ugh

[anghraine]

Tolkien has racist fans everywhere, but damn is there a certain strain of white European ones who are like ... oh, you're American, you can't possibly understand that "brown-skinned" can only mean "darker-skinned white person" except when he was talking about evil people, obviously.

a) fuck off
b) feels pretty weird as a Greek-American to get lectured on this point
c) fuck offfff

Comments

[lotesse]

Extremely irritating! Especially as Tolkien seems to have had a fairly accurate understanding of the history of such terms as encompassing a range of skin tones and racial/ethnic identities himself -- imo Tolkien fandom can be so much more racist than Tolkien himself, for all his regrettable "mongoloid" business

[anghraine]

I think it's important to acknowledge the ways in which Tolkien was racist, but it's true that the fandom can be considerably worse (even ignoring the movies).

[chestnut_pod]

There's an amazing overlap, you'll be surprised to hear, with the fans who say remarkably antisemitic things on my fics!

[anghraine]

Oh, I'm sorry about that. :(

[dragoness_e]

It's not just the white supremacists who have that weird word-blindness, sad to say. (However, if someone starts insisting that the charge of the Rohirrim is based on the cavalry charge at Vienna that broke the Ottoman ranks, and that Mordor vs. Gondor really represents the barbaric (Islamic) East vs the civilized (Christian)West, you have a white supremacist.)

There's also the "Woke" folks who insist that Tolkien was racist because orcs are black or "black-coded", and all the evil humans are black or brown-skinned. They either didn't read the books, or failed basic reading comprehension, because orcs come in all colors, and it's an important theme that neither humans nor anyone else is intrinsically evil. Not all of Sauron's vassals were evil in the normal human fashion--many were just deceived or under duress, which was heavily implied in the books. As for "black-coded", that says more about the person making the accusation than it does about Tolkien--if they see brutal, hate-filled, man-eating soldiers as "black-coded", I have to wonder what they really think about black people.

[chestnut_pod]

My apologies to Anghraine for not simply closing my eyes to this, but honestly. You can check my AO3 for my Tolkeinian bona fides, and here are some more. I am sure Tolkien believed himself to be fairly enlightened, and in some ways, he was. I always appreciate, for example, his rebuff to the Reich, his apparently sincere repair of certain elements to Dwarven behavior and culture that could be interpreted as following antisemitic tropes between The Hobbit and LOTR, and his (effortful, incomplete, one might say even in the end counterproductive…) efforts at colonial critique regarding Númenor. He actively opposed "racialist" attitudes at times. He was also a devoted lover of the British empire, someone who grew up in South Africa with Black servants, and immersed in a deeply racist cultural milieu. All those mixed influences come out in his work; the many sides of this argument stand beside one another in the text. It is both racist and at times anti-racist, just as we all are, and just as Tolkien was. Your disparagement of valid critiques of Tolkien's work is not a take-down of people with poor "basic reading comprehension," it is a failure to engage with the cultural referents of the text and many decades of critical work, in the academy and in fandom, to pick apart racializing and Othering aspects of Tolkien's work alongside its noble truths and beauties. I would say that is actually far more advanced than "basic;" it is an exercise of analytical thinking. It is quite standard literary practice to tease apart references, implications, and secondary meanings.

First of all, I do believe we should address your opinion that it is flatly ridiculous to assume that Orcs are portrayed in a racist fashion. Here is Tolkien himself: "The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." That would be Letter #210. Perhaps you're correct that, at least if we take this at face value, Tolkien was not thinking of Black people. Apparently, it was Asian people instead who were "corruptions of the 'human' form" -- that, or he was using a common descriptor used to denigrate people with Down's syndrome. (That, by the way, was also racist.) I leave you to decide if one option is worse than the other, with the added remark that usage of "-oid" in this manner indicates a conversational familiarity with the terms of eugenic race science, and particularly that of intellectual descendants of polygenist Christoph Meiners. There were certainly other descriptors available to him for use.

