The Racist Tapestry of Lord of the Rings!

Where does it stop? Does everything have to be political. You're talking about a piece of literature that has been perfectly brought to the screen and you want to change it to be more "culturally sensitive"? This is the most useless, overly-politically-correct self-hating white man load of crap I've read in a long time.

I have an idea why don't we go back and rewrite Chaucer and Dickens and anything else that ever came out of Europe. While we're at it why don't we just wipe away the whole of European culture and memory. It's all a bunch of racist clap trap anyway right?!?! This is INSANE!!!! Get your head out of your ass. It's a goddamned movie and a great movie and you are insane, obsessed and probably not much fun to hang out with.

PETER JACKSON RULES

NUFF SAID

The Lord of The Rings has nothing to do with your politics or even this world. It's a faithful adaptation of a piece of literature. Why whould it be changed to meet your obssesive twisted view of the world? Who is the racist? You seem to be obsessed with "race" seeing it everywhere you look even in a film where it isn't present. Plenty of non-white people (such as my Latino ass) love LOTR and don't need some whiny little white boy with a guilty conscience raining on our good time. Fuck off asshole.

Of course your obsessed by the popular culture that this film represents and your reactions to my article speaks volumes about your terrible insecurities surrounded by the white man's repressive regime. Arnold Schwartznaeger was just a movie actor now he is your white racist governor. A generation ago your predessesors fell for the same trap with Reagan.

By the way your not Latino your native indigenous. The Spanish left a deep racist impression in your culture for sure.

The very theme of the LOTR is the necessity for races to cooperate. The alternative, as JRRT makes abundantly clear, is the triumph of evil. He devotes many pages, for example, to two of the main characters’ personal struggle to overcome the long standing animosity between their respective races, Elves and Dwarves. He goes out of his way to show Men and Hobbits living happily together, peacefully sharing a prosperous village. His makes his protagonist, Frodo, the one who saves the day for Middle Earth, a member of a minority race.

The tale has many faults, but racism is not one of them. neither, for that matter, is sexism. JRRT is often criticized for not creating more female characters. Yet every one of the female characters he did create is a strong, assertive person.

The real fault of the book is its monarchism. Let’s criticize that.

http://indybay.org/news/2002/12/1553281_comment.php

From The Author's Mouth:

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy
(philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control
not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional'
Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor
mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if
they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal
names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract
noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should
be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer
to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King
George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long
way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful
landslide into Theyocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is
anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it
on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for
it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

hey tolkiens pen, where did tolkien write that he leaned towards anarchy, id like to read the rest of that

and for something completely different, check this link, for the old lord of the rings with humphrey bogart, orson welles and peter lorre

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._R._R._Tolkien See also: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1668175_comment.php#1668582

...in nations that white people have been invading, terrorizing, raping and pillaging in for 5000 years with zero provocation...

Hart says the above apparently believing it. Hart either reads no history or else lives in a world of fantasy as great as that of Middle Earth if he thinks that in the past 5000 years whites have been responsible for all evil that has transpired between white people and people of color. The full list of transgressions by cultures of color against white cultures would fill books, but just a few examples would be Genghis Khan and the Mongol invasion of Europe, the Muslim Moorish conquest and subjugation of white Christian Spain, the Muslim attempts to conquer the Balkans, white slaves taken from white nations such as Iceland by North Africans, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the violent expulsion of white farmers in Zimbabwe despite British offers to buy out the white farmers over time and return the land to the blacks, and the repeated and finally successful attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the victims in those buildings. Understand this - the weak have little ability to attack the strong. Whites tend to be organized and disciplined, and we do not allow ourselves to be in a position to be taken advantage of very often. If we were a weaker people, colored people would certainly have attacked us more often in the past. With all that being said, I will agree that there is an undeniable racial stamping of the good and the evil in the LOTR movies. But Hart grossly exaggerates how bad white people have been in history and how good colored people have been to make that point. (As a side note, there is no proof that the Picts were dark-skinned people - as the Romans were conquering us beginning about the time of Christ, they left a few descriptioins of the Picts as dark, but the Romans knew very little about the Picts and may have confused body paint and tatoos for skin color.)

Hart’s argument is partly correct and partly wrong. As for the correct part: there is no question that Nordic physical features like pale skin, blonde hair, sharp facial features or bodily height are systematically associated by Tolkien with Good, while features unmistakably connoting Asian ethnicity (going as far as the language – have any linguists noticed how many of Tolkien’s Orcish names sound Arab /Mauhuur/ or Turkic /Shagrat/?) are associated with Evil. In this sense, Tolkien’s mythology is, as a matter of fact, racist. But this racism is not simply of his making: all of Tolkien’s work draws on the deep well of European mythological tradition, which is deeply influenced by a historical feeling of endangeredness by foreign invaders from the East and Southeast. This image of historical threat reaches back at least to the Mongol invasions and possibly much deeper.

All culture-based mythologies have a concept of external threat and external enemy. This is by no means specific to European culture, whatever the more simple-minded of its left-wing critics may think. Tolkien, in his emotionally powerful and formally outstanding prose, has done nothing more, or less, than convey to Western Europeans their own mythological heritage, whose origins are partly pagan Nordic, partly medieval Christian. He conveys its chivalric values as well as the deeply controversial image of European superiority, whose least attractive aspects descend into the kind of racism that ridicules the physical appearance of the “other”. Peter Jackson, as the creator of the film version, was quite right, even courageous, in not trying to suppress these disturbing elements of Tolkien’s book.

One, though by no means the only or first, message we should take from The Lord of The Rings and its phenomenal success is this: Racism – in its widest sense, not in the sense of the contemporary Neo-Nazis – is much more deeply ingrained in European culture than most of us understand. This is, and should be, an unpleasant admission, but leftist ranting is not much use here. We must always keep trying to extend our awareness of racism and our efforts to extricate ourselves from it, but we should also face the fact that some issues are beyond our powers to change here and now. Example? Try pondering for a little while the immense bond between the images of ‘White Color’ and ‘Positive’ or, respectively, ‘Black Color’ and ‘Negative’.

This, itself, is a racist analysis. The anti-racist analysis is;

Racism more deeply ingrained in *human* cultures than most of us understand.

You me to tell me me Mr. Hart, that with all the great messages in this movie, you have come to this conclusion? What of Sarumon? He's as white as they come! Oh, That's right, J.R.R. is making it worse by saying that the people of color have to have a white leader in order to organize!

In movies of fantasy, we come to conclusions based on where we are in our own lives. You need to address some issues in yours.

I think I lost brain cells reading this balderdash.

The article is a more than a bit off-base. The Lord of the Rings movies, for the most part, accurately portrays the novels as written. The use of terms such as "warriors of the West" alludes to the geographic location of the "free peoples" of Middle Earth. They live in the West. The evil people live in the East and South -- Mordor and Harad. It is not an allegory for the modern world. According to Tolkien's own introduction to the books, it wasn't even an allegory to the world of his time (the 30s and 40s).

The book is set in a magical, fictional world. White light and warmth is good, and darkness and cold is bad. Evil people in Middle Earth are "evil" -- there is very little grey area, morally speaking. Good people can be fooled and subjected to spells by evil people, but good people are still good and evil people are still evil. There is no implication that the same is true in our world.

To say that the Uruk-Hai resemble the American Indian is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing that resembles an American Indian about an Uruk Hai. The Uruk Hai are Saruman's demented cross-breeding of Orcs and Men. That's why they can run in the daylight. Standard Orcs move at night only. Certainly, the faces of the Uruk Hai do not even look human, let alone American Indian.

Lastly, the blanket statement that "white peoples" have been invading, raping and pillaging the middle east for 5,000 years with no provocation is absolutely false. The invasions have cut both ways (and they haven't gone on for 5,000 years). Persians attacked Greeks, and Greeks attacked Persians, for example. Alexander's conquests, for example, were not done in a vaccuum -- he started by repelling Persian invaders and continued on. Similarly, it was the Saracens, the Moors, that invaded Spain and southern Europe with the purpose of expanding Islam. The indigenous white skinned peoples had to battle them back. What about the other Islamic invastions of Europe and the rough time the Europeans had in battling back the Muslims from Tours, for example. The Crusades, also, did not arise in a historical vacuum. The Muslims came out of Arabia in the 7th and 8th centuries and invaded and conquered Christian lands (e.g. modern day Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Israel, Turkey, etc). Those lands were Byzantine for over a thousand years when the Muslims "without provocation" invaded them. And, the Muslims continued over south africa, spain, portugal, Sicily, southern Italy, etc.

The author's article has as much historical fiction in it as Tolkien's trilogy does!

The reason King Theoden gives a rallying cry to the "men of the West" in the Return of the King is that in Tolkien's actual books the theme of golden west versus nefarious east is omnipresent. The men of Westernesse are supposed to be the descendants of a fallen golden age, and Mordor, the dread kingdom of the east, is the bastion of evil Sauron. The director didn't invent this and the screenwriters didn't insert it; it's an intrinsic part of the basic storyline in all of Tolkien's interconnected works.

The fact of the matter is that the movie not only didn't exaggerate this theme, it downplayed it immensely. Comparatively little reference is made in any of the three movies to the fallen kingdom to which Aragorn is returning as king, along with lots of other little historical bits undoubtedly shaved off in the interests of time and flow.

Honestly, reading this, I have to wonder how many of Tolkien's books the article's author has read. It might be mentionable that the article has more dialectic than detail about the series?

I honestly think it's stupid. I never even noticed the race difference until someone pointed it out to me so what normal movie goer is gonna notice that the bad guys have a different skin color than the good guys?
And what kid in the movie theater is gonna think that people of a diffrent skin color are bad because of it? This is a bunch of bullshit!

thanks all of you, for confirming my understanding of the approximate ratio of intelligent folks to racist idiots.
and thanks lukas, for a breath of fresh air.

That was so stupid I laughed my ass off. I'll bet the author doesn't even know what LOTR is really about.

Tolkien refers to dark men or black men in terms of symbology as each are a reference to alliegence to Sauron. In fact the "black men from harad are or should be white skinned as a majority of them as per the books are originally of numanorian descent. I may be wrong but I don't think that there is a single place in the book where tolkien specifically references the enemies skin color.

In regards to the language of the orcs in the movie Tolkien gives them what many in America would regard as a cockney accent which the last I looked was largerly the provence of white anglo Londoners.

Tolkiens books take place mythohistorically in what will someday be northwestern europe so the only way that this region could be invaded is either from the south or the east.

Read the books or read some history.

Mr. Hart's overwhelmingly negative portrayal of Tolkein's work or more specifically Peter Jackson's adaptation of this work is seriously flawed if for no other reason than it fails to recognize the primary theme of the novel, that of the evils of industrialization, in an attempt to find racist themes in the work.

Tolkein’s novel is filled with hatred for the industrialization of the Earth. To see this one has only to look at the Major players, environments, and themes throughout the novel. For example, Mordor was once the kingdom of men before Sauron. It is described as being filled with life. However, by the time we see it in its present condition it is a desolate area, without trees, without life…it is industry run amuck. A better example of this is the palace of Isengard, where Saroman lives. In the first movie we see that this area starts off as being beautiful and serene, but as Saroman becomes corrupt and industry sets in, the land becomes a burning waste land. In stark contrast, we find Rivendell and Hobbiton, home of the Elves and Hobbits respectively. In the middle we find areas of Gondor that are falling into ruin as Sauron encroaches upon them. Lastly, in the novel (edited out of the Theatrical release), we see that no area is safe as Hobbiton falls under the control of Saroman at the end of the novel and the Hobbits who are the everyman in this tale fight against the destruction of their home.

Next, are the peoples of Middle-Earth. Most notably are Sauron, Saroman, the major powers of Evil. Both men seek industry to gain power. What of the Ring Wraiths? Each was a king of men, before corrupted by Sauron. Again in contrast stand the Elves and Hobbits who value nature above all else. The Ents would also follow in this vein as would the character of Tom Bombadil (not in the movie adaptation).

What of the themes in the novel. 1) Power corrupts (Boramir’s desire for the ring, Wormtongues desire for control of Rohan, Saroman’s desire to rule the world, the Ring Wraiths desire for power “Nine rings for the kings of men for they desired power above all else,” Gollum’s desire for the ring) and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Sauron). 2) If we do not fight to preserve our world, industrialization will destroy it.

These themes are well documented in interviews and writings of Tolkein who was watching the industrialization occurring in London in the late 19th and early 20th century destroy his homeland and in particular the natural surroundings where he was raised.

