripping on Wittgenstein's Remarks on Colour and Husserl's Die Konstitution der geistegen Welt, which is something of a chore as his keenness for German has dulled, although he enjoys it nonetheless. Those studies are not likely to directly inform gottaB's style, though in certain aspects, one imagines they are bound to leave a mark.

Which is to say, gottaB feels that his reference to Fanon was not in the manner of analysis in terms of one's favorite thinker. Rather, Fanon's work appeared to gottaB's mind as naturally relevant to the topic at hand and the way he wanted to concieve of it.

gottaB says, I wish you would respect me for who I am rather than chastise me for who I am not. I like the way I present myself. I agree with my ideas--though I do acknowledge that my thinking may frequently be ambivalent, provisional, inchoate, rambling, contradictory or reversable. Still, I agree with my ideas and I express them the way that I do quite deliberately. I will not apologize for your disapproval of my writing style, but you have my sympathies.

Peace,

gB

[Reciprocity]

70. Yes I am a "Tolkien Dork" too

Uruk-hai "orc-race" (black speech) The name given by Sauron to a new strain of Orcs bred in secrecy by him in Mordor towards the end of the Third Age, and said (by his enemies) to have been created by the blending of the races of Orcs and Men. It is certain, however, that (so far as Orcs went) the Uruk-hai were a far superior breed, being taller and stronger, with great endurance, and an altogether higher level of intelligence.


Saruman himself attempted further genetic experiments with this race of "Great Orcs"- with singularly unhappy results: creatures known as "Half-orcs" which were said( by Saruman's enemies) to be the result of a cross-breeding the Uruk-hai and a certain degenerate Men in his service.

[gottaB]

72. Well, yeah

Uruk-hai are a race of slaves. They are not a people. I don't know what to make exactly of Tolkien's eugenics parable, but it does seem to me to rely upon notions of racial purity.

Do you think Tolkien depicts a general equality of races, or do you see a stratification of races?

[Reciprocity]

78. "Uruk-hai are a race of slaves. They are not a people."

Care to clarify this?

[Larkspur]

94. Uruk-hai and orcs were genetically engineered beings

Orcs in mythology are small ogres and the word orc comes from the Celt word for pig.

Tolken in the Silmarillon said briefly that the orcs in his tales were bred by the Dark Lords from elves seduced by them or those that they had captured and tortured. The orcs were bred to be the Dark Lords' army and were a mockery of the elves created by Illuvatar, Tolkein's version of the Creator God. Melkor, who was one of the Valar created by Illuvatar, was jealous of his Creator's work and continually tried to undermine it. It was Melkor who seduced Sauron to his wicked ways.

[gottaB]

113. Being a self-proclaimed Tolkien dork

You may appreciate the close readings others have provided.

I'll try to tell you what I was thinking. The question I'm asking concerns the equality of races or lack thereof in Middle-Earth.

For all of the superior qualities you mention, the Uruk-hai remain in my mind a race of untermenschen. We know some of their qualities, but what's not in the picture? Do the Uruk-hai have freedoms, like humans? Are they capable of love, like humans? Friendship? Between themselves? With other species? As you noted, the humans who mate with them are characterized as "degenerate." Is it a crime? Is it a crime to love a Uruk-hai?

And on an ethnological or political level, we see that the Uruk-hai are a race or breed, but are they a people? A folk? They do have a language. Do they have a homeland? Do they have traditions? What do they have in the way of history? How do they live? How do they conceive of their own destiny?

I strongly feel that the Uruk-hai are presented as less than human because they lack the kinds of things that make other races of Middle-Earth distinct and worthy. The Uruk-hai seem to have a status above Orcs and perhaps livestock, but below the human (which might be man, or a category including hobbits, elves, dwarves....). That's complicated too, though. The humans have the potential for either debasement or elevation.

These are my impressions. I would have to study it more to speak about it intelligently. In the meantime, Larkspur and other posters seem to be on the ball.

[kiahzero]

106. Symbolism

The problem is that you are imposing a modern interpretation on what was intended to be a work of mythology. Being a work of mythology, it worked with the symbolism of mythology.

