Uncomfortable topics: Let's talk about race

[AFK]

FWIW, the coalition of baddies in LOTR wasn't devoid of white races.  The Wild Men were a white-skinned race. 

Not to mention the corruption of Saruman, Grima Wormtounge...  While it has never been completely resolved, one evolution backstory for the orcs was that they were elves who were corrupted and enslaved.  I think the idea that hanging around a dark, evil place like Mordor is going to cause physical changes as their "soul" changed.  But Saruman didn't become non-white when he turned evil. 

So I dunno, I just don't see an out and out statement in that story that "everything that is good is white and everything that is bad is non-white"

That, and we're talking about fantastical creatures that don't exist in the real world.  At a certain level I think some Law of Fives might come into play. 

[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".

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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

To be fair, I have seen people try to dismiss the work of early American icons on the basis that they owned slaves. That, IMO, is a lot like trying to dismiss the work of Martin Luther King Jr. because he cheated on his wife.

[East Coast Hustle]

FWIW, the coalition of baddies in LOTR wasn't devoid of white races.  The Wild Men were a white-skinned race. 

Not to mention the corruption of Saruman, Grima Wormtounge...  While it has never been completely resolved, one evolution backstory for the orcs was that they were elves who were corrupted and enslaved.  I think the idea that hanging around a dark, evil place like Mordor is going to cause physical changes as their "soul" changed.  But Saruman didn't become non-white when he turned evil. 

So I dunno, I just don't see an out and out statement in that story that "everything that is good is white and everything that is bad is non-white"

That, and we're talking about fantastical creatures that don't exist in the real world.  At a certain level I think some Law of Fives might come into play. 

This is a fascinating combination of apologia and the exact sort of threadjack I was trying to avoid.

Well done.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

At times it's an important distinction to draw. In discussing the racism in Gone With the Wind versus, say, the racism in Birth of a Nation--those are two very different birds.

[Scribbly]

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

Because a lot of people do seem to think along the lines of the bolded.

You hear it a lot as a way of tearing people down. XYZ had views which we do not agree with in the modern day, therefore any merit their ideas/actions may have had must be ignored or discredited.

If you declare that something is a racist work then that is a fairly significant claim and can be seen as a reflection on anyone who enjoys that work.

Particularly when the author (in this case) has said that he wishes he'd been more careful to avoid people making that interpretation, it is also an unfair claim on the way the author's mind works.

If Tolkein specifically said he wishes he had written it to avoid any unfortunate racist implications, it seems to me that the chances are he was not a racist and it would be a damn shame if 'The Lord of the Rings perpetuates racist sterotypes' becomes the lasting legacy of the work.

[BadBeast]

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.

No, but to take that person from 1750, bring them here, culturally debrief them of how things are in today's world, we might find that people might not have been quite so all encompassingly racist as we are sometimes led to believe.

Acting in a certain way might be understandable if a person knows no better way to behave. But once they are educated and shown why for instance, owning Slaves is a reprehensible act of outrage upon your fellow man, they should be as capable as the next man of taknig this one step further, and paying off his workforce with some of the money they've made for him.

[AFK]

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

Because a lot of people do seem to think along the lines of the bolded.

You hear it a lot as a way of tearing people down. XYZ had views which we do not agree with in the modern day, therefore any merit their ideas/actions may have had must be ignored or discredited.

If you declare that something is a racist work then that is a fairly significant claim and can be seen as a reflection on anyone who enjoys that work.

Particularly when the author (in this case) has said that he wishes he'd been more careful to avoid people making that interpretation, it is also an unfair claim on the way the author's mind works.

If Tolkein specifically said he wishes he had written it to avoid any unfortunate racist implications, it seems to me that the chances are he was not a racist and it would be a damn shame if 'The Lord of the Rings perpetuates racist sterotypes' becomes the lasting legacy of the work.

THIS

[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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

Sure.  But it's important to see that...From the paternalistic racism of Casablanca to the apologist racism of Song of the South, if a certain type of people aren't shown this shit, it isn't real for them.

Also, the portrayal of the "moderate racist" as a dumbass in All in the Family did a lot, IMO, to make the moderates feel silly about what racism they had.

[Don Coyote]

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.

Makes total sense.

[Cain]

I'm proposing we go back in time and lynch Tolkein.  Let's kick the arse of that twee, Oxbridge nerd.

[Phox]

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

Because a lot of people do seem to think along the lines of the bolded.

You hear it a lot as a way of tearing people down. XYZ had views which we do not agree with in the modern day, therefore any merit their ideas/actions may have had must be ignored or discredited.

If you declare that something is a racist work then that is a fairly significant claim and can be seen as a reflection on anyone who enjoys that work.