Having addressed the actual themes of the novel, let's take a look at the evidence as purported by Mr. Hart and examine the each in its entirety. First, “the only people of skin color in the entire three part series of films are all associated with the Dark Lord Sauron, the destruction of the earth and all of its occupants.” Well, is this true? Not exactly, sure the Uruk-hai are dark-skinned, but they are hardly human. And last time I checked Indigenous peoples of the Americas had noses. Does this make their portrayal racist? They are dark. Well, as mentioned above, the actual theme of the novel is the evil of industrialization. A more accurate interpretation of the Uruk-hai skin color would in fact be unknown and covered in soot. The same would apply to Orcs. In fact, the Orcs are described by Tolkein in both the movie and the novel as having been Elves that were tortured by Sauron to the point of disfigurement. Thus, in fact, Orcs would be white like the Elves. Again the skin color would be more accurately described is dirty or sooty owing to life amongst an industry out of control. Furthermore, the dialect of the Orcs would be described as being of British extract and facial features most assuredly European. What of Theoden’s reference to Men of the West. Yes, of course this is reference to the location these people reside in relation to the rest of Middle Earth, but it is also in reference of the non-industrialized areas in the north and to the west of London. What of the “Oliphants” and associated warriors (note: they were not paid and therefore not mercenaries). OK, they do look Asian or Arab in costume, but NOT in appearance. However, we shouldn’t forget the Men of the Mountain who also fought along the side of Sauron and Saroman. Speaking of which Sauron is never seen except in pewter colored armor in the first film and Saroman is most assuredly white. And let’s not forget Gollum…insane…definitely….white…you bet.

In fact, as one commenter noted the focus on race basically falls in two parts. 1) The races of the world are not so different as we would believe and every culture has a valuable contribution to make. This is evidenced by the growing friendship between the Elf and Dwarf who come from cultures that each reguard the other as inferior. This is further evidenced by the theme that the smallest race…the Hobbits…show that even a single individual no matter how small can change the world. 2) The race of men is easily corrupted and the people with whom the future resides. This race often puts its own political agenda, desire for power, and preconceived notions above what is right.
Aragorn constantly fights against this to become the man he has the potential to be.

With the exception of his revelation that his wife is of Asian heritage (no relevance to the article…oh and by the way, my wife is Thai…you know, as in, from Thailand…and has only been in the US for the last 8 years of her life…I’m just saying this so you can see by your logic I too have seen the injustices my wife deals with daily….especially that damn doctorate of hers and her higher paying job…ooops I digress). The remainder of Mr. Hart’s expose is hardly more than a historical revisionistic rant. A tangent that ignores the fact that in 3000BC (That’s 5000 years ago) Europeans were hardly more than feuding tribes of what could be best described as uncivilized hordes. Civilization as we know it resided entirely in Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East.

Let us hope Mr. Hart, can rise above his own humanity and stop trying to see the world in view of his own politics, but with a mind open to the possibilities and ideas that each person brings to the table. Maybe then he will stop trying to find problems where none exist and focus on the problems that really are there.

Tolkien wrote LOTR as a fictional history of BRITAIN! As some people obviously are unware Britain had invasions of tribes that could be considered Asian or North African. This is simply a fact, the bad guys from the east(who are in the minority of bad guys) are not bad because they are inherantly evil, but bad simply because they are invaders who are following a greater evil- Sauron. The majority of bad guys are NOT different in terms of race, they are simply corrupted versions of the good guys
here are some examples:
"bad guy" is a corrupted ________
Sauron...Ainur
Orcs/Uruk Hai...Elves
Sarumen...Maiar
Nazgul...Men
They are different not from birth, but before they accepted evil, in the case of the Orcs they were elves who did not heed the call of the "gods" during a time when Sauron threatened. They happen to be black because it is a simply cultural fact that darkness is associated with dirt and white with purity, they are very few cultures even in african where that is not the case. Africans do not consider themselves as the color black anyway, if you asked they average African they'd say they are brown. The speech of the evil beings in LOTR In NOTNOTNOT asian dervived, Tolkien based it on gaelic, and the speech of goodness was based on Welsh. Is this racist against Scottish or Irish people? Notice also that the good guys tend to have upper class english accents, welsh accents or scottish accents, while orcs usually have lower class british accents or even accents that sound American... In either case tolkien based the dialects of evil of languages/dialects he believed were a corruption of the "pure" British dialect. If anything LOTR is racist against lower class brits. As far as i'm concerned since LOTR is British, dragging Native Americans into it is absurd, as neither Peter Jackson nor Tolkien knew much about Native Americans. Some of the celtic peoples also happened to have the primitive dreadlocked look of the orcs, in my perspective Uruk Hai look like they are wearing the Uilean face paint of the Celtic peoples. Tolkien did not hate a specific race and in fact his letters contain evidence of this, but he did hate industrialization and the corruption of British culture/countryside by it.

If you've read all of my message, then you'll have noticed that I also said: "All culture-based mythologies have a concept of external threat and external enemy. This is by no means specific to European culture, whatever the more simple-minded of its left-wing critics may think", which seems to me exactly like what you're saying. I've singled out European culture because I think that is what Tolkien is about: he blows the dust off our cultural values heritage. Some of it we may gladly or even proudly identify with, some of it quite rightly embarasses us.

I’m certainly one of those who are "unaware Britain had invasions of tribes that could be considered Asian or North African". What in the world could you possibly mean by this? This aside, you do make some serious points.

First you argue that the evil characters in LOTR "are different not from birth, but [as a result of the fact that] they accepted evil". True, but that implies that their evilness has caused their physical features to stray from the Nordic ideal of blonde/fair-skinned/tall/sharp facial features. So this in itself doesn’t really help us much in the way of solving the issue of Tolkien’s racism.

But you go on to argue: “They happen to be black because it is a simple cultural fact that darkness is associated with dirt and white with purity, there are very few cultures even in Africa where that is not the case. Africans do not consider themselves as the color black anyway, if you asked they average African they'd say they are brown.“ This is a good point, but you make two mistakes. The first mistake is thinking that if an idea is shared by people regardless of race, then it can’t be racist. It’s important to understand is that racist ideas are often shared by their victims. It is well known that many non-Europeans – ranging from Africans to Arabs to Gypsies to Chinese – consider a lighter color of skin to be a social asset. One indirect and usually unconscious effect of this is to affirm the traditional European self-notion of superiority.

As for the other mistake, you don‘t realize that whether or not Tolkien wanted to disparage other races is not really the issue here; he almost certainly intended no such thing. But, as I was trying to say in my first contribution: Tolkien’s work starkly shows how deeply those noble universal moral principles contained in our traditional mythology – whose massive power he has tapped – are entangled with racist images of contrast. This should not lead us to wallow in some cheap kind of indignation or rejection, but rather help understand fully how difficult it is to overcome racism.

Final note: where does Tolkien say that his Orcish is based on Gaelic? I speak no Gaelic, so I can’t judge for myself, but I’m an Orientalist and I do speak Arabic. If /Mauhuur/, /Shagrat/ and others are a coincidence, then they’re one hell of a coincidence.

In the midst of formulating his opinion of LOTR, Mr. Hart seems to have skipped this very important paragraph, where Samwise looks down at the body of a slain Southron:

"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the men's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace."

Being that the Lord of the Rings was written as a mythology for England, it's not surprising that the good guys are white or the bad guys aren't, and come from the south and the east. The geography pretty much demands it.

But that paragraph changes the portrayal of Sauron's armies. Instead of being an extension of faceless evil, they are given a heart and a soul. Sam is just as central a character as Frodo, and this observation is intended to tell the reader something both about Sam and what Tolkien himself believes is a truth of war: that despite which banner a man (or woman) flocks to, he has worth and merit, and his loss can be mourned.

And in the end, the color of his skin doesn't enter into it.

"...and called for a "crusade" against the "evil doers" in nations that white people have been invading, terrorizing, raping and pillaging in for 5000 years with zero provocation..."

For some reason, the left in America has a collective blindness to history. Does anyone recall the expansion of Islam in the later parts of the first millenium? Or the Turks' domination of the Balkan Penn.? Who has ruled over the middle east for the last 5000 years? Lets look at it. Egyptians, persion, syrians, breifly romans, then arabs, persians turks, mongols, etc etc etc.

If anyone whats to read a better article on this subject go to http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001489.html
It mentions the black men of Harad are dominated by a white ruling caste, which is interesting. From what I know this would make them similar to people from India, as the upper caste tends to be lighter skinned. Other people described as balck by the book might not be literally black like the Black Númenóreans
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
"A people of Númenórean origin, who returned to Middle-earth in the Second Age to follow Sauron. They survived to the end of the Third Age, during which they were often at war with Gondor. "

In terms of language here there are many theories to the derivation of the names of the servants of Sauron
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/orkish.htm
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-70531/Tolkien/black.htm
suggest Gaelic or Hittite or perhaps corruption of Welsh. I study Welsh, Scots Gaelic and German, and the good Elvish language of Sindarin is very much like Welsh in pronunciation. Tolkien loved Welsh, but did not like the "guturall", "harsh" sound sof Gaelic. To me names like
Shagrat is startily like Manx Gaelic words like shaghnit, shaghnys, shaghrane, shaghrynagh, shaghrynys most of these words meaning error, heretic, tramp etc.
Ulfang, Uldor, Ulfast, Ulwarth- Easterling names sound Gaelic to me akin perhaps to words like ulbh, ulag, ullag, ullamh
Mauhuur on the other hand does not seem like Gaelic, but au is a common sound is Irish Gaelic, so is hur...monmhur mean murmer in Scots Gaelic. If you sound it out it sounds more Gaelic than it looks though.
Muzgash is an orc whose name seems the least gaelic to me, Z does not even exist in most celtic langauges, it looks Russian or even Turikish, but I don't know those languages that well so I can't really say. Most other orc names i've encountered do seem gaelic, Irish esspecially, but I guess it's all in the perspective.

I just wanted to add to my above comments-
There is no doubt that Tolkien based some bad guys on Asians and I believe the group the above person (MacEwen) was referring to and perhaps Tolkien based his Black peoples on is the Scythians (who were probably Asian or Middle Eastern in appearance, but some theorize they were the forbearers of the Anglo-Saxons), who probably invaded Britain and had influence on some Celtic peoples...I’m not sure, but it would fit with the similarities between Black Speech and Hurrian, which the Scythians might have spoken. It's not an unequivocal fact, but Scythians and Celts have similar art and customs from archaeological evidence, perhaps even their language influenced Gaelic.
Tolkien himself said he thought of Orcs as
"Degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types" Perhaps this is "racist," but it is almost a fact that these people did invade Britain...kind of like the Easterlings... The bottom line is that LOTR is such a rich mythology that I guess you can apply it to anything, but in the end it’s a fantasy and pulling racism into it rather trite.

"you create an evil character (Uruk-hai) that resembles native Americans as they have done in the Lord of the Rings" - I didn't realize that native Americans were created by a wizard in the muck beneath his tower... Have you looked at a Map of Middle Earth? The armies of Rohan ARE in the west. Why do people have to go out of their way to be offended in this country. Sit down and enjoy the movie for what it is and quit trying so hard to find something that offends you. You'll be much better off in life.

"If /Mauhuur/, /Shagrat/ and others are a coincidence, then they’re one hell of a coincidence."

Could the author please give specific examples of any actual Mauhuur or Shagrat words, or those from any Oriental language, that was used in the LotR movies? It is easy to say the Orcish language "sounds like" another language but without specific words what does "sounds like" really mean?

"...your reactions to my article speaks volumes about your terrible insecurities surrounded by the white man's repressive regime."

"By the way your not Latino your native indigenous. The Spanish left a deep racist impression in your culture for sure."

I can’t believe you actually had the audacity to dictate to a person of skin color who or what they are or by what terms they could refer to themselves! Who are you to judge others or to dictate someone else’s ethnic identity? Does your marriage to an Asian-American somehow give you carte blanche the right to categorize people? What part of the writer’s pride in their heritage led you to conclude the writer was “insecure”? What part of the email text showed you the writer’s genealogical history consisted of an overwhelming Native-American ancestry? Does any drop of Native-American blood make someone Native-American? That sounds awfully racist to me and is more in line with the former policies of South Africa.

So what exactly were Tolkien's views on racism?

"In 1938, he denounced the Nazis' "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." That same year, a German publisher asked for permission to publish Tolkien's first book, The Hobbit - and wondered, in passing, if Tolkien "had Aryan blood."


It was altogether the wrong question. Tolkien's classic reply dripped with uncharacteristic sarcasm:


"I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch.' I am not of Aryan extraction: That is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people."


'nuff said.....

