Middle-Earth had the same flaws as our world of today

[zooeyhall]

As an avid reader of JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books, I have noticed some curious references to racism and even ethnic cleansing in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. By no means implying Tolkien himself was racist, or approved of such beliefs! But he doesn’t shy away from depicting that such qualities did exist in Middle Earth. And that it was far from a “fantasy perfect world”. And was subject to the same shortcomings and some of the same evils as our world of today.

Some examples:

1. The disdain of some of the Elves for the race of Men. When King Thingol of Doriath meets the man Beren, he scorns the race of Men as “children of little lords and brief kings”. And thus unworthy of the hand of his daughter Luthien. Elsewhere, it's implied that Thingol had such a low opinion of the race of men, that "mortal Men, he would not even take into his service". (The Silmarillion, “Of Beren and Luthien”)
2. The great civil war of Gondor “The Kin-Strife” was caused because the disdain many of the High Men of Gondor held for the men of the North. Especially that the heir-apparent to the Kingship of Gondor married what they believed was a woman of an “inferior race”. “For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and that it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race.” (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “Gondor and Heirs of Anarion”)
3. When the Men of the Eotheod came from the North and occupied Calenardhon, it was apparently already the land of the Dunlendings. In the chronicle “The Kings of the Mark”, the entry for the third King Aldor the Old, says that he “drove out or subdued the last of the Dunlendish people that lingered west of Isen”. (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “The Kings of the Mark”) That sounds an awfully lot like ethnic cleansing.

So—-thoughts? Opinions?

 

[arivista]

I don't know, may be it's just me, but I never got the impression that all the strives between the races in Middle Earth were influenced primarily by real-world race struggles, but rather from general group feuds (national, state etc.). After all, the European mythology, which was main source of Tolkien's inspiration, doesn't contain much racial stuff. But mistrust, demonizing, fighting, hatred, wars - yeah, there is plenty of that in it just in general, even among groups of the same race.

And disdain and prejudice are not displayed only - nor even primarily - alongside race, far from it. (Believe me, we Slavs know it very well from our history. BTW, check where the word "slave" comes from.). This is particularly (contemporary) Western perspective, and quite limited, in my perspective. Real world is much more complex.

So yeah, personally I don't think Tolkien was primarily reflecting racism in strict sense of the word when writing about, say, Elves vs. Dwarves*, but rather any in-group vs. out-group animosity in our world, regardless of the type.

-------------------------
* I even started thinking - where did the idea of bad relationship between the two originated? Was it part of the Legendarium before the Hobbit? Because if not, is it possible it was mainly a plot device to add some tension and obstacles for the part of the story where Thorin's company is captured by the Elves of Mirkwood?

 

[Eljorahir]

When King Thingol of Doriath meets the man Beren

My comment, just for fun...

It just occurred to me that Chapter 19, "Of Beren and Luthien" could have been titled: "Guess Who's Coming to Menegroth".

In the movie version Thingol would be played by Spencer Tracy.

 

[Ent]

Well. The first two comments represent a certain 'divergence of view'.
Ent would like to summarize the difference as follows, for anyone to comment on as they see fit.

Zoeyhall speaks to 'racism', which looks at the 'whole view' perspective of groups looking at one another and 'making judgments.'
Arivista speaks more to what Ent would call 'stereotyping' on a more specific level, separating the part doing the 'stereotyping' from the whole, so 'racism' may not really be in view.

Ent just wonders. In many places in Tolkien's work, there is no question a large group (an entire, separated group of a race) indeed 'stereotyped' another race to the point where that entire race was held suspect and rejected, each one having to prove themselves as an individual to be "other than the stereotyped perspective of the norm" for the race.

And the smaller group doing the 'stereotyping' indeed applied their perspective to the whole other race... not to an individual, smaller subset of that race.

How do we not have racism being depicted?
Where does a place exist where 'stereotyping' does not result in a "racist" attitude (if the stereotype is applied to a particular racial group)?

The concept is universal. Why do we have the stereotyped and so segregated "Boomers" vs. "GenX" vs. others? Of course, this is not 'racial'... though the dwarf/elf, or in some ways at times the elf/man issues clearly are. But such an 'age' stereotyping divides nonetheless, in very significant ways.

Not to get embroiled in a big "political" issue here... this has nothing to do with politics... but clearly, Tolkien was very well versed in ALL the flaws of human nature, and intentionally took time to display them throughout his works.

(Look, for example, at the way Hobbits were looked at by most, and the Pukel Men, and the Ents... clear racial siscrimination at work. A place like Bree held an exceptional group of people. But even Tolkien admits in his later works, eventually the Hobbits were hunted for sport.)