Myths often use the light/darkness dichtomy symbolically, and this is sometimes misinterpreted as a racist subtext. Those that seek to interpret myth this way forget that there are many other things in this world that have this same kind of dichtomy. For instance, when we discuss the Enlightenment, is that subtly racist? Of course not... enlightenment refers not to pigmentation, but to radiance. The Enlightenment is put in contrast to the Dark Ages, the illuminating 'light' of reason contrasting with the 'darkness' following the fall of Rome.

And how do we, in the end, interpret the grayish-greenish complexions of the dark hordes?

This is only a problem if you are completely unable to think about literature symbolically. Another example of this type of limited thinking is how ugliness is often used symbolically... as several of my English teachers explained, an author may use outer ugliness as a symbol of an internal ugliness of character. Does this mean that those authors believe that ugly people are evil, and beautiful people good?

No, of course not. The author is simply allowing the reader to percieve people symbolically rather than literally. There is an instance of this kind of symbolism in LOTR - Gollum. Gollum is presented as being remarkably hideous, because of how the ring warped him. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the ring to change him physiologically, unless you see the symbolism Tolkien is using - his outer form reflecting his inner twisted nature.

Attempting to apply this symbolism to the real world ("Tolkien thinks ugly people are EVIL!") is simply silly, and reflects far more on the person doing it than the author in question.

[gottaB]

115. Are you glossing over key aspects of the symbolism?

1. Tolkien imagines a heierarchical order of light and dark races, not simply an equation of lightness with the good and darkness with evil. Conceptually, as I indicated above, there are no light races, there are no dark races, there are no races except in the mind. In practice, however, we Westerners have a social history of racial classifications, color caste systems, and brutal oppression. That's hard to escape in my view.

2. I do believe The Lord of the Rings is a modern work of literature, that it is of the modern world, even though I acknowledge Tolkien's antipathy towards the modern world. I understand that Tolkien was constructing a mythology, in the form of the novel, which is the pre-eminent genre of the modern. How one might best interpret such a polyglot work presents an interesting question. Nevertheless, regarding it in the context of modernism is well warranted.

3.

And how do we, in the end, interpret the grayish-greenish complexions of the dark hordes?

This is only a problem if you are completely unable to think about literature symbolically.

Perhaps your reading of my question was limited by your desire to express an opposing view? I was speaking specifically of Jackson's adaptation, and making the suggestion that he might have avoided portraying the Orcs and such as extremely dark because he was sensitive to how such a portrayal could be interpreted as racist. He gave them a complexion that appears absolutely Other. That's why I considered it a mitigating factor.

Somebody upthread made a similar point. Maybe it would seem clearer to you to see the idea expressed in somebody else's words.

Would you like to argue that Jackson's choice of colors was motivated purely by a desire to portray beauty and ugliness? That he had absolutely no concern for sidestepping or undermining racist readings of his work? Could be. Indeed, it's pure conjecture on my part, what Jackson was thinking. The same is true of your reading, however. I presented my conjecture with caveats, and in the context of recognizing ambiguities inherent in the text and its retelling, and with due regard for the validity of alternative readings. Whether you will extend the same courtesy to my interpretation is of course at your discretion. I can say with some degree of confidence that it wouldn't hurt you to try.

[kiahzero]

116. Grayish-Greenish complexions

Gray and green, in negative contexts, represent death and evil, respectively. By making the creatures have complexions of such a color, Tolkien expresses that this death and evil are a fundamental part of the creature's being.

Forgive me if I have oversimplified your interpretation, but it seems to be that, since dark skin color was associated in the work with evil and corruption, it must necessarily be making a racist statement. Is that an accurate statement, or is there additional nuance that is necessary?

On edit: My girlfriend informs me that the Christian mythos associates green with death, evil, and Satan. Thought that was interesting.

[gottaB]

118. light:dark

I'm saying that in Tolkien's world, complexion defines races and not merely character types, that certain personality traits are attributed to races rather than to individual characters, and that some races are regarded as inherently superior, perhaps immutably so, while others are inferior.