Let me ask you this: do you believe the connection between black and evil and, on the other side of the coin, between white and good, both of which are deeply rooted in human nature (note, for example, how babies, whether white or black, shy away from the black darkness and prefer the white light; would you call them racist?), should be utterly wiped out from literature? If you support it, then you are no better than the censors in such books as Farenheit 451. You are no better than Big Brother in 1984. Alternatively, if you admit that these connections are valid, then you basically are saying that your "article" missed the point, and that you were simply too eager to play the old race card. You were bored, picked a popular film, and decided to bash it because you had nothing better to do with your life. From now on, do something useful with your life, OK?

I was laughing so hard by the end of this little diatribe that I couldn't help but to infer that the author of this piece intended it to be satire. There is so much wrong I don't even know where to start:

- The Picts were pre-Celtic people and they were Northern. We don't really know much about them, but none of the depictions I have seen show them as African or Asian.

- The history of the world shows that man's inumanity to man knows no racial boundry. People of varying races have been invading, raping and pillaging each other for millenia. It is not strictly limited to whites attacking people of color, unless your PC view of history only goes back a couple of hundred years.

- Tolkien states in a letter at the beginning of The Silmarillion that he set out to create a uniquely English fantasy, in fact he calls it a fairy tale and that's what it is. A fairy tale that draws from Celtic and Nordic myths.

- It is not a racist fantasy, it is a Luddite fantasy. Tolkien hated industrialization. The evil characters in Tolkien were beings of light now covered in pollution. Funny that the dragon is even named Smaugh, isn't it?

- Sauramon, Boromir, Gollum, all white, all bad guys. Sauromon even has a White Hand as his symbol, certainly a mockery of the race fantasies of Hitler, don't you think?

-Sauron was an angelic being, a Mair, who fell into evil. He often took on a form that was fair. In other words, he is a white guy and a racist oppressor, enslaving the people of the south and east. Tolkien even states in the Silmarillion that this is exactly the case- Sauron was an evil slave master.

- The orcs are corrupted elves- white guys who are mutated into monsters. They could just as easily be European tribal warriors with face paint and dreadlocks.

- Several races have to work together and overcome their hatred of each other to destroy the ring and battle Sauron.

- Tolkien stated in his letters that he abhored racism and the nazis.


You sir are way off base and quite frankly in internet speak, have been PWNED by everyone on this forum. In fact, you are so laughably left wing and politically correct that you are PWNing yourself by revealing:

a) You have no knowledege of history other than what you probably learned in a "multicultural studies" course (ie everything Western European is evil).

b) And you haven't read enough of Tolkien's work or his letters to place LOTR in proper context.

Far from creating "a racist tapestry," I thought Tolkien was trying to create a mythology for the English people. And, he drew up Norse influence. There, "The Gods" look like the Scandanavian people while the Giants & monsters are dark and ugly. Looking at Norse Mythology, you can pull out a number of images could seem racist even though these images were not made to describe another race but hostile forces in nature & their world.

Certain things in LOTR probably are racist but one could seriously question that.

As for Bush, I voted against Bush and I am "black" but those "sweet ones" slaughtered 3000 people in New York. They have also killed 200 people in East Africa. In the past, the Arabs had their own slave trade --enslaving various peoples. I've read that Moslem invaders destroyed priceless Hindu artifacts in a fit of fanaticism that would match Spanish behavior in the "New World." I've read of a Chinese city wherein there were many black slaves bought from the Arabs. Beyond that the Chinese elite have brutalized their own people for centuries. I could go on but need I ? However, in http://www.asian-nation.org , there is a history of Vietnamese centuries of struggle for freedom ... from the Chinese.

As for provocation, many white attacks have been totally unprovoked. It has almost been as if white people became the principal agent of evil on this Earth. But, some others have had their day too. I believe Arabs and Turks have had their day and have invaded, harassed, and enslaved in Europe
I've read of cities of people slaughtered by the Mongols in Eastern Europe and what provocation was there for that ? If Europeans bought slaves in Africa, I believe black chiefs captured and sold those slaves to them & Europeans had no defense against African disease meaning there would have been little slave trade without crooked black chiefs.

As for you Asian wife, ask her what she thinks of the superiority complex noticed amongst East Asian people. What drove the Japanese during WWII besides ultra-nationalism ? Does she hate racism or simply hate being the victim of it ?

As a black male, I'm not moaning about this movie. I'm not against white people having movies for themselves. I just want some variety in the movies and some movies about other people too. And, I want truth; not some PC version lie claiming to be truth.

Finally, I'm black and I think much of "Rap/hip-hop culture" is garbage. I miss the Soul Music of the 1970's. That was music about love. Rap is often negative. It is too often about worship of wealth, glorification of brutal actions and words, "self-seeking," living for today, living for pleasure, "self-hatred," & nihilism. It is the wrong "counter balancing" force.

"the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the violent expulsion of white farmers in Zimbabwe despite British offers to buy out the white farmers over time and return the land to the blacks, and the repeated and finally successful attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the victims in those buildings."

Wow, seems a little one sided, doesn't it? First of all, If you are going to use examples like this, make sure you are familiar with the topic entirerly. For example the WTC attacks...were you aware that at that time the U.S. government had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with attempts to controll the people? How repressed would you feel if some random military from totally different country tried to reform your ways of life? The people and gov. of Saudi Arabia constantly asked our government to leave them be, only to be ignored and further disregarded into oppression. ONLY THEN did the 9/11 attacks come forth. Learn something new everyday, don't ya? As far as the British farmers in Zimbabwe, flat out - they took the land away from the Africans...HOW CAN YOU SUGAR COAT THAT?!?!? And regarding Pearl Harbor...HELLO?!?!? There was a war in progress...

Basically, I just wanted you to be more aware that although this might come as a shock, America is not always the "Good Guy", riding in on a white horse to save the day.

Oh and by the way, another thought to ponder: The lord of the rings was set in middle earth...where there no minoroties on earth at that time? I guess minoroties just popped up in the last hundred years or so......(sarcasm)

"the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the violent expulsion of white farmers in Zimbabwe despite British offers to buy out the white farmers over time and return the land to the blacks, and the repeated and finally successful attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the victims in those buildings."

Wow, seems a little one sided, doesn't it? First of all, If you are going to use examples like this, make sure you are familiar with the topic entirerly. For example the WTC attacks...were you aware that at that time the U.S. government had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with attempts to controll the people? How repressed would you feel if some random military from totally different country tried to reform your ways of life? The people and gov. of Saudi Arabia constantly asked our government to leave them be, only to be ignored and further disregarded into oppression. ONLY THEN did the 9/11 attacks come forth. Learn something new everyday, don't ya? As far as the British farmers in Zimbabwe, flat out - they took the land away from the Africans...HOW CAN YOU SUGAR COAT THAT?!?!? And regarding Pearl Harbor...HELLO?!?!? There was a war in progress...

Basically, I just wanted you to be more aware that although this might come as a shock, America is not always the "Good Guy", riding in on a white horse to save the day.

Oh and by the way, another thought to ponder: The lord of the rings was set in middle earth...where there no minoroties on earth at that time? I guess minoroties just popped up in the last hundred years or so......(sarcasm)

"the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the violent expulsion of white farmers in Zimbabwe despite British offers to buy out the white farmers over time and return the land to the blacks, and the repeated and finally successful attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the victims in those buildings."

Wow, seems a little one sided, doesn't it? First of all, If you are going to use examples like this, make sure you are familiar with the topic entirerly. For example the WTC attacks...were you aware that at that time the U.S. government had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with attempts to controll the people? How repressed would you feel if some random military from totally different country tried to reform your ways of life? The people and gov. of Saudi Arabia constantly asked our government to leave them be, only to be ignored and further disregarded into oppression. ONLY THEN did the 9/11 attacks come forth. Learn something new everyday, don't ya? As far as the British farmers in Zimbabwe, flat out - they took the land away from the Africans...HOW CAN YOU SUGAR COAT THAT?!?!? And regarding Pearl Harbor...HELLO?!?!? There was a war in progress...

Basically, I just wanted you to be more aware that although this might come as a shock, America is not always the "Good Guy", riding in on a white horse to save the day.

Oh and by the way, another thought to ponder: The lord of the rings was set in middle earth...where there no minoroties on earth at that time? I guess minoroties just popped up in the last hundred years or so......(sarcasm)

"...were you aware that at that time the U.S. government had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, with attempts to controll the people?"

Control the people? Hardly. As a matter of fact, our people bent over backwards to not offend our hosts. When travelling off base, women service members were required to wear a burhka, and were not allowed to drive.

"The people and gov. of Saudi Arabia constantly asked our government to leave them be, only to be ignored and further disregarded into oppression."

Wrong again. We were in Saudi Arabia AT SA'S REQUEST.

"Learn something new everyday, don't ya?"

Yes. I learned you have totally ridiculous ideas about the military. Somehow I'm not surprised.

You may be wondering how I know so much about the subject. I spent 7 months there, at Prince Sultan Air Base, on two different occasions supporting Operation Southern Watch.

One wonders where you got YOUR information...?

This might come as a shock to you, but America is not nearly the bad guy the Left loves to paint it as.

As for the original article: Sheesh. It's a book and a movie. Are you that incapable of simply having a good time? Sucks to be you.

Ok real quick...Yes I am aware.

King Fahd of Saidi Arabia requested American services to help protect its nation. But er...that was 15 years ago...what are are troops still doing there? AND if you were supposedly staioned there for so long, then you would have to be aware of all the protests made by the people for our troops to leave...For heavens sake...It was on the news for all to see!

check out this article http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0309146/911.shtml

it really is quite fasinating. It gives lots of facts about U.S. foreign policy and its relation to the 9/11 attacks.

there are many other sites that I am aware of that show further relations between the 9/11 attacks and American foriegn policy. I eould be happy to share them all with you and whoever else is interested.

Ok real quick...Yes I am aware.

King Fahd of Saidi Arabia requested American services to help protect its nation. But er...that was 15 years ago...what are are troops still doing there? AND if you were supposedly staioned there for so long, then you would have to be aware of all the protests made by the people for our troops to leave...For heavens sake...It was on the news for all to see!

check out this article http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0309146/911.shtml

it really is quite fasinating. It gives lots of facts about U.S. foreign policy and its relation to the 9/11 attacks.

there are many other sites that I am aware of that show further relations between the 9/11 attacks and American foriegn policy. I eould be happy to share them all with you and whoever else is interested.

There ARE no American troops in Saudi Arabia any more.

The last ones pulled out late last summer. In my current job, I track where all USAF troops are in the Middle East. I also have a pretty good idea where the other branch's troops are.

And there ain't none in Saudi.

This entire arguement all boils down to the fact that humans are not perfect and that no group of people can claim purity of soul. People aren't perfect, and it's doubtful that rhetoric will be our saving grace so let's move on. Who cares what Tolken thought or what hidden agenda he has hidden in his books. They're good books, fun to read, entertaining most certainly. But what matters is what we think today of other people of other races not what Tolken thought because it's neither here nor there. If we can overlook our differences and move together into the future then we have accomplish something great for our descendents. I'm certain most of us don't want to leave behind a legacy of hatred and wars.

Couple of things. Firstly, the "tall, white, blond hair" thing applies to which of the Tolkien characters? The Elves, and the Men. The Hobbits are Little People, dark and hairy in general (from my reading, anyway). Saruman the White was evil - White referred to his level of wizardry. Gandalf was Grey until he disappeared while fighting the Balrog - when he came back, he was Gandalf the White. Doesn't mean he was less Good before... Ach, I think most of the rest of it's been covered.

BUT, if I could just address the "rebuttal" from one writer re the Zimbabwe farms claims. Colonialisation was, for the most part, a bad thing. There are farms in Africa run by whites who have been there for generations and generations, and who have no other home - where would you have them go? Mugabe is taking farms from white farmers and giving them to "war veterans", ie. men who fought in the war with Angola. Some of the recipients of his largesse are too young to have possibly fought in that war, and seem to qualify on the basis of their relationship with him alone. My friends are white Zimbabweans who voluntarily gave half of their land back to the government of Zimbabwe 20 years ago, and two years were forced off their land and are now living penniless in South Africa. Their son (a white man) (who has now lost the farm his family has worked for 5 generations) fought in the Angola war (for Zimbabwe).

All this means is that the land seizures in Zimbabwe use the excuse of "returning the land to its original owners" in much the same way as the US invaded Iraq on the basis of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - both are palpable falsehoods, but if we the observer choose to believe them, then they become reality. Land seized is NOT returning to its original owners, but to Mugabe's flunkies.

