Racism in Tolkien

Thû's Chicken said:

In "Morgoth's Ring", Tolkien described the Gnomes (i.e., Noldor) as having skin of "dark hue" (and their eyes were grey). CT mentions that this didn't make into the final Silmarillion (probably just forgotten). Make of it what you will.

Click to expand...

Just to help make things clear, the note in question reads

$26 In Text A the opening sentence of this paragraph read: 'Next came the Noldor, a name of wisdom, and the Gnomes they may be called in our tongue', with 'Quoth AElfwine. (The word that he uses ...' placed in a footnote. The typist of LQ 1 placed all this in the body of the text; but my father directed that it should all go into a footnote, as is done in the text printed. In the Old English versions of the 1930s Witan was not used, but Noldelfe, Noldielfe (see also IV.212). On one copy of LQ 2 my father struck out 'Gnomes' and wrote above 'Enquirers'; this occurs nowhere else.
At the end of the paragraph he added to Text A: 'Dark is their hue and grey are their eyes'; this did not get into the later typescripts. See 1.44.

Click to expand...

Note that this states that this piece of information does not occur in Tolkien's later typescripts of the same material. From this we can derive two possibilities. Either Professor Tolkien abandoned this idea and removed from furture works, or his secretary/typist simply missed it. I tend to subscribe to the former.



Just trying to be helpful
RD

In other passages the dark hair of the Noldor is stressed, rather than dark hue.

From The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), "Quendi and Eldar", C. The Clan-Names, Sindarin:

In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe.

Click to expand...

Of course Christopher Tolkien knew this well and can be relied on to interpret his father's handwriting. It is doubtful that Christopher Tolkien would misread hair as hue (though he might accidently so write it or his father might have miswritten another word for the word meant.)

If dark hue of skin was intended then it is most odd that this concept did not rise before or after in any description made by Tolkien (but not necessarily odder than the single reference to pointed ears).

Originally quoted by baragund
I never perceived even a smidgen of racism in any of Tolkien's works, and even the idea that there is a controversy in the matter surprises me.....

I would go farther to say that the mixture in the races of men is kind of beside the point. Tolkien intended Middle Earth to be an English mythology and the English are fair skinned. It makes sense to me that the mythology of a given culture would mirror the physical makeup of their societies.

Click to expand...

I agree. The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil.

When you see dark shadows, you don't know what may lay beyond or in them, for that matter, wheather it's good or evil. Where as in the light, you know what you are getting into, because it's all laid out before you. I think Tolkien decided to let use color as away of taking the guess work out of it, and use color to show you who are what was good or evil.

I'd like to know how racism even fits into it. I mean, I cannot believe that there are some who see more into the color angle then there really is, Because that's all it is: COLOR.

Warrior posted:

The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil.

Click to expand...

That is not a good way to distinguish good from evil unless you want white racists to nod their heads and take refreshment from such symbolism. Some of them do. They know that Tolkien was really one of them from this despite what he wrote outside his fiction about his rejection of racial theories.

I recall as a child possessing an old Oz-type book called Toodles of Treasure-town (probably orginally my mother's or grandmother's). In it some of the villains were black savages dressed in traditional clichéd black-African fashion. At the end of the tale they repented and were rewarded by the Glinda-the-Good clone by being given white skins.

The symbolism is horrible.

I mean, I cannot believe that there are some who see more into the color angle then there really is, Because that's all it is: COLOR.

Click to expand...

If that is all it is, then it is wrong to make more out of it: wrong to symbolise virtue or greater ability by lighter skin and wrong to symbolise vice or lesser ability by darker skin. That becomes strong racist imagery.

But I don't see Tolkien using light skin and dark skin symbolically in that way. His use is more complex. The browner and shorter non-Númenorean folk of Eriador and the Wild probably come imaginatively from a common depiction in adventure historical novels and in popularized racial theories portraying white skinned "Aryans" imposing superior civilization on darker skinned aboriginal European aboriginals. Picts were generally imagined as shorter and darker skinned. Robert E. Howard purposely protrayed them in the style of American Indians.

There is no evidence for this at all ... but light skinned Europeans liked to believe that light skin indicated superiority. Spanish nobility mostly attempted to trace their ancestry to Gothic origin rather than aboriginal origin.

In medieval tales peasants were usually portrayed as shorter, darker and uglier than the nobility. Tolkien's Númenoreans, good or bad, are deemed to be of more noble descent than other men, somehow innately less savage and more civilized, descendants of those who most resisted Melkor (aside from shepherd folk in the central lands who must be meant to be proto-Hebrews).