Your thoughts about colors and especially green raise some interesting questions for me. Is the formula white:black::good:evil too simple? Is it right? Is it the same as light:dark::good:evil?

In my recollection, there are clear associations between elves and green, though I don't recall the elves having green skin. Are the grey elves superior to the wood elves? Are silver-haired elves superior to dark-haired elves? Some of these questions are addressed in the Silmarillion, where we learn about races of light and dark elves.

So I'm thinking that the basic polarity may be light:dark and that hues may be neutral. If there is an element of green:yellow::light:dark or green:brown::light:dark, I'm not convinced at the moment that it structures the work in a substantial way.

So perhaps my choice of "greyish-green" was ill-concieved. What I meant was this: I suspect Jackson deliberately avoided portraying Orcs and Uruk-Hai as Black or Asian, whereas Tolkien did not.

In Mordor, a nameless Orc arm was described as having "dark skin of greenish scales". Ugluk the Uruk-hai was a "large black Orc".2 The implication is that while not all Orcs are black, they are generally darker-skinned. This is confirmed by the fact that Ugluk calls the Rohirrim "Whiteskins", which implies that the Orcs are generally not white-skinned.3 There is a general trend in LOTR of the bad people having darker coloration than the good people - red-cheeked Hobbits vs black Gollum, white Elves vs darker Orcs, white Edain vs swarthy Easterlings and Southrons.

So what exactly does an Orc look like?

I would recommend that entire issue of Pet Sins to you.

[sweetheart]

46. Star wars follows the same vein

Nobody is to blame, but sooooooo many hollywood films all seem to
have good excuses for under-portraying women, and ethnic races in
the films... LOTR is just another of a long line of films that
provides no serious female characters, (hmmmm 50% of the human race
undermined) and no serious characters of colour.

Tolkien wrote those books in the scottish highlands where the racism
endemic to rural white ignorance is quite apalling. Those same
racists went across the atlantic to create the klu klux *KLAN* which
is heralded even in scotland, as another clan.. in folklore, by
the racists who are proud of the legacy gifted to the US.

The geography of scotland allows you to look at dark skinned races
as far away, to dehumanize them and to create a novel idea of a
crusade against "them". It is no suprise that previous crusdades
found support in the british isles and northern europe as well. The
book simply picks up these imprints, methinks unintentionally, and
were hollywood responsible in its adaptation, some better care could
have been used in editing the story to bury that legacy.

As a books purist, they certainly did change the story, so why not
change it to remove the race bias?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

47. You're white, aren't you?

Only a white person has to go scouring fantasy films to find examples of racism.

[Loonman]

49. Asinine

This is one of the dumbest statements about LOTR, ever.

[Kinkistyle]

50. Ents had dark-skin.

Well, I guess technically it was "bark" ;) They were some of the most kick-ass good guys in the flick. Which also reminds me that J.R.R. Tolkien was a big environmentalist. If I would criticize Tolkien of anything its that he was a bit of a Luddite and was anti-technology.

[Bridget Burke]

53. No.

Tolkien was working from languages & legends of Northern Europe where people have tended to be rather pale. Periodically, some academic with time on their hands deconstructs Tolkien to show his racism, sexism, or whatever. He was a professor of Anglo-Saxon who invented all these stories in his spare time. Too bad none of the critical academics use their own spare time to convert their profound knowledge of other traditions into fiction. There are wonderful stories out there just waiting to be retold.

In fantasy literature, far too many modern writers are third-rate Tolkien ripoffs. But there are exceptions. I'm finishing The Blackgod by Greg Keyes (whose most recent work is the wonderful The Briar King). It's a sequel to The Waterborn; in the world of these two books, white people are rather scarce. There's a great empire reminiscent of Egypt and some fierce nomadic horsemen somewhat like Mongols or Plains Indians. All these characters are brown of skin, with black hair (curly or straight). The heroine is a 13-year-old princess of the great empire. In the North, there are semi-civilized farmers with white skin. (All the racial stuff is mostly descriptive--not important to the plot.) Non-humans & an amazing crew of gods & goddesses also appear in these are ripping yarns.