Courtney Marie-

I cannot beleive you are this dumb......(and I quote: "And regarding Pearl Harbor...HELLO?!?!? There was a war in progress..."

Yes, in 1941 there was a war in progress in the European theater. Yes, the Japanese were attempting to take control of Asia and the South Pacific (slaugthering innocent Chinese and Korean citizens just like the Nazis were doing with Jews). What IN THE HELL does this have to do with a United States Navy base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii??? We were not involved in this war! This was a sneak attack on the sovereign territory of the United States of America when we were at PEACE. Those ships (and the personel in them) were not involved in any conflict!

Are you a complete and total moron??? You must not know anything about history.

Since the beginning of modern civilization, there has not been a time where war wasn't taking place SOMEWHERE in the world! By your flawed logic, a war anywhere makes it justifiable for anyone to to attack anyone else anywhere!

Honestly, I don't mind stupid people....at least the ones who know they are stupid and keep their mouths shut. The stupid people I HATE are ones like you who pretend to be smart. Face it, you are an imbicile. Do yourself (and the rest of the world) a favor by keeping your mouth shut. This way, maybe people will mistake your stupidity for shyness and you won't continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Okay, well maybe they should make a film where everyone is the SAME colour. That would be in no way fascist or racist, would it now...
I hate when people get offended by "racisms" that aren’t really racist. A truly tolerant person would be able to distinguish between co-incidence and racism. By the way, orcs on the whole are greeny-snot colour.
Possibly white people should be the ones atop the oliphuants (sp?). That would really be accurate. No way! Trying to avoid racism by elusion of fact and probability is not even "politically correct". It is downright ignorance.

The reason that all Tolkien's good guys are white is this: the gods (the Valar), not to mention the Eldar, live off the Western coast of the Westernmost landmass. All that is good eminates from there, and so therefore the resistance arises strongest in the West, where there are white people. Tolkien's goal was to write a legend for Northern Europe; the rest of the world has its own stories.

David Rosen
English Major, Virginia Tech

What can I say. You are so full of shit, you could drowned in it at any minute. The distaste that elves and dwarves share is evident in the meeting in Rivendale. Yet Gimli and Legolas overcome their differances, to become fast friends. What you see as color of skin, is no different than the differances between an elf and a dwarf. Perhaps you see in this movie what you do not want to see in yourself. Reflect on this.

This hart fella is a freakin idiot one of those nut cases who believe Europeans are the only evil bunch on this planet. Hell who mass murdered 60+million in the Peoples Republic of China, Chinese communists. Sir, Have you heard of the caste system of India. I am Indian living in India and I have seen things worse here than skinhead racism can ever come up with. Dont the gods of the Hindus (devas) look more caucasian and fair while the demons (rakshasas) look dark? Is Hinduism racist? Were the Arabs not into slavery of both blacks and whites? Which is the only civilization which abolished slavery? The Western Civilization. yes Harty boy, it is that civilization you despise and want destroyed. Grow up deary, the world is not that simple as it looks. Racism exists in every part of the world. Do you know most Indians consider Africans to be dumb and criminal minded. African students never find Indian freinds here. Do you know that there are racist attacks on black Africans in Libya? There are lots of Chinese and Hindi movies without any European or African casting but you do not complain about that. In the scorpion king and Time Machine (released a year ago i guess) the non whites are shown as the good guys while all whites are shown as evil. You never complained about these blatantly racist movies. Why such hypocracy? harti boy.

Many of Tolkein's evil characters are black, brown, or otherwise exotic-looking. The evil colors are dark, and the good color is white. All the heroes are white-skinned and fair, and the elves, which represent the highest magic and immortal purity are Caucasian. That looks racist at first glance.
But this writer’s analysis of the story lacks the proper background. The obvious Anglo-centrism is the historical background for the mythology of the trilogy, and the racial balance of good and evil is not so skewed as the writer makes it seem.
Tolkein was an Englishman, and a professor of European mythology and ancient languages. He studied Anglo mythology, and that of the Celtic people, the Druids, the Saxons, the Goths, the Normans, etc. The stories he wrote about Middle Earth are based on the mythology of these peoples and the conflicts they faced in their lives.
What did they face? Well, first of all, it was not just the English and Portuguese who invaded other lands. Western Europe was invaded by Moors (Africans) who occupied the entire Iberian peninsula and Spain for over a hundred years. Their influence can be seen in the architecture and in the mythology. Invading conquerors with brown skin and strange customs made a big impression on the locals. Then there were invading Muslims from the middle east around the turn of the first millennium. If you were Gothic, Druid, Anglo, Saxon, etc., brown-skinned people who showed up from out of town were probably there to invade. Invasions came from east or south, and west was ocean, so it represented opportunity.
The use of the color white as a representation of the highest magic or purity is ancient and by no means exclusive to white people. White is used in the Yoruba traditions of Nigeria as a color of spiritual purity. It is also not uncommon for dark colors to represent faith. Priests use black, Cardinals use dark red. The white used by Tolkein to represent the purest magic of Gandalf, Saruman (who became evil), and the elves derives from ancient Euro-pagan symbolism.

The critic failed to fully research the story of the LOTR itself. First, not all of the orcs looked like Africans or Native Americans. Most of them had blue skin, pointy ears, and spoke cockney English--like pasty London hoodlums with third-degree burns. There were plenty of white bad-guys, too. Middle Earth was fraught with conflict between different light-skinned races.
More importantly, his analysis misses the point of the story completely—that the biggest evil was not the brown-skinned exotic warriors or the Uruk-hai, but the ring itself, Sauron, and the ring-wraiths. The rings themselves were crafted using elven magic, and Sauron (an evil wizard) gave the rings to eight elven and human lords. The evil of the rings turned them into monsters(ring-wraiths), and they are by far the most evil beings in the movie. They do not look like anything but ancient European warriors in full armor on big horses.
The story of the ring also hinges on the assertion that human man’s greed for power would be his downfall if left unchecked. This appears to me as a statement on the imperialist policy of the prevailing governments of western Europe; the Nazis, the English, you name it. Keep in mind the climate in Europe after WWII.

There is no solid argument for the addition of themes of racial harmony into the stories of Tolkein.
As for the critic’s assertion that “all Europe's mathematics, reading and writing and technological advancements in transportation and warfare are all based on African and Asian concepts” , that is a complete oversimplification. Ok, so the Sumerians invented writing (cuneiform) and the wheel, but that was 5500 years ago. The Chinese invented the noodle, but does that mean that Italians have to give credit to the Ming Dynasty for fettucine?
Regarding references to the Picts, there is no evidence that the picts, an amalgamation of pre-Celtic tribes in present-day Scotland, were any darker than other pre-Celtic or European tribes.

I believe it is safe to say that Tolkein’s works were not racist, and the movies are simply true to his work. Any modification of Tolkein’s work to show some harmony between ethnic groups of different color would be contrary to the story itself, contrary to it’s historical/mythological background and a ridiculous attempt at political correctness. If you want African heroes, read about Sundiata Keita, or the Ashanti Empire, but don’t watch movies based on European mythology.

take some time to find your self take pride in who you are and don't worry about what us racists are doing !

You mean like raising an army?

See:

http://www.sfimc.net/news/2004/02/1681411_comment.php#1681425

i love reading the comments of our politically-correct-pseudo-intellectual-thought-police. despite this, we can thank our enlightened, socially concious pundits for protecting us from any form of media that could possibly show someone with blue eyes and blonde hair in any positive manner whatsoever. that racist peter jackson was obviously in league with tolkien (who by the way is being kept alive in cyrogenic stasis until the alien takeover). the overlying theme in tolkien's work is that the "white" heroes won over the "black" orcs solely based on sarumon's practice of military hiring using affirmative action. thus, tolkien's belief that affirmative action made for an inferior army easily shows his evil racist views. also, notice how large portions of tolkien novel are written in "english", which also happens to be the language used by slave-owning whites in colonial america. are we really supposed to believe this is somehow a coincidence? if you see anyone using words like "and" and "the", please denounce them for the racist they are!!

so enlightened am i now that i have come to see the racist influences in everyday life.... here are some:

anyone watch that racist movie x-files? did you note that one of the main characters was white? see! and in that movie the "black oil" was part of the villans' plot. just another example of how the white man is afraid of being tainted by anything "black"! racist conspiracies abound!!

anyone ever notice how ghosts are racist? being all *pale* and translucent and trying to scare me into conforming with their racist agenda with incomprehensible, yet obviously racist groaning at all hours of the night (which is also black, especially when i close my eyes). it just screams that the afterlife is obviously run by racists conspiring to turn all people of color into pasty spirits when they die!! so, support your local ghostbusters in their fight for racial equality in the afterlife! p.s. don't even get me started on the stay-puff marshmellow man. big white dude just trying to keep tha brothas down until they "cross the streams"? we can all see how it's just a means of emasculinating the black man!!!

anyone ever notice how winter is obviously a racist conspiracy? anyone "dreaming of a white christmas" is obviously inciting racial violence and/or profiling. notice how we got more snow since bush took office? notice how people build snowmen (sexist as well, curses) with white snow, being sure to stay away from the "diverse" yellow snow or that black snow in the gutter along the road (another allusion to where the white man wants to keep black and yellow people). you can be sure that tolkien's cryogenic chamber (the patented race-o-freeze) is being kept cold with racially "pure" white snow!! everyone be sure to eat the yellow snow as it is "diverse" with vitamins and nutrients!!

truly, it would be hysterically funny if it weren't so sad that people are so desperate to find racism in, well, pretty much anything and everything. we should all be *very* upset that a piece of literature, drawing heavily on european (and particularly nordic) mythology, didn't include enough *positive* representations of minorities. As nordic mythology is *obviously* riddled with many accounts of heroic african americans, this must have been a gross oversight by the *obviously* racist tolkien in order to push his white supremacist agenda. thanks for doing your part in making a dent in the nordic-mythology-based-fantasy-racist-movement.

There are many terrible things that we, as humans are capable of. One of which is racism. Racism doesn't just apply to race or colour as represented by the word itself (race-ism). It has been present within all societal class structures, as well as religions and in other forms (ie sexism) throughout history as we know it.

Unfortuantely racism (and it's variants) will probably dog humanity for millenia to come, until such time when all races have interbred to the extent where the human race would be "one race". At least, what our feeble 21st century minds would consider to be so! Perhaps we would reach an enlightend state of mind long before this occurs and realise that we are all (no matter what) members of the same race - the human race. Therefore relagating the use of the terms "racism" and "racist" to describe acts against other races of species, be they animal or alien. A more likely alternative is that the concept of seperation and difference between human beings based on race, colour, religion, class or sex, will lead to the demise of the human race as we know it.

Why? because like it or not, we are after all, only human. Like it or not, each human being utlimately has only themselves to answer to and can hold only themselves responsible for their own actions and choices. All this despite the fact that the choices and actions each human makes directly impacts those around them.

In other words everyone should get over themselves and start thinking of how your words and actions affect others. YOU have the choice! The choice not to be a total asshole and the choice to try (just try) and get along with your fellow man or woman. Stop thinking of you own selfish pursuits and think of the greater good. Let's face it though, this will probably never happen because as stated earlier, we are, after all only human.

It seems selfishness (even that with the noblest intention, ie taking care of your family before a stranger) is inherent in the human condition. It probably stems from the basic instinct instilled in all living things - survival or the will to exist. As the cliche goes, "life will find a way". The problem with humans is we are all too conscious of our mortality and this spurs us on to new heights of self-involvement.

All that aside as a member of the human race even Lloyd Hart is entitled to his opinion, even if his interpretation of the literature and subsequent film (LOTR) are what I would describe as the rantings of a schizophrenic madman. He jumps from one point to next with little clarity and backs up his statements with mislead or falsified information. I think everyone else who has contributed to the above discussion have made good points (for the most part). Now to the point, my take on Tolkeins original tale is as follows:

It is a story, like most, which by anyones standards contains racism on some level (no matter how small). The racism isn't presented through the use of symbolism though, it is far more obvious. As others have already pointed out, for example, the bad blood between Elves and Dwarves, not to mention the Elves holier-than-thou attitude towards humans and so on.

That said, would it be better if writers didn't write about issues such as racism, that exist in our society? Would it be better for all literature not to reflect societal issues or the short comings of the human race? That way we could all enjoy a bland boring story with no particular point or moral. That way we could learn nothing about ourselves or society as a whole and could only hope to be dumber for the experience.

Surely, a writers intentions should be to comment in some way, no matter how insignificant, on some fragment of human nature. Furthermore, authors write in order to inspire readers to look at subjects from different perspectives and hopefully to learn and grow as people. Clearly, this could only be positive.