In his later writings Tolkien partly deconstructed this, declaring that despite what Gondorians and Faramir wished to believe, the Dunlendings were more closely related to the people of Gondor than were the Rohirrim and their grudge against those of Númenorean descent not without foundation.

Tolkien himself had intellectually rejected racist theories and had probably rejected class theories based on nobility but old ideas still have power to move the imagination.

Writers often still prefer Robin Hood to be a wrongfully disinherited Earl of Hungtondon rather than a yeoman as he appears in the genuine ballads. The myth of nobility in bloodlines dies hard in story, even among those who in real life have no belief that those born to privilege are innately better than anyone else. Literary tropes used by an author may not be what the author believes in reality.

Originally posted by Warrior
The very idea that Tolkien even has a smidgen of racism is absoultely, not true, I mean sowhat, the 'heros' are fair skinned whereas the 'evil ones' are dark skinned. He, IMO is using light vs. dark to get his poing accross, therefore defining the line between good vs. evil.

Response
Originally posted by jallan
That is not a good way to distinguish good from evil unless you want white racists to nod their heads and take refreshment from such symbolism. Some of them do. The know that Tolkien was really one of them from this despite what he wrote outside his fiction about his rejection of racial theories.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a good way but everyone has his or her own way of showing good from evil. A T.V. show I used to watch, 'Walker Texas Ranger,' the bad or evil persons were shown by a haze of red across the screen. So yes, their are different ways of displaying evil and getting your point accross.

So, yes there may be better ways of using color to show good and evil, besides black vs white, where black is bad/evil; and white is good.

Originally posted by jallan
I recall as a child possessing an old Oz-type book called Toodles of Treasure-town (probably orginally my mother's or grandmother's). In it some of the villains were black savages dressed in traditional clichéd black-African fashion. At the end of the tale they repented and were rewarded by the Glinda-the-Good clone by being given white skins.

The symbolism is horrible.If that is all it is, then it is wrong to make more out of it: wrong to symbolise virtue or greater ability by lighter skin and wrong to symbolise vice or lesser ability by darker skin. That becomes strong racist imagery.

Click to expand...

When you bluntly use ones skin color vs another as being superior to another, then yes, IMO that's racist. I mean if you are going to take actual black-African people and use their skin color as being evil and change it to white as a way of rewarding them, what is that, if not racist?

Originally posted by jallan
But I don't see Tolkien using light skin and dark skin symbolically in that way. His use is more complex....

Click to expand...

That is what I mean. He is not taking light sking and dark skin and casting it in a racist way.

Warrior posted:

That is what I mean. He is not taking light skin and dark skin and casting it in a racist way.

Click to expand...

He is and he isn't.

Those of Númenoreans descent, outside of the issue of skin color, are portrayed as mostly superior to the other folk of Middle-earth. That superior people have obviously superior ancestry is a myth that dies hard.

Though Tolkien himself was not racist in his beliefs, the legendarium that he created contains elements very congruent with racism and puts a great emphasis on nobility of lineage.

This cannot easily be glossed over. In part it is simply the conventions of the genre in which he was writing.

On the other hand, in Farmer Giles of Ham the yeoman hero of undistinguished descent is superior to the fops and do-nothings who comprise the hereditary aristocracy of the Middle Kingdom.

Yet Tolkien wrote both kinds of stories.

Sam Gamgee is of undistinguished lineage. Faithful comic servants of low birth are a stock type in earlier tales. But they normally remain in their place. In contrast Tolkien's Sam becomes Mayor of the Shire and founds a new family of distinction among the Hobbits. Such breaking of class barriers is very unusual in European literature in tales where nobility of birth is accorded worth.

Entirely the opposite is found in peasant fairy stories where a poor man often enough ends up marrying the king's daughter and inheriting the kingdom.

I very much agree, Jallan. It has always been the emphasis on Numenorean superiority as a race that has been the most questionable element, rather than a crude black/white = good/evil symbolism. It allows a racist reading of the text, even if most us would wish to reject this idea.

In fact I feel it is better to acknowledge that there might be some slight difficulties with the text than just deny the issue. Finding counter-examples and indications that Tolkien wanted to move away from "racial purity" elements of the legendarium is useful to a degree, but not if it equates to blinding ourselves to the matter. The real answer is to accept that there is a basis for this interpretation, show how other interpretations are possible and better, and in particular to emphasise the much more positive elements of the text are actually of greater significance. In particular, the choice of the lowly hobbits to defeat the imperialist Sauron is a much more inspiring and more central matter.