What I'm trying to say is, I love Tolkien & appreciate PJ's adaptation of the his. Rather than wanting every aspect of humanity to to expressed in one work of art, we need more works of art showing the rest of the story.

Get to work, you writers & filmmakers!

[Bridget Burke]

63. Correction--too late to edit.

(penultimate paragraph)

What I'm trying to say is, I love Tolkien & appreciate PJ's adaptation of the story. Rather than wanting every aspect of humanity to to expressed in one work of art, we need more works of art showing the rest of the story.

[NewJeffCT]

66. Agreed, and I'd like to add...

I agree with you on Tolkien and the astounding number of Tolkien rip-offs out there. (I like George R.R. Martin's Song of Fire & Ice series so far, though it is Anglo centric being very loosely based on the War of the Roses) I think it also helps that Lord of the Rings was written in English, which is a 'native' tongue for most Americans, as well as English, Irish, Australians & New Zealanders.

Which is part of the problem for us here in America – we just do not have the exposure to the legends of Africa, China & the rest of Asia, the Middle East, South America, etc… and, even if we do have exposure, it might not translate well into our tongue. I have tried in vain to read China's most famous novel – 'Three Kingdoms' (Or, 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms' as it is called here) and it is very hard for me. And, I speak a little Chinese. But, it gets confusing separating the Lu Bus from Liu Beis and the cast of thousands in the books. I'm sure if there are similar stories & legends in African or Middle Eastern tongues, it might have similar translation problems.

[Bridget Burke]

68. Yes, stories from the other cultures need translation....

And not just the word-for-word kind. But Tolkien's source materials are not exactly easy, either. It takes real understanding & artistry to turn all that ancient stuff into something the (educated) masses can appreciate.

Have you ever read Cordwainer Smith? He was raised in China & knew the language & culture well. His fantasy/science fiction stories are set in the future--not in China--but supposedly use some Chinese narrative methods. Wonderful stuff, beautifully told, highly original and not well known.

[NewJeffCT]

76. thanks for the tip

Never heard of Smith, but I have not read as much sci-fi & fantasy the past few years. The birth of my daughter 16 months ago has cut in to my free time... unfortunately, my 'fun reading' has been limited to the morning newspaper w/ the Boondocks and little else.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

61. Not this again.

No, they aren't. There's a beautiful passage in The Two Towers where Sam looks at a dead Southron (or maybe an Easterling, I'm going from memory), and it proves the case that Tolkien was no racist.
Anyway, nowhere does it say that Dwarves or even Hobbits have white skin.

[Tsiyu]

71. Wow

Coincientally, just sat through all three with my younguns, too. Great way to stay with the plot, but we didn't finish til 2 AM. I love all the good looking men in the film. Strap on a Strat or a Tele and they could all be Southern Rockers.

I did muse about the "R" thing, but the funny thing is that everyone from Hero to Villian had a British acccent and a Caucasian look of some sort. These were Tolkien's tales of middle earth, where pasty was the skin tone. It would be more factual to present the mass of characters as those who, living on an isle similar to Britain, would be fair-skinned and at that time, had not made contact with oriental or african people. Had they tried to create black characters to make the movie more palatable or representative of modern man, folks would have still complained that this or that character was being stereotyped- blah blah blah. If we made a beautiful epic trilogy of a Zulu tribal legend, one with its history well before white man made any contact or vise versa, I would expect that every character would be brown 0r dark-skinned. I did notice the absence of color, and missed the beautiful varied shades of man to some degree, but I think I missed the missing Queens more than anything. Few of those princesses and princes had mamas. WTF?

[geek tragedy]

77. They actually made the films more woman-friendly

Arwen was significantly pumped up from the books, and they introduced some feminist subtexts in there (two of the screenwriters were women).

Professor Tolkien was brilliant, but he was also a stuffy man living in a period less advanced than today in giving women a voice. His own daughter lobbied him to increase Eowyn's role in the book.

[IronLionZion]

74. This is the White Man keeping us down again!

As if Tolkien and Peter Jackson are racist!