Sadly, some readers have little understanding of the art of interpretation and fail to glean positive lessons from text or film. These people, like Lloyd Hart for example, seek only to draw negative conclusions from what could be the simplest of messages.

Maybe Lloyd wrote his spiel because he didn't "get" the story or it didn't hold his interest. Maybe he wrote it to get a reaction. If the latter is true, he got what he was after but possibly he may have learnt something from everyones responses. If he genuinely believes what he wrote, then it appears that he has drawn conclusions that actually conflict with themes and ideas depicted in the story. Instead of looking at the big picture and analysing the major themes to find meaning, he has focused on the skin colour, languages and the hemisphere of origin of fictional characters in a fantasy world then drawn parallels to our world. Lloyd (and others who think the same) look deeper and beyond your own hangups and you'll find a much better message in there somewhere.

If you want to read a good analysis of LOTR go to the link below and you'll see how to draw conclusions (opinions by any other name) in a structured and interesting manner. That is, presenting a readers interpretation of a piece with good examples and support data, and giving meaningful and helpful insights. Anyway I think I've dribbled on enough, here is the link........

http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html

Oh shut up. I'm tired of you people trying to find racism in everything! Answer me this! Why is it that there are allowed to be all colored schools, but all white schools are held illegal? Why is it that there are colored beauty pageants out there, yet we cannot hold all white ones? Is that not racism?
There is no racism in Lord of the Rings whatsoever, nor the movies. What were they supposed to do? Make the orcs wear frilly pink tutus and have pearly white skin?
The Lord of the Rings is not about the world today. It did not derive from old myths or legends of England. It did not derive from WWII as rumored. Lord of the Rings came from a love of language. That's what Tolkien was, a linguist. A polyglot. Racial backgrounds have absolutely nothing to do with the story! So why bring it up?
Why read into something that is not meant to be there? Lord of the Rings is about hope, love, understanding.
If anything it promotes unions between other races! Look at the friendship that came about between the fellowship! Elves, Dwarves, Men, Hobbits, Wizards! Even the wild men that fought with Sauron redeem themselves! It's all there. You are just too blind to see the real story and what it was meant to be taken for. Why try to find so much hatred in something that promotes love and hope?

Don't make me laugh you racist fool, I think we should let the Pakistanis on you're ass, you are a stupid individual.

Hindus are racist generally speaking they don't need the cast system to be racist their just born like that.

Take for instance the Pakistanis, now I did not like them i was in favor of India until I saw you're pathetic attempt at try to sound intelligent, are you brainless or something? we don't like Indian the only reason we where In India was for the nice Arab and Hindu woman we wasn't their because we liked you're culture so stop being a fool. We don't want to have nothing to do with you dung worshipers you bath in the Ganges full or excrement.

And no where not giving you weapons because we like you where giving them to you because with any-look you might just nuke bollywood or a few city's here and their.

And No India is not powerful their is 82 Muslim countries in the world if we let them on you? stupid fools at least the Muslims don't go around acting they like us.

Any why is it that Hindus beg everyone? Bush has decided to make Pakistan a non-NATO ally and the Indians are crying about this and saying the pakis are this and that. and then they say we are making peace with Pakistan. Man i just hope you have a war with Pakistan, they would eat you up.

The Pak army maybe smaller then India's, hay look at England vs Hitler.

You attacked Pakistan 3 times but never conquered Pakistan. And at that time the Pakistanis didn't even have an army.

Now they do have an army apparently ranked 10th most powerful army in the world.

That article was so ridiculous it made me want to pee. As a white man, I think I can watch an african folktale with white devils as the enemy and be comfortable with it. Actually, when I first saw this movie in the theatres I went with a small group, and this girl mentioned this when we were talking about the movie afterwards. I couldnt but to think that she probably missed a pretty good movie. Short white people were the heros of the movie. So the fuck what. I dont know what gender you are, but you probably prefer the same.

>I can watch an african folktale with white devils as the enemy and be comfortable with it

Rent "Black and White in Color"

It's about WWI in Africa. Very, very funny.

See:

http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/b/black-and-white-in-color.shtml

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/BlackandWhiteinColor-1002472/reviews.php

What a stupid argument from someone who obviously hasn't paid attention when he studied history.
Yes hindus are racist, not all of them of course, but still many, just like every other social/political and religious group. Bigotry exists everywhere, hindus/indians arent an exception.
India attacked pakistan 3 times, wrong, factual error, but i dont blame you, you resemble a taliban madarsa educated oaf, who hasn't seen a well written book. I doubt if your name really is David, you seem more like an Osama to me.
India was attacked in 1948-pak lost,1965- pak lost, in1971-pak lost. You forget the 4th war in Kargil, Pak army was driven out of Indian soil.
And the 82 muslim countries you plan to attack with, look what happened to the dozen blokes trying to attack Israel, ditto result if you try and attack India.
And the fact that India has the 2nd largest population of muslims in the world,more than pakistan by the way will tell you whos racist and whos not.
Shut up, read, travel the world, talk to sensible people and learn.
Dont be an asinine bigot.

What a stupid argument from someone who obviously hasn't paid attention when he studied history.
Yes hindus are racist, not all of them of course, but still many, just like every other social/political and religious group. Bigotry exists everywhere, hindus/indians arent an exception.
India attacked pakistan 3 times, wrong, factual error, but i dont blame you, you resemble a taliban madarsa educated oaf, who hasn't seen a well written book. I doubt if your name really is David, you seem more like an Osama to me.
India was attacked in 1948-pak lost,1965- pak lost, in1971-pak lost. You forget the 4th war in Kargil, Pak army was driven out of Indian soil.
And the 82 muslim countries you plan to attack with, look what happened to the dozen blokes trying to attack Israel, ditto result if you try and attack India.
And the fact that India has the 2nd largest population of muslims in the world,more than pakistan by the way will tell you whos racist and whos not.
Shut up, read, travel the world, talk to sensible people and learn.
Dont be an asinine bigot.

i think that many asspects of the lord of the rings are racist and hurtful. i also think it it is racist to the arabs and darker people of the wrold note, the easterlings, and black nuemorens, and the southrons of harad. when i first saw the movi rotk, and seeing people on elphants that are my skin complexion and dressed like many of my fellow arabs i feet very bad. all of the mortal servents of sauron nwere dressed in arab style clothing and had dark skin and brown eyes like me. it would be fine if some of the bad guys were black or dark and some white but all were black. come on men of the east? what the hell kind of hateful bull shit is that?

easterlings? common if you are going to make a movie with these charters dont make them look like real men of arabia!

I just happened on this discussion. I wonder if the offensive portrayals (and yes I can see they were offensive, even if they might be interpreted as being archetypical) were only present in the movie (If so, I'm hardly surprised) and not in the book. Was the author a racist, or is he being viewed and possibly misinterpreted by a later age.

easterlings? common if you are going to make a movie with these charters dont make them look like real men of arabia!

oh and the uhrk hai look like indains!

I could devote my whole afternoon on a tyrade against your article on the Lord of the Rings, but due to time constraints I`ll only point out your most glaring examples of assholishness.

The West has been invading the Mideast, unprovoked for 5,000 years, huh? When you`re weeping over all those poor, sweet, innocent Arabs and Jews killed by White crusaders, don`t forget to shed a tear for all of those white male babies in Eastern Europe kidnapped by the Ottoman Turks for training as Islam`s Elite-Guard, or the young white girls taken for tribute into the harems of Moorish Sultans.

And much to your horror I`m sure, both Tolkien and the director of the movies meant for the story to inspire pride in Western Civilization. That`s why all three movies were filmed at once; to avoid pressure from the left to mongrelize the cast.

comment to hetrosexual white male: your ignorant, educate yourself. west/east/up/down where ever, we are all people, there is no "greatness" of the west, we are all equal. please listen to me, and realize many of us think your blatent racisist comments are offensive, no matter what our skin/location. I respect you as a human, but disrespect your ideas.

I completely acknowledge the fact that by doing this, I am officially throwing away my ability to complain about how pathetic this discussion is, but it needs to be said. First of all, the skin colour is an amazingly common literary/dramatic method, dating back to ancient greece culture. Now, if you want to feel offended, go nuts. However, if you even consider attempting to change this method I can only begin to estimate the extent of your stupidity. It's a 5000 year old practice, and it hasn't been hurtful for 5000 fucking years. Suck it up, and put your energy into something more productive.

Look at the bright side , as a chinese from hong kong , at the first glance of the movie and story , it do seem racist that all evil human being are asian and african like culture and the only asian culture not included are from oriental and south east asia .

Look at the Elves of Lothlorein , their people seem to be white and come on , their fighting style , their weapon and millitary attire are base on mostly japanese , oriental and other asian culture but ya , the bad human wield mostly scimitar , ride elephant like mumakil and look asian and african but look at the weapon that the ringwraith wield are longsword from middle age europe . The sword that the elves wield are a mix of scimitar and katana and the bow that they use in two tower share some resemblance to japanese bow . Those are what
I heard from Peter jackson and Tolkein

As for White raping other country , since the rise of white power , britian , france and other western country had been colonizing asian country and massarce many people but at least after they colonize them , they improve their way of life which is at least not as bad as Japanese looping off prisoner head and killed thousand of chinese ( I don't hate them at all , but mainland chinese and taiwanese have strong animosity toward them )

As for the Skin colour , in middle earth , the east and south are deset area and is hot , so that will affect them on how they will dress or look costing them to wear thin clothes and look darker in colour . It because of Sauron settling in the east , influecing the easterling and the southron to convert to darkness , and in human way of life , it is mostly the leader who should be responsible of why his nation are failing , so that does not mean that men from the south and the east are all evil , it is because of them falling under sauron influence .

If J.R.R were to include oriental as a bad guy , I don't really mind as long as they were not mention as a human race with lower level of intelligent compare to the men of the west .

And at least , the Easterling which is Sauron's only minion who are much more organize and braver , and also a better , more elite fighter compare to the haradrim and the other race .

The ' bad white guys ' that I can think of is the Black numenorean which descended from the Numenorean and the haradrim do inhabit some numenorean blood and by the way numenorean are black hair .

And by the way which western cilvilisation do not bring in war elephant to war , the Greeks once did so to scare away the Roman invader ( The smart Romans quickly discover a way to counter elephant charge ) and the Roman also use them once to conquer Britian and Hannibal of Carthage ( Spain ) use war elephant during the attack of Rome . The Dunland behave like the Germanic Barbarian from the time of Rome

But I do find it strange that way the easterling and the haradrim accepted sauron , since that troll , orc and uruk do eat human flesh and they should also find those troll and orc , scary and ugly , if I were to be those easterling , I would rather fight them than to side with them ....

a point here it wasnt just the africans that usend elephants in war they were used in india and were used by the roman emporer claudius who used it on arival in england after the roman invasion the arbs never used them at all as they preferd horses

Whites aren't even allowed to speak their minds anymore. They can't walk down the street without being targeted by Rapists and Theives. Or God forbid they get a Movie they can watch. It seems to me they are the ones being suppressed. everyones watching Whitey, Instead of focusing on the important issues like Getting Drugs and Drug Dealers off of the streets. I'm Just glad that The whites are leading a good example for all of us to follow. We Darkies wouldn't even be here if it weren't for them. And I don't see them getting all up in our face when we get movies with our race.

Indybay publishes this crap and still expect people to believe they are on the side of Global Justice!?! Truly, wonders never cease.

I am a person of south asian ancestry, and I read the LOTR nine times from the ages of 10 to 12. Two decades later, rather unsurprisngly, it continues to have a hold over my imagination. Even as a ten year old, I felt there was soemthing within the book that jarred, something that subtly excluded me as a non white person. I don't wish to say whether Tolkien "meant" the book to be racist or not, although he certainly came from a culture in which ideas of racial superiority were fairly evident. What I want to say is that as a person of colour I recognised a lot of stuff in the book which has a resonance with our real world and which worries me. This is not to say there was not much that I admired in the book.

Recently, I tried reading the books a tenth time but was very conscious of the annoyance I felt at the underlying and repetitive signification of "West equals good, East equals bad" and the whole emphasis on maintaining racial purity and lineage.

The underlying signification is very clear and pretty overwhelming. The East is the place of ignorance and darkness which the Elves need to move away from at the bidding of the god-like Valar into the Undying Lands of the Uttermost West in order to become immeasurably greater in body and spirit. Those Elves who refuse the summons and do not go West become a lesser folk. Likewise, the good men (Edain) who fought with the Elves against the dark enemy Morgoth (who draws his strength from the men of the East)are given a paradisaical land West of middle earth (Numenor), and grow in power and splendour in the second age, whilst the men of the East are ever ready to do the bidding of the dark lord Sauron and regress into evil.