No, no... the scope of Tolkien's work includes racism, stereotyping, even interracial intolerance in every way. (In Ent's personal view.)

 

[arivista]

Ent just wonders. In many places in Tolkien's work, there is no question a large group (an entire, separated group of a race) indeed 'stereotyped' another race to the point where that entire race was held suspect and rejected, each one having to prove themselves as an individual to be "other than the stereotyped perspective of the norm" for the race.

And the smaller group doing the 'stereotyping' indeed applied their perspective to the whole other race... not to an individual, smaller subset of that race.

How do we not have racism being depicted?
Where does a place exist where 'stereotyping' does not result in a "racist" attitude (if the stereotype is applied to a particular racial group)?

The concept is universal. Why do we have the stereotyped and so segregated "Boomers" vs. "GenX" vs. others? Of course, this is not 'racial'... though the dwarf/elf, or in some ways at times the elf/man issues clearly are. But such an 'age' stereotyping divides nonetheless, in very significant ways.

I do not deny Tolkien's stories can be easily described in those term, but I think it is not entirely adequate; it can be rather misleading.

To give an example what I mean: let's focus for a moment at a short tale by the Brothers Grimm, The Old Grandfather and His Grandson:

Once upon a time there was a very, very old man. His eyes had grown dim, his ears deaf, and his knees shook. When he sat at the table, he could scarcely hold a spoon. He spilled soup on the tablecloth, and, beside that, some of his soup would run back out of his mouth.

His son and his son's wife were disgusted with this, so finally they made the old grandfather sit in the corner behind the stove, where they gave him his food in an earthenware bowl, and not enough at that. He sat there looking sadly at the table, and his eyes grew moist. One day his shaking hands could not hold the bowl, and it fell to the ground and broke. The young woman scolded, but he said not a word. He only sobbed. Then for a few hellers they bought him a wooden bowl and made him eat from it.

Once when they were all sitting there, the little grandson of four years pushed some pieces of wood together on the floor.

"What are you making?" asked his father.

"Oh, I'm making a little trough for you and mother to eat from when I'm big."

The man and the woman looked at one another and then began to cry. They immediately brought the old grandfather to the table, and always let him eat there from then on. And if he spilled a little, they did not say a thing.

One could easily say it is a tale about ageist discrimination, and yes, technically, it is not completely false. But it is somewhat misleading (even thoug, admittedly, not intentionally). To begin with, The Brothers Grimm never really thought in those terms, so the descripiton is simply anachronistic. And it shifts the meaning and the moral of the story a little.

Sure, the tale is a lesson how you should treat the eldery, and especially your parents, more nicely. But why? If I say it is about discrimination, I have given different emphasis. Discrimination is a concept that revolves around equality. So we should treat the eldery nicely, because everyone is equall and deserves to be treated the same, just out of principle. But that is not exactly what the Brothers Grimm wanted to say, most likely. Rather they pointed out you should do it out of respect to a man who raised you, out of empathy, because eventually you will be like him, and even for your own sake, to give the best example to your own children.

Sure, those are quite similar and even related reasons and morals, but they are not the same. So such modern interpretation loses some nuances.

You write about racist stereotyping and how is the concept universal and comparable to other types of stereotypisation and segregation. I agree, but I am afraid this is not a general view. To many modern readers racism is a special category of a different magnitude than other kinds of group disdain. Hatred between two racial groups is not seen as comparable to a hatred between "just" two nationalities, say, the English and the French. (Some would even be offended today, if someone says the latter is the same thing as the former.) But I am not sure Tolkien saw any essential difference between the two - I somewhat doubt any man of his time and background did (especially when we talk about young Tolkien writing first stories of Lost Tales). Just two examples of the same thing.

So I think one should be somewhat careful when describing how Tolkien wrote about racism. I am sure it is no-one's intention to mislead, but it can easily happen anyway, due to shifts in understanding the same concepts by different generations. When you say "Tolkien deals with racism in his works", it is simply not the same thing as saying, for example, "this new Netflix show deals with racism", and I think one should be aware of that, and consequently careful.

 

[Kiredor]

As an avid reader of JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books, I have noticed some curious references to racism and even ethnic cleansing in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. By no means implying Tolkien himself was racist, or approved of such beliefs! But he doesn’t shy away from depicting that such qualities did exist in Middle Earth. And that it was far from a “fantasy perfect world”. And was subject to the same shortcomings and some of the same evils as our world of today.