:crazy:

[DrWeird]

75. I'd say the books are mildly racist.

Although unintentionally so.

The films just translated it to film. Probably with the intention of exposing the books for what they were.

[Frangible]

79. Although it would've been amusing to have Dave Chappelle...

tagging along as "conspiracy brother" with the fellowship, I'd have to say no, not racist.

And FWIW in the book, the rangers were dark skinned, probably to be similar to the gypsies (roma).

[Larkspur]

81. Tolkein shared the English bias against dark-skinned folks

The "wicked men" who fought for Sauron were characterized as swarthy, which means dark-skinned. And the "oliphants" were an allusion to the rebels in India, who tried to break from English rule.

Tolkein was born in South Africa in the late 19th century when England was still an empire, and just like most English men of his era, he absorbed his culture's bias against non-Caucasians, and was a male chauvinist, but he wasn't a militant bigot.

As far as the Lord of the Rings use of darkness associated with evil, that is a common use in most cultures, Caucasian and non-Caucasian. Darkness is feared by most humans because we can't see in it and some predators who have killed humans can see in it.

The orcs were created by Melkor and Sauron from elves who were seduced by evil and those who were captured and tortured by the Dark Lords.

The key to Tolkein's book is that evil as embodied in the One Ring is about being obsessed with obtaining absolute power, which as Lord Acton said "Aboslute power corrupts absolutely," or the power to dominate other beings. Sauron, the disembodied villain, represents tyranny in all its forms -- physical, spiritual, and psychological -- and every addiction that plagues humans, like drugs and our dependence on imported oil.

Tolkein was not consciously using light and dark to brand living people good and evil. His tale is like the myths he patterned it after -- metaphors for the human journey in life.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

82. Incidentally, the Dwarves aren't white.

So that kinda undermines the whole racism argument, eh?

[Larkspur]

83. No it doesn't

I love Tolkein's story, but Tolkein specifically used swarthy to describe the wicken men who helped Sauron. He doesn't have any swarthy men coming to Gondor's aide.

Tokein's racism is not blatant. It's a product of his culture and must be looked at from that viewpoint as with any author.

I'm not condemning Tolkein, just pointing out that Tolkein's racism is very mild but it is there.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

84. Yes it does.

It means some of the 'good' characters are not white.

[Frangible]

85. Aragorn and the rangers were dark-skinned as well (in the book)

Most. Ridiculous. Thread. Ever.

[Larkspur]

91. Aragorn was a descendant of the Numenorians

Numenor was Tolkein's "Atlantis." Most likely Aragorn's ancestors were similar to the ancient Greeks or ancient Cretes, who were Caucasians but brown-skinned due to the climate of the region.

[Liberal Classic]

86. Also note that all of the southrons were not wicked

Some were merely deceived by Sauron, and marched to war under false pretenses. It said something to this effect after the battle for the Pelennor Field that after many of the men laid down their arms they were suprised that Gondor didn't treat them with cruelty in response. Sauron was always a great deceiver, and this imples most of the southrons were not especially wicked, merely men. Some did not lay down their arms, and fought to the death of course, but it is important to note that the southrons are not all the same. There is more depth than southrons simply being all evil and northmen simply being all good.

The closest things that I can think of from the books that speak directly to the subject of racism and racial hatred are three fold:

One is the treatment of the Pukel-men or Woses by the Rohirrim. The physical description of the Pukel-men seems to me to be that of an Australian aboriginals. Ghan-buri-ghan makes a pact with Theoden, in exchange for their help that the people of the Mark not hunt the Pukel-men as animals. It's clear the men of the Mark and the Pukel-men were in conflict, but the needs of the war required cooperation against a greater enemy. In payment for assisting Gondor, Aragorn ceeded any claim Gondor made on the Woses' lands. This is a pretty clear depiction of a conflict between two human races that was resolved through diplomacy.

Secondly, Saruman inflames the "old hatred" between the Mark and the "hill people" an ethnic group which the book hints lived once in the lands now occupied by the Rohirrim. It doesn't say whether the hill men are black or white, in the movie they are portrayed as somewhat neanderthal looking. In this instance, Saruman the silver tongued devil incited an old racial hatred to his material advantage. This is certianly a nod to how harbored racial hatreds can spring up from time to time.