You might cavil that that is a letter, and the attitudinal fallacy, and so on, therefore I provide a contrast from LOTR's text, for some added emphasis. On Rohan: ‘Yellow is their hair, and bright are their spears. Their leader is very tall’ (TT 33). Then, we have Saruman's Orcs: ‘A grim, dark band . . . swart, slant-eyed,’ and their allies the "dark" wild men of the hills (TT 17-18).” Perhaps no humans are intrinsically evil in Tolkien's books, but a) Orcs are not humans and are never shown to my knowledge to have any redeeming qualities, and b) it is quite an easy jump, even with "basic" reading comprehension, from "swart" to dark-skinned to Black, and we do also see "slant-eyed," a common anti-Asian slur, making a reappearance here. We also see that in the letter, Orcs' skin is described as "sallow," while here it is "dark… swart" -- perhaps this self-contradiction is where you are deriving your rainbow Orcs? Either way, both "swart" and "sallow" have borne racist connotations, and neither is being used in a neutral way here; rather, skin tone is evidence of their Otherness and their evil. Certainly Éowyn is never described as "sallow" -- her valued white skin is "pale," or "fair," and no Orc is described in such terms. When describing darker skin tones neutrally, such as when discussing Sam's hands, Tolkien simply uses "brown," and not racializing terms such as "swart." Lastly, the Dunlendings of Rohan are explicitly colonized people -- thanks to Kings Brego and Aldor, you may check the Appendices -- whose colonizers are the heroes; their description as "dark" and also the enemy is certainly suggestive of something.

One certainly doesn't like to see the explicitly black-skinned people of Far Harad called "half-trolls" -- dehumanizing at best, entirely racist at worst -- or an entire people called "Swertings." We get a small moment of Sam contemplating their shared humanity in TT -- it's a good moment! I like it! -- but we certainly don't see any other textual evidence of that. I also don't actually believe that saying, "well, they were all simply too foolish to notice" is as anti-racist as you might think.

We do of course have the Drúedain as the one example of racialized peoples of Middle Earth (arguments about Hobbits aside!) who are allies of the forces of good. So perhaps all is not lost! Unfortunately, they may be on the side of the, ahem, Light, but their depiction is also super racist, in a very standard noble savage, supercessionist, settlers-looking-at-Indigenous-people kind of way. Their obvious inspiration in the pucks ("pukel"), goblins, and Viking runestones of Tolkien's mythological antecedents is clear, but so are tropes of Indigenous always-already-pastness and passing-the-torch. It is also somewhat dicey to describe them as "flat-nosed." The ancient and the modern blend together here, as they do in so much of Tolkien's work -- often to its benefit! Given the givens, however, I do think Tolkien should not have tried to "help" in this way.

Now, it is positively oldfangled, so antedeluvian that I hardly feel like it's news, that black-white dualism in the West ouroboroses around with racism, despite well predating its emergence as a formal ideology in the 15th century. Once both were sloshing around in the early modern period, they fed into and reinforced one another. I believe the oldest piece I have read analyzing that relationship is D. Longshore's 1979 "Color Connotations" -- obviously people worked both before and after him on those same connotations. Therefore, I think one could say that Tolkien was at least being lazy with all his Dark Lording and so on. One example of this being rather noticeable in the text is also from TT: Says Treebeard of the Orcs, "Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!" Oops! Miscegenation fears and black-white dualism in an awkward spot.

"But pre-modern Europe was simply Like That!" Ah, well, no. No, it wasn't. Ethnic prejudice, religious prejudice, and xenophobia certainly existed, as did black-white dualism, and sometimes these combined to form something that does look quite a bit like modern racism. However, racism qua racism -- undilutable, unconvertable, "scientific," and trans-ethnic, the foundation of modern white supremacy -- did not develop, I would argue (and I do have a Master's degree in this), following David FitzGerald, until after the completion of the Reconquista and the imposition of "pureza de sangre" laws in Spain post-Expulsion, in continuity with the conquest of the Americas, the shift to chattel slavery, and the development of capitalism. This is heavily inspired by Cheryl Harris' and others' understandings of racial capitalism, where the two forces grew out of each other, and some people place this development earlier -- but not by very much. And it took a while after that for the sort of scientific racism that sprouted eugenicist terms like "Mongoloid" to properly get going, not least because science itself had to become established and legitimate in Europe! Therefore, Tolkien was certainly not getting all this from the Eddas. The idea of entire "races" being evil, or even simply the same, is a thoroughly modern invention.

It's getting late (early!) and so I am not going to go into his ideas of noble colonization as exemplified in Galadriel, his frankly disturbing positions on the "blood of lesser men" and focus on bloodline as it relates to the Dúnedain, and Aragorn's post-coronation imperialist side, nor pick apart his well-meaning, interesting, ultimately failed attempts at colonial critique viz. the post-Ciryatan situation in Númenor. Suffice it to say, there is more! And many people, fans and academics, have written about it for free online.