Some examples:

1. The disdain of some of the Elves for the race of Men. When King Thingol of Doriath meets the man Beren, he scorns the race of Men as “children of little lords and brief kings”. And thus unworthy of the hand of his daughter Luthien. Elsewhere, it's implied that Thingol had such a low opinion of the race of men, that "mortal Men, he would not even take into his service". (The Silmarillion, “Of Beren and Luthien”)
2. The great civil war of Gondor “The Kin-Strife” was caused because the disdain many of the High Men of Gondor held for the men of the North. Especially that the heir-apparent to the Kingship of Gondor married what they believed was a woman of an “inferior race”. “For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and that it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race.” (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “Gondor and Heirs of Anarion”)
3. When the Men of the Eotheod came from the North and occupied Calenardhon, it was apparently already the land of the Dunlendings. In the chronicle “The Kings of the Mark”, the entry for the third King Aldor the Old, says that he “drove out or subdued the last of the Dunlendish people that lingered west of Isen”. (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “The Kings of the Mark”) That sounds an awfully lot like ethnic cleansing.

So—-thoughts? Opinions?

You makes some good points, although the disdain of the elves was for everyone, even some of their own kin. On Tolkien's strife between races I see as being down to the reader's own prejudices from their own perceived histories (True or false ones at that). Tolkien viewed the world from an academic and personal experience. The Norsemen/Vikings, Anglo-Saxons etc, along with WW1 would have been imprinted on his mind when writing the conflicts required to create his sub-plots.
I don't see Tolkien as writing fantasy, his main domain was always mythology and poetry.

Good post.

 

[Radaghast]

As an avid reader of JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings books, I have noticed some curious references to racism and even ethnic cleansing in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. By no means implying Tolkien himself was racist, or approved of such beliefs! But he doesn’t shy away from depicting that such qualities did exist in Middle Earth. And that it was far from a “fantasy perfect world”. And was subject to the same shortcomings and some of the same evils as our world of today.

Some examples:

1. The disdain of some of the Elves for the race of Men. When King Thingol of Doriath meets the man Beren, he scorns the race of Men as “children of little lords and brief kings”. And thus unworthy of the hand of his daughter Luthien. Elsewhere, it's implied that Thingol had such a low opinion of the race of men, that "mortal Men, he would not even take into his service". (The Silmarillion, “Of Beren and Luthien”)
2. The great civil war of Gondor “The Kin-Strife” was caused because the disdain many of the High Men of Gondor held for the men of the North. Especially that the heir-apparent to the Kingship of Gondor married what they believed was a woman of an “inferior race”. “For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and that it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race.” (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “Gondor and Heirs of Anarion”)
3. When the Men of the Eotheod came from the North and occupied Calenardhon, it was apparently already the land of the Dunlendings. In the chronicle “The Kings of the Mark”, the entry for the third King Aldor the Old, says that he “drove out or subdued the last of the Dunlendish people that lingered west of Isen”. (Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, “The Kings of the Mark”) That sounds an awfully lot like ethnic cleansing.

So—-thoughts? Opinions?

Well, Tolkien never tried to paint any kind of idyll, so of course you can expect there to be strife in the tales. His stories are after all mostly of a tragic nature.

 

[Deimos]

With Melkor doing his "thing" evil was introduced into Ëa.
The situation mirrors the Biblical account of the fall of the most powerful angel, Lucifer ("light bearer"), not surprising since Tolkien was a believing [Catholic] Christian. From there the lesser spirits (e.g. Sauron and other Maia) were willingly corrupted, and then eventually elves and dwarves and men all to some degree. (Cf. Boromir, and Thorin)
That is, Middle Earth became "fallen" in much the same manner that our world is fallen, and with the same evils: pride, lust for power and wealth, inter-personal as well as inter- tribal strifes.
So, not at all surprised that ME is not idyllic; a paradise was no longer possible once Melkor produced his discordant theme.

And it's not just today (21st C) or even "yesterday" (20th C.). The evils have been present throughout human history.
Human nature doesn't change. Read the Iliad...Homer describes the exact same evils you are hearing about today.
Details may be different, but the essential evil is exactly the same.

 

[Ent]

To be fully grasped and understood, 'evil' must be considered in all its forms and applications. In the case of Eru and Melkor - and the Catholic/Christian God and he who became called Satan (Lucifer) - the concept of infinite Separateness ('holiness') - i.e. totally different and apart in every way - and complete selfishness-self-centrism - self-fulfillment.

The one, Eru, tries to offer the complete good that is himself, freely given away out-from himself toward all his creation... he existing as the only being having both infinite and "intrinsic" self-goodness.

The other, Melkor, rejecting that offer, seeking to find 'goodness' within himself - being neither infinite himself, nor having any "intrinsic" goodness to draw upon.