Also note that in Bree men and hobbits lived side by side in what was described as an unusual but excellent arrangement. If this isn't a small nod to racial harmony, I don't know what is.

I believe there's more depth here than some people care to admit. On the surface maybe it's easy to say "Oh it's a story about a bunch of white people" and pass it off as systemic racism from Tolkien's day. However, reading the books shows me there was more going on inside Tolkien's head than just paleface versus brown people.

[Larkspur]

90. I never said Tolkein's books were simplistic about race

I just said that Tolkein was a product of his time and that his racism was a product of his culture, just as we are products of ours.

Regarding the relations between hobbits, dwarves, elves, etc. I never interpreted that as about race, but like the relations between different countries or tribes or between different species. I see Europe with all its various ethnic and tribal groups within the same continent as the model for Tolkein's Middle Earth and most Europeans are of Caucasian descent.

I saw the Pukel-men as being more like the Polyneisans than the Australian aboriginals. The stone statues described in his book reminded me of the ones found on Easter Island, which was founded by the British in the 18th century.

Whatever our interpretations on race in Tolkein's books, they are good stories that do what the great myths do -- transend the author's and readers limitations to tell a tale about the human spirit, no matter what race, ethnic group, or tribe, we are from.

[Liberal Classic]

93. Notice how differently we held the same characters in our own mind's eyes

I think it is difficult to pin any racism on Tolkien when his story means so many different things to so many different readers. It is certian that the readers predjudices also come into play when interpreting the story as well.

Even among hobbits there was mistrust, the people of Four Farthings were somewhat mistrustful of the Brandybucks simply because they were different. Brandybucks lived on the river and some could swim! The true number of differences were small, but that didn't stop the provincial Farthingers from being suspicious of them all the same.

I think Tolkien did a marvellous job of showing all kinds of racial strife (elves vs. dwarves, elves vs. orcs, orcs vs. everyone, men vs. other men, and so on) and contrasted this with a few examples of racial harmony (Gimli and Legolas, the big folk and little folk of Bree) and some uniting of races to defeat a greater foe.

I just do not see Tolkien's minset trapped in 19th c. racist mode.

Just my opinion, of course. Cheers.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

95. You want controversy? I think Tolkien was a closet Socialist.

I know how crazy that sounds.

[Liberal Classic]

96. Woudn't shock me too much

The hobbits are nigh-utopian anarchists, at least until some other group moves to exploit them.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

98. And upper-middle class Frodo doesn't have the moral strength

to reject evil, but Sam does. Sam is the true hero of the tale.

[Reciprocity]

102. "And upper-middle class Frodo doesn't have the moral strength"

But Bilbo did. He was the only one in the history of the ring to give it up of his own free will.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

103. Sam did too.

[Liberal Classic]

107. I was thinking more along the lines of

the hobbits had little or no government of which to speak. They pain nominal allegience to the King, but as there had been no king in Fornost for generations they were largely autonomous. Their mayor was largely a ceremonial position with little authority, and their police spent most of their time tracking down wayward livestock. This analogy breaks down because they were sheltered by the rangers, though they had forgotten this fact, and then their utopian ideal was shattered when another stronger group moved in and started exploiting them.

If we were to apply "classes" to the hobbits, I would agree that the Baggines were well to do and the Gamgees were working class. Frodo was more than half a Brandybuck, and the Brandybucks were considered more fey than the mundane Bagginses. However, this distinction became less important, not more as the story progressed. I've always felt Sam was the unsung hero, not just the sidekick, but I think it is unfair to suggest that Frodo does not have moral strength of his own. The outside world showed Sam and Frodo just how provincial they were, and as the saying goes how can you keep them down on the farm when they've seen gay Paris.

If there's any class heirarchy in lord of the rings it is (as noted by another person in this thread) the immortals versus mortals. However, with the destruction of Sauron and the elves leaving the shores, the whole structure would seem to be breaking down. Aragorn is likely to found the last dynasty of fey men.