So, let's sum up! First, Tolkien was explicit about the racist (and perhaps ableist) underpinnings of the Orcs; he said it out loud, uncoerced, in a letter. Second, even someone with very basic reading comprehension can take racializing terms like "swart" and make the easy logical leap to antiBlackness, particularly when Our Heroes are never described in those terms, and are in fact contrasted in every way. Third, most people explicitly deemed to be dark-skinned in the text are on the side of evil, not good, and "but they were stupid and got tricked" is not actually an antiracist gotcha. Fourth, even when trying explicitly to make some racialized people good, he fell into some classic anti-Indigenous pits. Fifth, black-white dualism is always a dangerous proposition. Sixth, though some of these characters undeniably had inspiration from pre-modern European sources, modernity and its racism found a way in, just as modernity found a way into the text in other, better ways (horrors of war, anyone?). Sixth, various streams of Tolkien's thought around imperialism, the right to rule, and purity of blood, though not gone into in-depth here, are quite beholden to settler-colonial thinking.

Seventh, and lastly, some food for thought for you, and I do hope you take it in the spirit given. When you scornfully say things like, "There's also the "Woke" folks who insist that Tolkien was racist," you are aligning yourself with these people. And these people. And these people. I am sure you do not want to stand with their ilk, and perhaps feel shocked that I would suggest it. However, reading your comment made me feel precisely the same way these headlines do, and the similarities in your language give me pause.

Refusing or negating such racially-informed critical analysis of Tolkien's texts also deprives you of the great pleasure of knowing the work of academic scholars Dimitra Fimi, who, like me, sees the answer to, "Is Tolkien racist?" as both yes and no, and his texts worthy of further study and enjoyment regardless. It blocks you off from the interesting writing of Dorothy Kim, who compares Tolkien and Toni Morrison's takes on Beowulf. It prevents you from seeing V. Elizabeth King lecture on displacement, migration, and xenophobia in Lothlórien, or Eric Reinders on caste and Tolkien in translation. On the fannish side, it means you probably wouldn't feel very comfortable at the Silmarillion Writer's Guild, the last Tolkien-specific archive standing (that doesn't ban queer content…). It means that much of the current renaissance of Silmarillion fandom is probably not groovy with you, would seem to me a terrible loss. It seems to me that writing off critique of Tolkien's racism as nonsense or "basic"ness is also writing off a great deal of beautifully reparative readings, transformations, and understandings of Tolkien's work, ones that struggle with his flaws and embrace his triumphs, and try to make his world more accepting and true for all of us.

[dragoness_e]

When critics are down to cherry-picking Tolkien for using the words typical of his time, and not portraying indigenous people as a 21st century writer is encouraged to do, they're in "everyone is racist" territory. He grew up in early 20th century England, he used the language of his time. Who expects otherwise? Why is Tolkien being singled out, when he was actually pretty anti-racist for his day?

Or even for today, since black/white dualism is very much still with us, and it's as much about darkness/light, night/day as race, if not more so. Yes, some assholes make it about race, but black/white dualism is primal--night is when you can't see your enemies coming, and the monsters are prowling. Day is when you can see, and the real nocturnal predators slink back to their dens, and the monsters of imagination dissipate. (Night can also be the time when it's finally cool, and when the sun's glare isn't giving you a headache, but that's another discussion--dualism is about contrasts, not necessarily moral values.)

We do of course have the Drúedain as the one example of racialized peoples of Middle Earth (arguments about Hobbits aside!) who are allies of the forces of good. So perhaps all is not lost! Unfortunately, they may be on the side of the, ahem, Light, but their depiction is also super racist, in a very standard noble savage, supercessionist, settlers-looking-at-Indigenous-people kind of way.

What was racist about the depiction of the Drúedain? That they didn't look like the Rohirrim? That Ghan-buri-ghan didn't speak perfect Westron? As I recall, Ghan-buri-ghan made some pretty pointed comments that came down to "Yes, white dude, I can count. I am not a child, nor am I an animal, so stop treating me like one! I don't actually like you, but I like orcs even less." The whole Drúedain encounter was one long critique of colonialism and the treatment of indigenous people.

Orcs' skin is described as "sallow," while here it is "dark… swart" -- perhaps this self-contradiction is where you are deriving your rainbow Orcs? Either way, both "swart" and "sallow" have borne racist connotations, and neither is being used in a neutral way here; rather, skin tone is evidence of their Otherness and their evil. Certainly Éowyn is never described as "sallow" -- her valued white skin is "pale," or "fair," and no Orc is described in such terms.