Particularly when the author (in this case) has said that he wishes he'd been more careful to avoid people making that interpretation, it is also an unfair claim on the way the author's mind works.

If Tolkein specifically said he wishes he had written it to avoid any unfortunate racist implications, it seems to me that the chances are he was not a racist and it would be a damn shame if 'The Lord of the Rings perpetuates racist sterotypes' becomes the lasting legacy of the work.

What the fuck does this line of conversation have to do with anything?

LOTR is a textbook case of unintentional, unfortunate implications. This is not to say that Tolkien himself was racist, that his literary works should be dismissed on those grounds, or that the attitudes of the times did nothing to influence his writing either.

Everyone who is talking about Tolkein, please STFU or start a new thread ( I might even participate in it) or eat a gun or whatever. You are not adding anything of any value to this thread.

[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".

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.

I wouldn't expect them to. But what I don't get is why, if you point out that there is a racist or sexist theme in books from an earlier era, there's always at least a couple of people who say "yeah but it's just a reflection of their era".

So? Nobody's proposing that we go back in time and lynch Tolkien for being exactly like all the other white guys of his era. Just pointing out that, as a product of his era, there are racist themes in his writing.

Sure.  But it's important to see that...From the paternalistic racism of Casablanca to the apologist racism of Song of the South, if a certain type of people aren't shown this shit, it isn't real for them.

Also, the portrayal of the "moderate racist" as a dumbass in All in the Family did a lot, IMO, to make the moderates feel silly about what racism they had.

Yes, it is totally important to point out unconscious, generally-accepted racist or sexist themes in literature and film, even (maybe especially) older literature and film. Change happens through consciousness.

[Triple Zero]

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".

Totally makes sense, the only (rare) times when I'm being racist are completely unintentional.

I can sort of imagine how/why people like to rationalize that.

Personally, I don't, for the same reason there's nobody else to blame but me when I unintentionally knock over fragile shit, best intentions or not.

[Placid Dingo]

I was playing with ideas on this.

Firstly I did the most horrific job of articulating myself before. I'm nit denying that what I was sayi g was in itself a bit dickish, but I also didnt say what I meant clearly.

I bring up Little Women because there's a fairly poorly drawn black character in there. She's always portrayed as a loving, decent good natured person, but it's pretty clear her character owes more to black stereotypes than to any kind o well rounded character development.

I have difficulty seeing this as a racist porteyal because nothing about it seems to suggest that through her character I am being encouraged to think of her as unequal. I understand that stereotypes can degrade a person by reducing them to a series of disparaging cliches or to be disregarded as 'all the same' or made into an item of mockery, but even then I can't really see the portrayal as any worse than a book featuring a poorly characterised homosexual as typically effeminate or an Asian character who watches too much anime and is intelligent. Is poorly drawn equivalent to racist, if the tropes resorted to are race based? I still dont really think so.

Unless...

The unless is coming. I have to go over something else first.

I guess a reason I react the way I did is because I have unconciously had a view of specifically what the point of identifying racism in literature was. I figured it was about being able to recognise when a reader was being asked to accept a view that one race was superior to another (regardless of intent; while I get what ECH is saying, I've never thought that something not meant to be racist is by the virtue, not racist). So by that view, I don't feel like Little Women is explicitly or implicity asking me to value Hannah any less than the other characters (I've actually made a complete twat of myself now... I read Hannah's speech as an approximation of the African American accent but I just double checked and she's Irish). Anyway, the point I'm making is I felt that a poorly developed character supported by racial stereotypes, or a workthat could be perceived as racist if you look hard enough such as LOTR do not a racist novel make.


What Nigel has said though gave me a wider idea; that the whole purpose of identifying rascism is not just to see predjudice being promoted but to understand the extent to which these kinds of assumptions are woven into the fabric of our media. So in that case I can see the sense in regarding works which dont really promote prejudice but could be deconstructed in a way that does (again I see LOTR fitting in this catorgory) being regarded as racist.

I think my hesitation came from thinking alon the lines that racist works are something I should be able to disregard as ideologically shit, wheras if the point is to be aware of any possible implicit prejudice, there's no need to disregard everything I read, just a need to be aware of how unconcioys predjudice can manifest.


I'm also possible being really overly complex in saying really simple stuff, so I'll tldr it for clarity.

Tldr; I agree it's inmportant to be able to identify predjudice when it's not overt, but a work like LOTR really isn't racist in the same way a work like Tarzan is because while you can identify those implications in LOTR it isn't promoting a racist ideology as Tarzan is. I would think characters who have drawn on stereotypes would also be more like LOTR in the sense that the works don't push a racist perspective (I'm not talking about works where a character IS nothing but a stereotype, or where those Sterotypical elements reduce a character to mockery or unimportance).