Granted, the men of the West (Numenoreans) at the height of their power hold large swathes of middle earth with its "lesser" men in subjection and slavery. Some Numenoreans are even corrupted by Sauron to perform human sacrifices to the spirit of evil, Morgoth. But even here, the faithful Numenoreans who do not go against the wishes of the Valar live in Andunie in the West of Numenor whilst the evil Numenoreans are in the East and South of Numenor.
The underlying signification of East vs West holds true.

The East vs West mantra resonates with the contemporary and very worrying "clash of civilizations" hypothesis in which the West (Europe and America) is pitted against a barbaric and inimical Islam. There is certainly a historical resonance here which draws from the invasions of Europe by non whites from the east (such as Mongols or Turks) or the south (Moors). The Eastern people are referred to by Denethor and Gandalf as "heathens" who have "heathen kings" who do unspeakable things such as killing their kin to ease their own passing away. This is seen as unacceptable behaviour for a man of the West, a sign of madness (as with Denethor who attempts to burn himself with his still living son, Faramir).

Although the details are not identical, it does recall western christian ideas of the Islamic world (especially in the middle ages) as a place where unspeakable, abhorrent things were done which no "decent" christian would ever do.

This idea of the West being under threat conveniently ignores the fact that for at least the last few centuries, it has predominantly been Western countries that have been oppressors of Eastern and Southern lands, not vice versa. Many dozens of countries have an American military presence often without the support of the local population. American and Western (Britain, France etc) powers have also supported local dictators who have oppressed their own people until it suited teh West to get rid of their puppets after having declared a spurious interest in the human rights of the peoples they had had a hand in oppressing.

To many people in Eastern and Southern countries, the men of teh west are not an embattled group fighting for their survival (as with Gondor in LOTR) but as oppressors who, for all their technological superiority and belief in their moral superiority, have actually come to exploit and loot Eastern and Southern lands. Very much like those bad Numenoreans coming in their tall ships to the coasts of a ravaged Middle Earth in the Second Age in fact.

The East vs West mantra resonates with the contemporary and very worrying "clash of civilizations" hypothesis in which the West (Europe and America) is pitted against a barbaric and inimical Islam.

you are projecting your victom mentality onto a childrens fairytale. if you are this uncomfortable with your self image "seek therapy" this is a sad cry for help

Wow anyone who thinks that Lord of the Ring was designed to be racist is a complete moron. I'm not going to get into all the ways this makes you stupid, I'm just going to say this much:

LOTR is based in European culture. Sure it has it has influences from other cultures, but thats true to every culture. Moreover, the types of combat demonstrated in LOTR are largely of medieval European type. This includes the wildmen who are obvious drawn with the Vikings in mind, the most white of any white people you racist dumb fucks. If you're going to write a story with a culture in mind as your basis, then you're going to want to populate that culture with people who actually would naturally live in that culture. You'd probably find about 5 black people in all of Medieval Europe. Maybe its just me, but seeing a black dude wearing chain mail and swinging around an axe would kind of destroy the illusion because well, black people never really wore chain mail and swung around swords. Or maybe one of the 5 did.

Let me draw a parallel. Lets say that we're writing a movie about the Zulu in the 19th century. They're a bunch of black people who lived (actually live) in present day Zimbabwe and for a time successfully combated British imperialists. If we want to cast this movie, should we just throw in a few blue eyed blonde haired cats just because its racially insensitive not to? I dunno about you, but seeing a white guy running around in Zulu grass shorts and carrying a spear would make the movie pretty damn laughable and would ruin the depiction of it. Moreover, do we get all pissed off because the British (the enemy) are all white? Do we therefore have to make some of them black to prove that yes some blacks can be evil too? Don't be stupid.

It seems that some of you out there won't be happy until white culture is completely stricken from the world. Its this kind of unfounded attack on someone else's culture that creates racism.

and then get back to us with the criticism-critique, ok?

as for "byron," who actually seems capable of a thought: steel-wielding banus on hippos would have meant no rome to remember (now who said it?) do get back to us once you've read something written in, say, the 20th century or later...

"banus" should read "bantus"

This is simply untrue. Byron would do well to familiarize himself with the history of medieval Africa. His ignorance embarrasses white people everywhere.

Here’s a *really* easy introduction:

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/Variants/sahelafrica.html

* * *

Here are some more specific references:

http://www.geocities.com/dethomas01/Mali.htm

(snip)

Much like Ghana, Mali was organized into a series of feudal states ruled by a mansa. A large cavalry helped enforce the rule of the mansa. Their horsemen were armed with steel armor and weapons, which included chain mail, spears, and iron swords.

(snip)

* * *

http://www.britannica.com/eb/print?tocId=9110760&fullArticle=true

(snip)

Bornu's army had a strong cavalry force, wore chain mail, quilted armour, and iron helmets, and retained its medieval splendour down to the 19th century, with something of its former pageantry still to be seen at Islamic festivals.

(snip)

* * *

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=69

(snip)

Sword of the 'SHI' people, Zaire - 0042 (pic)

(snip)

* * *

http://www.brigatta.com/a_k.shtml

(snip)

babanga: African sword consisting of a metal leaf-shaped blade fitted onto a wooden hilt

(snip)

* * *

I also recommend that Byron read *Lost Cities of Africa* by Basil Davidson, a fun and easy introduction to medieval Africa.

As for Black people wearing chain mail and swing swords in medieval Europe itself, I highly recommend Byron that superb classic of European medieval literature, *Parzival* by Wolfram von Eschenbach.

This is really true. nessie would do well to familiarize himself with the history of medieval Africa. His ignorance embarrasses anti-Zionist people everywhere.

Here’s a *really* easy introduction:

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/Variants/sahalafrica.html

* * *

Here are some more specific references:

http://www.geocities.com/dathomas01/Mali.htm

(sniff)

Much like Ghana, Mali was organized into a series of feudal states ruled by a mansa. A large cavalry helped enforce the rule of the mansa. Their horsemen were armed with steel armor and weapons, which included chain mail, spears, and iron swords.

(sniff)

* * *

http://www.britannica.com/eb/print?tucId=9110760&fullArticle=true

(sniff)

Bornu's army had a strong cavalry force, wore chain mail, quilted armour, and iron helmets, and retained its medieval splendour down to the 19th century, with something of its former pageantry still to be seen at Islamic festivals.

(sniff)

* * *

http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=96

(sniff)

Sword of the 'SHI' people, Zaire - 0042 (pic)

(sniff)

* * *

http://www.bregatta.com/a_k.shtml

(sniff)

babanga: African sword consisting of a metal leaf-shaped blade fitted onto a wooden hilt

(sniff)

* * *

I also recommend that nessie read *Lost Cities of Africa* by Basil Davidson, a fun and easy introduction to medieval Africa.

As for Black people wearing chain mail and swing swords in medieval Europe itself, I highly recommend Byron that superb classic fiction work of European medieval literature, *Parzival* by Wolfram von Eschenbach.

<<Sometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it’s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.>>

you're giving this fool way too much credit.

there's nothing subtle about his game.

i hope the moderators' antipathy toward nessie isn't the reason they're allowing this crap to continue...

there's always Islam, praise be to God! nor did anyone mention Egypt, the first civilization..............

Actually, the clash of civilizations hypothesis is one of the major narratives running through both western and islamic cultures and has informed art and literature for many hundreds of years. I don't think being aware of how it runs through major works of art and literature could be said to be indulging in "victimhood"! Although not knowing about it does show a major lack of awareness ......

It's also a bit sad that some people have distorted other peoples' arguments to further their own agendas. For example, the idea that people who see racism in LOTR want it banned and that this constitutes a threat to white culture. Now if anything's pandering to overblown victimhood its those people! No-one is advocating that LOTR be banned (least of all me!) but what we are saying is that we need to be more aware of the potentially negative resonances LOTR has in today's world. Books are not read or written in a vacuum but informed by the society around them. Again, this is not to say that Tolkien was a racist, but that his books do seem to rely on the notion of an Other which is inimical to the west and which is informed by centuries old demonisation in the real world of non westerners (particularly muslims) as Other.

Hopefully, in our increasingly multicultural world, the stories of the future will not rely on this divisive and potentially negative notion of Other to reinforce and celebrate what we believe to be good and great about our own culture.

Boo! Where is everybody?

WHile I dont believe LOTR to be rascist I do believe it has some parallels with european history. One could look at Gondor as Byzantium or Rome and who invaded Rome and Byzantium?? The Peoples of asia and they live to the east of Europe!! But I think Rascist is too strong I never heard anyone say "damned easterlings!" or "we are better then those men of the east!"

Lloyd, you really are a total idiot.

Here's why;

1 Tolkien was writing a fictitiuos history of early medieval northern europe. He wrote in the 1930's to 60's, when 'racial sensitivity' and 'ethnic awareness' had not been thought of. Early Medieval northern europe did not contain anyone with dark skin. Early medieval north europeans had HEARD of people with darker skin, but were entirely ignorant of these cultures and so were AFRAID of them. Of course Tolkiens bad guys are culturally non-north european .. he was writing from the perspective of closed, isolated small peoples, such as the norwegians, the english, the welsh, the irish, the germans and the danes.

2 You mention Picts as being an example of 'darker skinned' people from northern europe. You are thick. Really THICK, Lloyd: the Picts were pale skinned, ginger or blond haired celts, you idiot. We know this from the detailed descriptions of them provided by roman military writers. They were NOT covered in tattoos, they were covered in PAINT, called Woad. 'Pictii'' was the latin word for them, and means, 'the painted ones'. Schmuck.

3 Making something politically correct is a good idea. No decent person is racist. But if Eomer became a black african, Gandalf was Chinese and Frodo was played in the movie by an australian aboriginal, it would be more than just confusing - it would mean that the whole 'world' that Tolkien was writing about would make no sense at all .. where did they come from? Why do they look different to their kin?

4 Why do the Uruk Hai in the movie remind you of native americans, you bloody fool?? They speak with southern-english (cockney) accents. They have shiny black skin and pointy fangs. Do native americans have cockney accents, shiny black skin and pointy fangs? Did native americans use plate armour, pikes and crossbows like Peter Jackson's orcs do in the movie? Are you a retard?

. . . the context in which an artistic work was produced

[Lloyd, you really are a total idiot.

Here's why;

1 Tolkien was writing a fictitiuos history of early medieval northern europe. He wrote in the 1930's to 60's, when 'racial sensitivity' and 'ethnic awareness' had not been thought of. Early Medieval northern europe did not contain anyone with dark skin. Early medieval north europeans had HEARD of people with darker skin, but were entirely ignorant of these cultures and so were AFRAID of them. Of course Tolkiens bad guys are culturally non-north european .. he was writing from the perspective of closed, isolated small peoples, such as the norwegians, the english, the welsh, the irish, the germans and the danes.]


and this defense is not really a defense, as it tend to confirm the European fear of non-white, non-Christian cultures that lead them to consider them inferior, and hence, subject to being "civilized" through imperialism for hundreds of years

furthermore, by the 1930s, there were plenty of indigenous, native movements for self-determination all over the world, India probably being the most well known example for someone like Tolkien

so, Tolkien really has no excuse at all, if he is as bright and as well read as "The Lord of the Rings" indicates, and thus, this response really lets him off the hook, and one can legitimately view Tolkien's willingness to describe orcs as creatures worthy of being killed indiscriminately in huge numbers as consistent with Churchill's famous remark about the absurdity of squemishness about the "use of gas", meaning chemical weapons against the people of the Middle East in the 1920s, again, something Tolkien probably knew

Tolkien seems philosophically similar to the "mugwup" anti-imperialists in America in the 1890s, like Carl Schurz, who opposed the Spanish-American War, because it would bring non-white peoples within the American Union, people described as lacking the intelligence and cultural attributes required for democracy

with all that said, I read all three books when I was in 7th grade, and loved them, and it's because, despite the originals of the work, and their context, they take on quite a different meaning with the passage of time, or perhaps, it is more accurate to say, a more complex meaning, as we integrate them into our own contemporary experiences that Tolkien could never have anticipated

Edward Said was a great literary critic who dissected the imperialist and cultural biases of several well known works of literature, and then, upon discovering that some people were utilizing his analysis to revile some of them, responded with dismay: "but everyone knows I love Conrad!"

So, we can still enjoy a great narrative, wonderful character development and keen emotional insight while recognizing that a novelist was part and parcel of the political, social and religious beliefs of their time.