...uhhmm... Hi!...
I must admit that I've only read the first two pages... so if someone already said it... I'm sorry...

My question is... why you look at racizm in 'our' (real humans') way... I mean only about skin color?

I mean... there are Elves, Hobbits, Humans, Orcs, Dwarves... in Middle Earth... and while I know that Tolkien din't want to make any alegories... just look how these races co-exist with eachother... what kind of attitude they have towards eachother etc... and in the end there is A fellowship with representation of every race... a fellowship of friends...
I realy can't imagine a bigger anti-racizm message...

Hehe us orcs are notoriously cooperative!

Bathiu: I agree that this is a much more positive way of looking at this issue. The reason though why people look at it in terms of skin colour is, as you said, because that is the 'real human' way of racism. Because skin colour is made an issue in our world, people are inclined to look at Middle Earth in the same way, and inclined to ask whether these attitudes are portrayed in the text, and if so is it shown positively or negatively.

I myself like to think that the friendship between Legolas and Gimli is an example of how people can put aside and overcome historical emnities and prejudices. It seems to me to be good that we are shown how there may well be deep roots to these conflicts, but that we see they are neither wished away nor are they insurmountable.

On the other hand, if you wanted you could argue that the orcs are evil by nature, and that we are being invited to accept that they are intolerable 'others' who may be slaughtered without remorse, and yet they are sentient beings. Some of Tolkien's unpublished writings might suggest he too was troubled by the implications of this. With this in mind you could look at Faramir's statement that he would not trap an orc with a falsehood, and elements of the Shagrat-Gorbag conversation to question what their moral status truly is.

My own verdict is that LotR is ambiguous, but that the ambiguities are tolerable.

I applaude you all on your discussions of this topic. You have all presented ideas, scripts, etc. in order to explore this topic. I am glad that all of you are willing to discuss such a delicate topic. I am glad that one day you may all be able to convince whomever you want too that proffesor Tolkien was not racist. I myself will not post any on this subject. I believe that it is too late for me to start, and also, you would all out out-research me. I hope you all keep up this discussion and I look forward to reading it. Everything is well researched, well written, and all true, based in fact, not conjecture. A job well done, everyone.

Tolkien was definitely not racist. So the discussion should end right there in regards to him. However, I'm not so sure about the filmmakers though. You will notice that the trilogy is portrayed by a completely all white cast (especially the good guys). The Haradrim and Easterlings (who are obviously supposed to be of middle eastern or mongoloid extraction were covered up so I don't know if the actors playing them were coloured. The people coming in on the corsair ships looked ethnic. Bottom line is this, Peter jackson probably could have and should have cast an ethnic minority or two in the films. Is it any wonder why their is such outrage accusing Tolkien of racism? Well newsflash for you guys, It's Not Tolkien's fault! The idea I believe is mainly extracted from the movies. from the movies, the all white goodguys beating up on Easterlings and Haradrim. Really Mr. Jackson, did you not think that people would notice!! So in conclusion, the movie casting tends to give people the wrong idea. I've seen productions of shakespeare portraying Othello as black. The filmmakers might not want to go to such extremes but what is wrong with casting a minority as one of the heros? Or actually portray the Shire, Gondor, or other places as multicultural? Maybe not too realistic, but at least it would stop the accusers from accusing.

Is this fadhatter in disguise?

alphamale said:

I've seen productions of shakespeare portraying Othello as black.

Click to expand...

Do you know why? He was a Moor - from Africa. Where they have black people...

alphamale said:

Tolkien was definitely not racist. So the discussion should end right there in regards to him.

Click to expand...

Now that the issue is settled we could make good use of the spare time by reading the previous posts in this thread...

What a marvellous post alphamale. Highly entertaining.

I smell a troll.

WolfSmith, you make me laugh. Black people in Africa? You've got to be kidding me!

Wonko The Sane said:

WolfSmith, you make me laugh. Black people in Africa? You've got to be kidding me!

Click to expand...

I know! I was really surprised when I went there. It was really quite scary

Don't be silly. It's preposterous!
Next thing you know you'll be saying there are Asian people in Asia!!!

There is no racism in Tolkiens books, i cant understand, why you have this Thread here. I cant detect any racism in Tolkiens books.

LadyGaladriel1980 said:

There is no racism in Tolkiens books, i cant understand, why you have this Thread here. I cant detect any racism in Tolkiens books.

Click to expand...

Totally correct, just compare the extinction of Dark Numenorian and the salvation of Easterling and Harrad in ROTK, and then I think you can only conclude the severest intelligent challenged people will say JRRT has racism in his work.