[Bridget Burke]

97. And the hill people were white, if "swarthy"....

They're actually the Dunlendings, ancient enemies of the Rohirrim. (Eowyn uses the word "Dunlending" in an alternate take on a supplemental disk.) Saruman stirred them up with reminders that the Rohirrim had taken their land. Since the Rohirrim definitely spoke Anglo-Saxon, wouldn't that make the Dunlendings Celts? The "pure" (ho ho) Celts were blond or red-headed, but the Celtic-speaking people displaced by the Sassanach were actually of mixed blood. (Some of us are quite dark.)

And the Dunlendings were definitely treated badly in the movies. The Easterlings (seen marching through the Black Gate by Frodo, Sam & Gollum) obviously represent a sophisticated culture, with their elegant uniforms & orderly ranks. The Oliphaunt riders personify barbaric splendor. But the hillmen/Dunlendings are oafs in dark rags, with messy hair & shaggy beards.

Of course, the noble elves reveal influence of some "Celtic" stories. Tolkien is not simple. And some of my best friends are Sassanach!

[DrWeird]

99. Well, they aren't gentiles. They're jewish.

They're money-grubbers with big beards and hooked noses. I believe Tolkein actually admitted he based the Dwarves on the Jewish race, he even based the Dwarvish language on either hebrew or yiddish, I forget which.

And Tolkein's dwarves usually aren't portrayed in the most glowing of terms in his books.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

100. That's true, I heard a BBC radio interview from 1972 or so,

but I think the Dwarves are portrayed as well as any of the other of the 'good' races. If you notice, Men don't do very well in the books either.

[LuminousX]

89. Not Racist

Would an epic tale based off of Japanese culture and myths that portrayed Evil as Brown be considered racist?

[West Coast Democrat]

92. Being that the movie was filmed in New Zealand.....

I think it just so happens that there are a lot of Maori actors playing "evil" characters in the film. I don't want this to sound racist at all, but if you were in New Zealand looking for extras, big, physical Maori men would be an excellent choice to play the warriors...and it wouldn't exactly fit to have them play roles as other extras due to the fact that the story is supposed to take place in mythological Europe.

[noahmijo]

101. Oh come on this is getting out of hand now

This way overblown on the PC scale. The orcs were clearly monsters, their skin being dark was just to add to the sinister look. What do you overly sensitive types want? that we should just start changing great works and writings around when making them into movies just to ensure the small minority of yahoos (who wouldn't know true racism if they were the star of "Black like me") don't throw a tantrum?

I thought it was comical enough that one film reviewer from the Tucson Weekly over here spent the entire column insisting that Legolas is gay and secretly after Aragon.

Get over it already people. If you wanna fight racism start making more friends with people who are of a different race than you and invite them over for Thanksgiving or whatever special occassion instead of wasting your time attacking movies with baseless complaints.

[Bridget Burke]

104. Of course Legolas was after Aragorn!

The Legolas/Gimli relationship was an example of friendship conquering prejudice, but it was just a friendship. Legolas didn't head West until after Aragorn died. Could Gimli have been a beard?



And many of the orcs were white.

[noahmijo]

105. Well however you want to put it

Legolas kicks ass, gay or not gay I'd fight alongside a guy like that any day of the week.

[Beaker]

110. Sure....if you're an orc.

[Alex146]

111. Words fail me...

Did you even watch the movie? Do you realize that there is more to diversity than black and white? In this story you have people from a vast spectrum of races (dwarves, hobbits, men, elves) who set aside their differences for a common goal.

[Cleita]

114. I thought the same thing. However, since Tolkien used

the folklore and mythology of Northern Europe as it's basis, it's not surprising that everyone would be white. I noticed that the story had more meaning to my friends who are ethnically of Northern European extraction than it did for me. I don't think it was deliberately racist. It would be sort of like trying to make the legends of King Arthur and the Round Table to be racially diverse.

[Mr. Blonde]

117. Not to sound homophobic

but did anyone else notice the film advocating hobbit on hobbit action?