You are incorrect; there are orcs described as "pale". "Sallow" means "yellowish"; it's akin to "jaundiced", but without the implications of liver failure. So we have pale orcs, sort-of-yellowish orcs, black orcs... they come in a variety of skin tones, in spite of your snide comment about my "rainbow orcs". Also, the text never says anything about Eowyn being valued for her skin tone; that's your inference (or the inference of whoever you're quoting).

The idea of entire "races" being evil, or even simply the same, is a thoroughly modern invention.

Hard disagree. Humanity has always tended to divide other people into Us and Them, with Them being stereotyped as necessary to define them as enemies, or at least Definitely Not Us.

Third, most people explicitly deemed to be dark-skinned in the text are on the side of evil, not good...

This is another example of "failed reading comprehension". Samwise Gamgee, arguably the single most important character in the quest, is described as "brown-skinned" as are all Stoor hobbits. The people of the Gondorian coast are brown-skinned. These folk are either completely ignored by people citing the skin color of the Haradrim as evidence of Tolkien's racism, or hand-waved away as "it just meant 'sun-tanned' back then". Well, if it means 'sun-tanned', then the (Near) Haradrim are just sun-tanned, not black or brown. You can't have it both ways.

As for the Easterlings and the Haradrim: they don't have to be stupid to be deceived by Sauron. Celebrimbor, grandson of Fëanor and his entire city of Noldor craftsmen were deceived by Sauron--no serious Tolkien fan considers him "stupid". Saruman, leader of the Istari and the White Council, was deceived and corrupted by Sauron; again, not stupid. Denethor II, in whom "the blood of Westernesse" ran nearly true, was deceived by Sauron. Sauron is a fallen angel; it takes more than mortal grace to not be deceived by him, even after he's lost his fair seeming.

Seventh, and lastly, some food for thought for you, and I do hope you take it in the spirit given. When you scornfully say things like, "There's also the "Woke" folks who insist that Tolkien was racist," you are aligning yourself with these people. And these people. And these people. I am sure you do not want to stand with their ilk, and perhaps feel shocked that I would suggest it. However, reading your comment made me feel precisely the same way these headlines do, and the similarities in your language give me pause.

I read Tumblr and I hear about Twitter. There are fools in both places who give "wokeness" a very bad name, and who have nearly killed "social justice" as a useful term. There's a certain type of bully who has learned that if they use the right jargon, they appear to have the moral high ground in bullying what they deem are "acceptable targets". I don't like bullies of any flavor; I really hate the self-righteous, hypocritical ones. We need a label for the type, and I've chosen "SJW" because that's the label the worst ones gave themselves about ten years ago.

I'm not too fond of hearing the same tired, flawed arguments over and over again about "Tolkien was racist" where we apparently supposed to accept the flaws just because they've been repeated a lot by people in published articles. Publication does not make an argument any less flawed; it just means more people see it. There were plenty of publications back in the day about the inferiority of non-white races, too.

Your arguments would be more effective if the tone wasn't so condescending, coupled with getting some facts just plain wrong. While Tolkien was a monarchist, and quite conservative, (which are not positions I agree with--I'm with Thomas Payne when it comes to hereditary monarchs), he was also someone who took Christian theology of "love your neighbor" seriously and had seen the ugly face of war up close and personal. It's one thing to point out the "of his time" issues that all fiction from that period would have had (why does no one go to town on Agatha Christie's vicious classism?); it's another to condemn Tolkien for not being a 21st century American writer with a sensitivity reader. And yes, what you are referring to as literary analysis is used by other people as ammunition for condemnation.

[chestnut_pod]

I’ve said what I meant to say, and while I believe there are points on which reasonable people could disagree (are hobbits coded brown? Are the Byzantine influences of Gondor enough to make them considered coded?) and some where they cannot (black-white dualism is not universal, the scholarly definition of racism is what it is), I do not mean to pursue them further in this arena. If you’d like to double down on saying things that sound like the people sending threats to the Tolkien Society, that is your prerogative. I shan’t be entertaining it. If you decide to read any of those scholars, I hope you enjoy!

[anghraine]

I don't 100% agree with all your examples, but I do agree with most of them and your overall point that Tolkien's work has both racist and anti-racist elements. I do find "Tolkien's work is in no way racist at any point" and "okay, but Tolkien was a product of his time" to be ... fairly irreconcilable positions, additionally. And at any rate, even when there are differing valid interpretations (and I don't think there always are), I don't think dismissing thorough arguments as just lacking reading comprehension is productive, so I appreciate you fielding this one.