We could expand this issue deeply here, but it is enough to begin by pondering infinite Separateness and infinite "intrinsic goodness" in themselves without muddying the waters further at this time.

And of course, how they are manifested in all Tolkien's writing, first to last.

 

[Kiredor]

I see Tolkien's stories being solely based in European feudalism, especially Nordic.

 

[Deimos]

I see Tolkien's stories being solely based in European feudalism, especially Nordic.

If that is true then whose vassals are the Hobbits?
That is, to whom do the Hobbits owe fealty?

 

[Aldarion]

I see Tolkien's stories being solely based in European feudalism, especially Nordic.

I don't think so. Tolkien drew his inspiration mostly from time before feudalism had formed properly.

 

[Amon Rudh]

The Old Testament (and the world's history in general) is rife with ethnic cleansing and inter group/nation hatred, so its perhaps not surprising that there are a few references to this within the works of JRRT.

 

[Ent]

If that is true then whose vassals are the Hobbits?

Just as a (late) note, we know from the tale of years, in 1601 "Many Periannath migrate from Bree, and are granted land beyond Baranduin by Argeleb II."

At some point and place we read they are granted land in exchange for keeping a certain bridge (though I'm not finding it now).

And before that they acknowledged fealty to some very old King who was no longer around and hadn't been for a very long time, though they still kept to the traditional laws of that old relationship in general.

The new King of Gondor gives position to Meriadoc Brandybuck, and acknowledges Peregrin Took's position.

The Hobbits were always vassals to someone, fitting the regular patterns of feudalism. I'll get all the details pulled together when I have a bit of time to work on it again.

 

[Ent]

I don't think so. Tolkien drew his inspiration mostly from time before feudalism had formed properly.

hhmmmm... with this I think I'd say my viewpoint differs a bit. The 'free peoples' of Middle-earth lived pretty much in a feudal system and structure, many giving fealty to one another in various ways, but other than that being quite autonomous. They were left to govern themselves. And we see more of the nature of a feudalistic system as well.

A good treatment of the feudal structure of M-e is provided in The Road Goes Ever On And On by our own @1stvermont...well worth perusing. His sections on monarchy and feudalism are "an eye opener and no mistake".

The slaves, vassals and peoples of the Dark Lord were, of course, under the structures of tyrants.

 

[Aldarion]

hhmmmm... with this I think I'd say my viewpoint differs a bit. The 'free peoples' of Middle-earth lived pretty much in a feudal system and structure, many giving fealty to one another in various ways, but other than that being quite autonomous. They were left to govern themselves. And we see more of the nature of a feudalistic system as well.

A good treatment of the feudal structure of M-e is provided in The Road Goes Ever On And On by our own @1stvermont...well worth perusing. His sections on monarchy and feudalism are "an eye opener and no mistake".

The slaves, vassals and peoples of the Dark Lord were, of course, under the structures of tyrants.

Arnor may have been feudal, but Gondor wasn't. Gondor's structure appears to have been closer to Byzantine Empire.

Gondor, Byzantium, and Feudalism

dirigibletrance has asked me, in a comment at johncwright’s LJ: How exactly is Byzantine politics different from feudalism, other than taking place earlier and not in Western Europe? How are the politics we see of Gondor outside of the bounds of what we know as feudalism, both the narrow and…

superversive.livejournal.com

Gondor, Byzantium, and feudalism

bondwine.com

https://thetolkien.forum/threads/gondor-as-byzantine-empire-and-other-parallels.29152/

And you also have Rohan which is basically Anglo-Saxon England before the Norman invasion - and it was Normans who introduced feudalism there.

 

[Ent]

I will review it all carefully (in time) and come to some conclusions. (Not primary on the plate at present, though a very interesting subject.)

It would certainly not be beyond Tolkien to display several different forms of government structure, as he had significant strong viewpoints on the matter.

 

[Eljorahir]

The title "Thain" held by the head of the Took family also has a connection to feudalism.

Thain Concerning Hobbits: “…the North Kingdom ended; and then the Hobbits took the land for their own, and they chose from their own chiefs a Thain to hold the authority of the king that was gone.’ [Definition of Thane or Thegn: a free retainer of an Anglo-Saxon lord, especially one resembling a feudal baron by holding lands of and performing military service for the king.]

 

[Muskrat]

I hate to admit it, but the fact that orcs must be killed on sight and that Numenoreans are just better than other men seems racist. On the other hand, the fact that good deeds are usually rewarded, at least in LotR, if not the Silmarilion, is very different than our own world. Do you not think that in our world the quest would have failed many times over? This is maybe the best thing about the book, that in Tolkien’s world good can triumph over evil just because it is good.