From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.
	<Bz4BrA.7C6@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>
	<1992Dec12.015308.15707@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:23:16 GMT

>>>>> On 12 Dec 92 01:53:08 GMT, jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James
>>>>> Alexander Chokey) said:

James> 	I'm not saying that Tolkien was a "racist" in the modern sense
James> of the word, and I'm not saying that he set out to write a
James> story which emphasized racial difference and the superiority of
James> some races over others.  And I certainly am not trying to
James> "blame" him or disparage his works because they don't conform
James> to my political sensibilities.  But, I do think there is a
James> great deal of concern about race in LOTR and that the tale
James> clearly portrays some races as being superior to others.  I
James> think that's worth reflecting upon and worth discussing.  Why
James> is it in there?  Is he just reflecting the concerns and
James> attitudes of his time and culture, or is there something more
James> to it than that?

You're right; I think this is worth discussing. What's more, I might
even venture to contribute something to it myself. :-) 

To summarise the racial situation in Tolkien's universe, I think it's
fair to say that there are two fundamental types; the damned, and the
human. The 'human' races are those that have the potential for good in
them, but equally well are those that can fall to evil ways.  The
'damned' are those that seem to be evil from birth. In this latter
group I would put only the orcs and trolls.

Morgoth's corrupted races have no redeeming features, there are no
good orcs. From a religious point of view, perhaps these races could
be seen as an allegory of Christian devils? 

Leaving that to the side, there is still the issue of Tolkien's
ranking of his human races. Clearly the Elves are at the top of the
heap. The closer it is to the Valar, the better or more superior the
race. However, as James has pointed out, those races closer to the
divine are characterised as 'blond, blue-eyed' wonders, while the
unfortunate Easterlings and Southrons are dark and swarthy. In all
honesty, I think we have in these chacracterisations some evidence of
an underlying racism in Tolkien's worldview. 

It's also pretty clear that Middle-Earth is something of a Europe in
disguise. Those Southrons and Easterlings are characterisations,
(perhaps unconscious), of Arabs and Asians. Being mere Men, (i.e. not
Elves), and not having Numenorean blood, they are lesser beings in
some sense, but as a previous poster has pointed out, Tolkien still
allows them morality and 'goodness'. 

However, there are another couple of races as yet unaccounted for.
These are the dwarves and hobbits. The hobbits are not noble beings
and are probably even more distant from the Valar than the people of
Gondor. I think it is here that this implicit religious allegory I
have been pursuing breaks down, because it is not clear where we
should put the hobbits and still manage to explain their high status.
(I think they do have a high status; although Saruman corrupts some of
their number when he takes over the Shire, Gollum shows how resilient
the essential hobbit-nature is by fighting the influence of decades of
Ring use).

Perhaps hobbits are best explained as a demonstration of how
'goodness', (this is an ugly term, but I'm not sure how best to
express this), can be acquired even with minimal divine heritage. The
hobbits acquire their virtue from their peaceful agrarian lifestyle,
and perhaps this is related to the anti-industrial theme that has
recently been the focus of another thread in this group. 

Phew! I don't think I even want to start on the dwarves. They're not
even an approved race. :-)

Michael.

--
--- Michael Norrish  -------------------- mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz ---

       "I am not sure how clouds get formed. But the clouds know 
           how to do it, and that is the important thing."