Uncomfortable topics: Let's talk about race

[Cain]

You see traditionally white depicted races banding together to defeat orcs, trolls and humans who disagreed with them and had darker skin colour.  The latter never really got asked if they wanted to join the coalition of the willing.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

But does that necessarily equate to racism or is that just more reflective of the concept of brightness equals good and darkness equals evil? Is it just a white hat black hat scenario?

[BadBeast]

I tend to agree.  I've always understood that LOTR was Tolkien's attempt to sort of create a mythology for England and wasn't meant to be taken as allegory for the, at the time, modern day.  I'm not sure the lack of strong female characters means anything compared to any other literary works of the time which also had a lack of strong female characters.  I tend to think of it as more of a "sign of the times" than anything else.  I imagine if Tolkien was alive today and was starting to write LOTR in the context of modern day as it exists today, it would look a bit different. 

Those times were racist and sexist.

Not like today then much?

[BadBeast]

But does that necessarily equate to racism or is that just more reflective of the concept of brightness equals good and darkness equals evil? Is it just a white hat black hat scenario?

More of a "Me Boss, you worky plenty hard yes?" scenario

[Cain]

But does that necessarily equate to racism or is that just more reflective of the concept of brightness equals good and darkness equals evil? Is it just a white hat black hat scenario?

Intentionally?  Probably not.  But see ECH for that.  There are uncomfortable undertones to it, and less talented authors than Tolkein made it almost entirely explicit.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Fair enough- unintentional racism is still racist.

[East Coast Hustle]

I tend to agree.  I've always understood that LOTR was Tolkien's attempt to sort of create a mythology for England and wasn't meant to be taken as allegory for the, at the time, modern day.  I'm not sure the lack of strong female characters means anything compared to any other literary works of the time which also had a lack of strong female characters.  I tend to think of it as more of a "sign of the times" than anything else.  I imagine if Tolkien was alive today and was starting to write LOTR in the context of modern day as it exists today, it would look a bit different. 

Those times were racist and sexist.

Sure, but I still don't think there was any racism or sexism built into LOTR.  There are strong, powerful female characters in the story.  Galadriel anyone?  And I don't really see any racist commentary in the book either.  Indeed, we see races coming together for a common cause to defeat evil.  We see initial distrust between an elf and a dwarf melt away as they learn more about each other through their journey.  Just not seeing the racism or sexism. 

Actually I agree that it's not particularly sexist.

but really? All the white-skinned races are good guys and all the dark-skinned races are evil. Nope, no racism there.

[East Coast Hustle]

I've noticed a fairly consistent theme, which is that there are a fair amount of people who are under the mistaken impression that "it's only racist if it's intentional".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, I feel like a tool.

Anonymous asked: Lord of the Rings? Why there are no brothers on Middle Earth?

Oh, they're there, they're just the bad guys. Only.

Yeah, that shit is racist as fuck, by the way.

Yeah.  A bit on the sexist side, too.  Weren't any women with roles bigger than "trophy woman," from what I recall.

Evidently being a white male does make a lot of shit not noticeable. However, without doing a re-read, which I will do, I am going to out on a limb and posit that despite the lacking of strong female characters it probably isn't sexist. Unless sexist by omission.

Um...

Or am I just talking out my ass?

While whether Tolkein's work qualifies as sexist is debatable, but I do want to point out that "omission" totally, depending on the context, qualifies as an "-ism". Portlandia is racist by omission, for example.

[BadBeast]

Tolkien shared rooms at University with CS Lewis, and he was writing LOTR, in the same room at the same time that Lewis was writing The LTW&TW.
But at least Tolkien didn't go down the "Talking animals for Jesus" route.

[East Coast Hustle]

What does that have to do with racism?

Srsly, though the implicit racism in LOTR is both relevant and interesting, if this thread gets jacked into a Tolkein wankfest my rage will be legendary.

[Scribbly]

I don't think they shared rooms but I could be wrong.

I do know that Tolkein hated CS Lewis' fantasy stories because he believed all fantasy should be informed first by ancient myth and legend, and second should not involve the modern world (or indeed, Earth). Because doing so encouraged people to draw inferences into the work he did not want to be drawn.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've noticed a fairly consistent theme, which is that there are a fair amount of people who are under the mistaken impression that "it's only racist if it's intentional".

I'm getting that too.

That and "It's only racist if it's not the cultural norm for the era".

[East Coast Hustle]

IT'S NOT RACIST IF EVERYBODY OWNS BLACK SLAVES!
\

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've noticed a fairly consistent theme, which is that there are a fair amount of people who are under the mistaken impression that "it's only racist if it's intentional".

I'm getting that too.

That and "It's only racist if it's not the cultural norm for the era".

I'll buy that.  But even through the cultural norm may not excuse the behavior, it sure as fuck is an explanation.  Expecting someone in 1750 to have todays standard's of race relation is not terribly realistic.  Yes, it happened, but it wasn't by any means standard.