Said strongly believed that our appreciation of these works is actually enhanced by our sensitivity to the ingrained biases that were incorporated into them by novelists. It is tempting, as a fan of any great writer or filmmaker, to stick our head in the sand, and deny that they were subject to these biases, but Said teaches that we actually diminish these artists when we fail to evaluate them and their works honestly with a discerning eye.

--Richard

Richard, you've missed my point, sadly. Tolkiens fictitious history involves the eternal struggle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil: he doesn't pretend that's how the REAL world is, because he's creating a fictitious legendarium from a mythical past. To draw a paralell between the slaying of countless Orcs to Churchills racially insensitive foreign policies makes you sound very stupid, Richard - Orcs represent the minions of Absolute Evil, not the unfortunate soldiers of another kingdom or two. Tolkien is very careful to describe the MEN who fight for the forces of Evil as poor, manipulated fools, and pities them .. think about the words of Faramir to Frodo in Ithilien, when he's musing upon the fate of a dead Haradrim lying on the grass in front of them (..)

Orcs are given NO SUCH consideration in his world, they have no souls or consciences. See the difference? Tolkien's 'racism' was simply a product of his middle-class, oxford education in the 1930's, not his arrogance or inhumanity.'Evil' men are not evil from his point of view, they're evil from the point of view of the northern-european style early medieval charachters that live in an erarly medieval style north-european style world. He's obliged to reflect that in order to maintain OUR beleif in the consistency of his creation.

Stop trying to politicize or update what is - and always will be - an early medieval fable, a sophisticated fairy-tale, a romance in its most chivalrous sense. Was 'Le Chanson De Roland' racist? Beowulf? Don Quixote? King Arthur? Robin Hood? Get over yourself.

According to the author the stupid europeans never invented anything! He says people ignore his wife because of the colour of her skin. Maybe it's the fact she is a different race! There's a little more to it than skin colour. The idiot cannot understand this concept!

The comment being made here has its flaws, but also raises a very good point. The truth of the matter is, Western media is still white dominated. Many popular television shows, and movies, continue to portray people from different cultures and races with disrespect and even blatant racism. While calling Bush a homicidal maniac from Texas is more than a little tongue in cheek, we do indeed live in sensitive times. Race has been dismissed by white audiences for decades. President Wilson applauded the film Birth of a Nation for its "realism" (if the reference is too obscure, ignore it), and I doubt many white crowds saw how the depictions of native americans in the old westerns were horribly offensive. People of the sort pan-caucasian, or white, ancestry get to ignore race, they have never been victims of it. We have not come so far that we have moved beyond race. The civil rights movement did not end with the right to vote. America is still a white man's country, and the war on terror certainly makes for a sensitive issue. There is a great deal of racism at the core of our definitions on "terrorist." I have been rambling on for a bit, so I degress. The author of this column did raise an interesting point about Lord of the Rings. The movie could not be more white. Words like "good" and "evil" are loaded, and it does not matter that we are dealing with the fantasy genre, fictional representations are and should be subject to the same scruitny and analysis that we would give to a direct speech context. Unless we forget what an allegory or folk tales and so forth are all about. The Lord of the Rings has received this allegation before in book form. Tolkien's "land of the south" with its barbarian occupants who were dark in color and beastial were criticized for being racist representations of black people in the south. I do not think that was an invalid response. Nor do I think the comment here that everyone of color is evil. It is a statement of fact. All of the "good" guys are white, in skin and in get up. All of the "evil" men, with the exception of that wizard whose name I can't remember, are dark. Darkness has often been associated with evil. It was also apart of the racist discourse visited upon people from Africa, "the dark continent." They were often called "foul" "dark" and so on associating them as unclean and evil. The part about the elephants being almost representative of Persians, Indians and the like is also a good point which cements the argument well. There is some very unsettling aspects to Lord of the Rings. Is there any good reason why every single solitary person who was "good" had to have white skin? And no that is not just accidental. We live in complex and uncertain times. There is no longer clear cut good, or absolute evil. Diotribes of black and white, good and evil, objective morality, are laughable at best. The allegory that emerges from the Lord of the Rings is the product of an old bygone era when people like to sit around and believe in the myths that good is always good, and evil is easily distinguishable and always seem to be apart of someone else. Good fought evil, and good always won. I am sure the 50s were great if you were a white male with good financial standing and your wife didn't mind being a silent slave. The Lord of the Rings may have been entertaining, but its message is obsolete. Good and evil are abstractions that never quite seem to mean anything. Human existence never works out that cleanly. In demanding a fictional representation that revisits such archaic notions, The Lord of the Rings treads upon some very uncomfortable ground. Racism is a valid translation, so is ethnocentrism. The Great White Empire praising itself once more.

[Hmm
by Tolkienista ! Friday, Apr. 15, 2005 at 1:37 AM


[Richard, you've missed my point, sadly. Tolkiens fictitious history involves the eternal struggle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil: he doesn't pretend that's how the REAL world is, because he's creating a fictitious legendarium from a mythical past. To draw a paralell between the slaying of countless Orcs to Churchills racially insensitive foreign policies makes you sound very stupid, Richard - Orcs represent the minions of Absolute Evil, not the unfortunate soldiers of another kingdom or two. Tolkien is very careful to describe the MEN who fight for the forces of Evil as poor, manipulated fools, and pities them .. think about the words of Faramir to Frodo in Ithilien, when he's musing upon the fate of a dead Haradrim lying on the grass in front of them (..)
Orcs are given NO SUCH consideration in his world, they have no souls or consciences. See the difference? Tolkien's 'racism' was simply a product of his middle-class, oxford education in the 1930's, not his arrogance or inhumanity.'Evil' men are not evil from his point of view, they're evil from the point of view of the northern-european style early medieval charachters that live in an erarly medieval style north-european style world. He's obliged to reflect that in order to maintain OUR beleif in the consistency of his creation.
Stop trying to politicize or update what is - and always will be - an early medieval fable, a sophisticated fairy-tale, a romance in its most chivalrous sense. Was 'Le Chanson De Roland' racist? Beowulf? Don Quixote? King Arthur? Robin Hood? Get over yourself.]


. . . which is that you somehow believes that literature is somehow created separate from the circumstances in which the author lived, and reflects none of the influences of the social life of the time

Said perpetually suffered the pathetic attacks who wanted to preserve the idea of high art and culture, unblemished by the world around it

and the idea that Tolkien created a mythic world, and that we should accordingly suspend any analysis of it in the context of the real one is so blinkered that it defies belief, as many authors over the centuries created mythic worlds that were clearly supposed to present ideas about the real one in which they lived

but, then, that shouldn't be surprising, because my experience has been that some of the most devoted fans of "Lord of the Rings" are otherwise disconnected from literature in any meaningful sense, which is confirmed by your remarks about chilvarous medieval fairly tales

or, should hundreds of years of social commentary and academic scholarship be disregarded? apparently so

given the context in which he wrote the books, Tolkien's portrayal of the orcs can be viewed as extremely troubling, as the ease of their creation evokes xenophobic attitudes about immigrants (they will overrun society based upon their debased values and prolific breeding), while the characterization of them as pure evil can be interpreted as a justification for genocide

and, the context of his time included, fascist demonization of the Jews, and eugenics, which explicitly promoted the idea that the breeding of non-whites should be impaired because they are intellectually and morally inferior to whites, with both utilizing rhetoric that could have easily been interwoven in the trilogy

--Richard

what else is new?

Racism has historically been defined as the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, that a certain race is inherently superior or inferior to others, and/or that individuals should be treated differently according to their racial designation. Sometimes racism means beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race. There is a growing, but somewhat controversial, opinion that racism is a system of oppression -- a nexus of racist beliefs, whether explicit, tacit or unconscious; practices; organizations and institutions that combine to discriminate against and marginalize a class of people who share a common racial designation, based on that designation.

Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been few in developed nations who describe themselves as racist, so that identification of a group or person as racist is nearly always controversial. Racism is recognised by many as an affront to basic human dignity and a violation of human rights. A number of international treaties have sought to end racism. The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1965:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. [1] (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm)

Assuming that every individual's character adequately can be determined by racial or ethnic stereotypes is race prejudice, and granting or withholding rights or privileges based on such stereotypes is racial discriminatory prejudice. The term racism sometimes is used to mean a strong and persistent bias or inclination towards these activities.

Some believe that the term also is often used incorrectly by supporters of cultural relativism and political correctness to stigmatise their adversaries.

Racism is a controversial issue. Whether there is any validity to the concept of race is an issue that is discussed in the article Race. The issue of how and if past practices might be remedied is discussed in Affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and, briefly, in the reparations section of the article on slavery.

Two generations after the end of legal discrimination, race still ignites political debates — over Civil War flags, for example, or police profiling. But the wider public discussion of race relations seems muted by a full-employment economy and by a sense, particularly among many whites, that the time of large social remedies is past. Race relations are being defined less by political action than by daily experience, in schools, in sports arenas, in pop culture and at worship, and especially in the workplace. These encounters — race relations in the most literal, everyday sense — make up this series of reports, the outcome of a yearlong examination by a team of Times reporters.

Integration Saved a Church.
Then the Hard Work Began

ECATUR, Ga. -- Howard Pugh, head usher, is on patrol. May the good Lord have mercy on any child, or adult for that matter, who dares to tread across the lobby of the Assembly of God Tabernacle with so much as an open Coca-Cola in his hand. Because first he will get the look, the alert glare of a hunting dog catching its first scent of game. Then he will get the wag, the slightly palsied shake of the left index finger. And then the voice, serious as a heart attack and dripping with Pensacola pinesap: "Son, this is the Lord's house. And they just shampooed that carpet last week."

It goes without saying that Howard Pugh knows what is going on in his lobby. So when Mr. Pugh, a white man with a bulbous pink nose, spots 81-year-old Roy Denson slipping out of the sanctuary, he doesn't even have to ask. He just knows. He knows because he has seen Mr. Denson flee the 10:30 service time and again, and it is always when one of the choir's black soloists moves to center stage.

This time it is Robert Lawson, a soulful tenor with a fondness for canary-yellow suits. As he begins to sing, the Pentecostal faithful gradually rise. First a few black members clap and sway. Then more join in. Finally, the white members are moved to stand, and before long the 2,000-seat sanctuary is washed over with harmony. Stretching their arms toward the heavens, the congregants weave a tapestry of pinks and tans and browns.

But to Mr. Denson's ears, Mr. Lawson's improvisational riffs sound like so much screeching and hollering. And so he sits there seething, thinking about how he joined this church 56 years ago, how he followed it from downtown Atlanta to the suburbs, how he hung the Sheetrock with his own hands, and how the blacks are taking over and the whites are just letting it happen.

He gets angrier and angrier, listening to these boisterous black folks desecrate his music, until he simply cannot bear it. "I ain't sitting there and listening to that," he mutters on his way out. "They're not going to take over my church."

And there waiting for him is Mr. Pugh, at 65 another white man of his generation, always with the same smart-alecky question. Never mind that Mr. Pugh and his wife, Janice, have themselves become uneasy about the direction of their church, that they have been quietly contemplating a walk of their own. "Now, Roy," Mr. Pugh begins, stroking his seafarer's beard, "what are you going to do when you get to heaven? Walk out of there, too?"

Back inside, the ecstatic singing has ended, the speaking in tongues has melted into a chorus of hypnotic whispers and the members of the Tabernacle have been invited to roam the sea-foam carpet, welcoming visitors and greeting one another.

James Estrin/The New York Times
A Sunday morning service at the Decatur, Ga, Assembly of God Tabernacle, whose members say blendedness is a blessing.
• MORE PHOTOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They embrace, the white people and the black people, with long, earnest hugs. Eletia Frasier, a Guyanese immigrant, kisses all who come her way, whether she knows them or not. Brad Jackson wraps his thick white arms around Eugene Glenn, a slender black man, and jerks him cleanly off the ground.

Ruben Burch, a 6-foot-7 black man whose blue usher's blazer is a tad short in the sleeves, saunters down the aisle with an irrepressible grin. During the Sunday fellowship, Mr. Burch makes a point of approaching older whites to gauge acceptance. Will they offer hugs, or merely handshakes? Will they linger, or recoil?

Halfway down the aisle, he encounters Madge Mayo, the spry 85-year-old widow of a pastor from the Tabernacle's segregated days. She stands 4-foot-9 and keeps her luminescent white hair in a tight bun.

There was a time when Mrs. Mayo could never have imagined hugging a black man, and even now she is not sure she approves of the integration of her church. But she has been touched by the bigheartedness of the Tabernacle's black members. And like so many of the whites who have stayed, she reasons that all believers are going to the same heaven, so they might as well get used to one another right here on earth.

Mrs. Mayo sees Mr. Burch heading her way and trots a few steps toward him in her shiny black pumps. They smile fondly, and he bends at the waist to embrace her. She pats Mr. Burch on the back and presses her cheek against his, passing his test.

It is a moment that would probably chafe some of his relatives, who feel that he and his wife, Vanessa, are compromising their blackness by attending "the white church." But the Burches feel blessed by the blendedness of the Tabernacle.

"Man," Mr. Burch reflects later, "30 or 40 years ago I would have been hung for just touching this lady."

Praying Side by Side

Sixteen miles east of downtown Atlanta, a vast granite monolith known as Stone Mountain looms over DeKalb County. Up on that mountain in 1915, the 20th-century Ku Klux Klan was born. And virtually in its shadow, the Tabernacle, all brick and glass and sharp angles, sits along Interstate 285 in the thick of the Atlanta sprawl.


RACE AND RELIGION: More information based on a study of congregations in the U.S.


Nearly 50 years after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. scolded Christians for making 11 a.m. Sunday the most segregated hour of the week, the Tabernacle is the rarest of religious institutions: a truly integrated church in a nation where 90 percent of all congregations are at least 80 percent one race. It is, to many of its 800 members, a slice of heaven on earth, a church whose spirituality is magnified by its multiracial character. What better evidence of God's presence, they reason, than the sight of whites and blacks praying side by side?

And yet, the Tabernacle is not some liberal church like the one nearby that took down its white stained-glass Jesus and replaced him with a black one. It is deeply conservative, socially and theologically. What draws the Pughs and the Burches and so many others is the intensity of their Pentecostal faith, which teaches that the Holy Spirit can move in the lives of all believers, regardless of background.

Pastor Roger W. Brumbalow's mission statement, displayed prominently in the lobby, challenges the congregation "to be a multiracial, multicultural maturing body of believers," and, indeed, the church is blended in almost every way. Fifty-five percent of the members are white, 43 percent are black and the rest are Asian or racially mixed. Perhaps a third of the blacks are foreign born, and the church flies 36 flags to honor their homelands.

The Tabernacle has had trouble integrating its eight-member pastoral staff, a legacy of the Assembly of God's history as a white denomination. Its first black associate pastor resigned last fall after two years. Over the last 13 months, Pastor Brumbalow, who is white, filled two openings with white associate pastors before finally hiring a black youth pastor last month. The board of deacons, by contrast, has been integrated since 1994 and became majority black after elections in March.

The choir is thoroughly mixed, and its praise-and-worship-style music falls comfortably between the traditional country hymns of white Pentecostalism and the thumping gospel funk of the modern black church. Pastor Gary Smith, the music minister, jokes that his choir would be faultless "if we could just get the whites to clap on time and just get the blacks to be on time."

The congregation does not mix only in the pews. Blacks and whites visit each other in the hospital, share motel rooms at retreats and attend potluck dinners at one another's homes. They come together in kitchens and living rooms, forming circles of prayer around an ailing old man or a hopeful young couple, then laying hands on the supplicants' foreheads and shoulders. Visiting one another's suburban homes, with their manicured lawns and large-screen TV's, these accountants and teachers, nurses and software consultants discover the common threads of their middle-class lives.

Yet for all the utopian imagery, for all the hope and faith that the congregation has moved beyond race, the life of the church is still driven by race in countless ways.

Most everyone has made accommodations of some kind. The whites, mostly native Southerners, have been forced to confront their racial assumptions and cede some control over church governance and liturgy. The blacks have ventured from the safe harbor of the African-American church and, in many cases, have suppressed lifetimes of racial resentment and distrust.

The little compromises can be detected any Sunday. They show in the frustration of some black members with the regimentation of the morning service, which opens with exactly 30 minutes of singing and usually lasts precisely two hours.

"There are times when we're praising God and then they just cut it off," complains Robert Lawson. "You can't do that. You can't put God in a box."

Some whites, meanwhile, dart glances at black churchgoers who they feel may be worshiping too exuberantly. They search for delicate words to explain.

"In a lot of cases, the blacks are really more committed," says John F. Kellerman, a former deacon.

"More outgoing," agrees his wife, Grace.

"Where the whites are more reserved, you know," he says.

Behind such concerns, though, is the question at the heart of the Tabernacle's future: Is the church simply enjoying a fleeting moment of integration on the way to becoming predominantly black? With the church growing rapidly and blacks joining at twice the rate of whites, the Tabernacle could tip, like those neighborhoods where blacks move in and whites eventually flee.

The Tabernacle is a work in progress. But how far is it willing to go? And how much are the Burches, the Pughs and the others willing to concede in order to realize St. Paul's declaration that "you are all one in Christ Jesus"?



About This Series

Two generations after the end of legal discrimination, race still ignites political debates -- over Civil War flags, for example, or police profiling. But the wider public discussion of race relations seems muted by a full-employment economy and by a sense, particularly among many whites, that the time of large social remedies is past. Race relations are being defined less by political action than by daily experience, in schools, in sports arenas, in pop culture and at worship, and especially in the workplace. These encounters -- race relations in the most literal, everyday sense -- make up this series of reports, the outcome of a yearlong examination by a team of Times reporters.

Making 'Colored' Friends

On a chilly Saturday afternoon in January, a racially mixed crowd gathers at Howard and Janice Pugh's house for a catfish feast. They segregate quickly, of course. The men decamp to the garage, handicapping the Super Bowl and admiring Mr. Pugh's skill with the deep-fat fryer. The women settle in the sun room, swapping tales about the cold snap and the flu bug.

When the group comes together for dinner, everyone laughs knowingly at Eugene Glenn's stories about his 16-year-old daughter's interest in buying a car and lack of interest in finding a job. Before long, the joshing turns to the male love affair with the channel changer and, eventually, to Mr. Pugh's vigilance in the church lobby. The guests tease their host about how he was spotted letting the youth pastor's wife cross the carpet with an open can of soda.

"You're slipping, Howard," taunts William Turner, a black deacon.

"Yeah," he chuckles, "I'm getting soft."

As much as anyone, the Pughs have been transformed by the church's integration. Having lived most of their lives with little exposure to blacks, and little interest in gaining any, they now count blacks from the church among their closest friends.

"My feeling before I got to know them was that there really wasn't that many good blacks out there," Mr. Pugh explains. "After being around them and working with them, shoot, I don't even think about them as colored anymore."

Of course, Mr. Pugh's "colored" friends would prefer he use a synonym. But in his mind, his choice of words marks some progress. "Hey, I've come a long way," he says. "I don't say nigger anymore."

"That's right," his wife chimes in, "they should see where you've come from."

Where they both came from were country churches in the piney woods of northwest Florida. When Howard was an infant, his mother would slide him under the bench so he wouldn't get trampled while they danced in the spirit. Janice was abandoned by her parents and raised by a grandmother who enforced a strict Pentecostal code: no smoking, no drinking, no dancing, no makeup, no short pants.

They found each other 21 years ago via CB radio and began courting over a cup of truck-stop coffee. Mr. Pugh, a widower, could be gruff as an Alabama trooper. But he was also giving and good-hearted and a fine provider. She was pretty and sweet and recently divorced. She kept a Christian household and had no problem letting her husband be head of it. Even today, she cooks and cleans and lays out his clothes.

"All he has to do is put them on," she says, rolling her eyes.

"Yeah," he grins, sunk into his recliner, his toy poodle, Pepe, in his lap, "all them guys at the church comes up to me and says, 'Boy, your wife dresses you nice.' "

After working for years in pulp mills, Mr. Pugh brought his bride to Atlanta 19 years ago and started a lucrative business pouring concrete in the ever-expanding suburbs. With its sizable black middle class and political structure, the city was a shock.

The Pughs had come up in a strictly segregated culture. Mr. Pugh remembers having little childhood exposure to blacks, and during the civil rights movement he couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. As far as he could tell, blacks had the same opportunities as he and other poor whites, even if they did have their own neighborhoods and schools.

"I just wanted to stay on my side of the fence and for them to stay on theirs," he says. "I never abused them. But they pretty much knew that I was white and they were niggers and we just ran our own way."

Mrs. Pugh, 46, says she was never taught prejudice but recalls her grandmother's warning to avoid the black side of town. Her view of black men, she says, came from movies that portrayed them "raping a white woman or something."

In Atlanta, she had to confront her fears. "You'd turn the TV on and it's a black mayor and a black city council," she says. "I'd say: 'Howard, where did you bring me? Are there any white people here?' "

When the Pughs joined in 1992, the Tabernacle was perhaps 10 percent black. They had never worshiped with blacks before. But the black folks tended to sit on the right side of the sanctuary, separated from the whites by a demilitarized zone of empty pews. "We came at a good time," Mrs. Pugh recalls. "There weren't so many of them that it was overwhelming. We could adjust."

The Burden of Blending In

Last year, Ruben and Vanessa Burch moved into a new house with an orange-brick facade in a subdivision that is perhaps a third white. Determined to raise their two daughters in an integrated setting, the Burches had been impressed while house hunting that white neighbors had waved to them, a black couple, from their lawns.

A week after the Pughs' fish fry, many of the same couples gathered for a house-blessing dinner at the Burches'. To the strumming of a guitar, the crowd welcomed the Holy Spirit into the airy two-story home. "Come in today, come in to stay," they harmonized, "come into my house, Lord Jesus."

Vanessa Burch, tall, slender and poised, handed out cups of olive oil, and the blacks and whites anointed doorknobs, bedposts and televisions with slick smudges of oil. The ceremony ended when the Burch family -- Ruben, Vanessa, 12-year-old Jessica and 7-year-old Gabrielle -- huddled in the center of the living room and surrendered to the prayers of their friends. The guests gave them a wall plaque, and little Gabby haltingly read, "May the Lord bless this home and keep you in the company of angels." Then spaghetti was served.

Like most black Southerners of their generation, the Burches have experienced their share of racism. Mr. Burch, 46, grew up in Albany, Ga., a stronghold of resistance to the civil rights movement. His wife, 40, grew up in Blakely, a south Georgia town whose high school still has separate homecoming queens and class reunions.

Both remember "colored only" water fountains and parental warnings not to be caught on the white side of town after dark. Mrs. Burch still recalls the indignity of hearing white children call her mother by her first name. And then there was the day, perhaps 15 years ago, when her white boss in a South Carolina bank informed her that the one thing he hated was an "uppity, educated nigger."

"It almost knocked me to my knees," says Mrs. Burch, then a teller at the bank. "I walked off and went into the restroom and cried because it hurt me so bad."

The Burches reacted to all this in different ways. Mr. Burch, happy-go-lucky and confident to a fault, says he never grew deeply bitter. His mother shielded him from the worst affronts, and when his high school integrated, he saw it as an opportunity to date white girls, discreetly. "You knew how far to take it," he says. "I mean, you wouldn't walk down Broadway holding somebody's hand."

Mrs. Burch was more defiant. When her school desegregated, her white classmates learned that anyone who tossed a racial epithet her way was liable to go home with bruises. At age 12, she dressed down a white woman who had scolded her sick mother for sitting in the white section of a doctor's waiting room. "After that," she says, "Mama didn't take me too many times to the doctor's office."

Their experiences left both Burches, though, with a strong understanding that their world would be multiracial, and that schooling, diction and personality would be important tools in getting ahead. Those lessons were reinforced in the Navy, where Mr. Burch spent 22 years as a medic.

In 1996 they moved to Atlanta, where he found work inspecting commercial waste-water systems. They looked for an Assembly of God church and found the Tabernacle, then about 30 percent black. Before long they were fully involved, he as an usher, she as a Sunday school teacher and both as scout leaders.

"I liked the diversity," says Mrs. Burch, an administrative assistant for a computer company. "I wanted my children to grow up with differences in a church so they could see that whenever they went to heaven it wasn't going to be all black and it wasn't going to be all white. It was going to be mixed."

A 'Walk With the Lord'

James Estrin/The New York Times
Members of the Assembly of God Tabernacle congregation from left; William Pugh, Janice and Howard Pugh, Ruben, Vanessa and Jessica Burch. Gabbrielle Burch in front.
• MORE PHOTOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When the Tabernacle was founded, in 1916, it was most definitely not mixed. And it remained that way through most of its history, moving twice to escape the migration of blacks into its neighborhood. In the 1940's it affiliated with the Assemblies of God, a historically segregationist Pentecostal denomination. But ultimately, the church could outrun neither the changing demographics of postsegregation Atlanta nor some stark fiscal realities.

Shortly before the Pughs arrived, an unmanageable mortgage put the congregation in debt. To dig out, the church called as its senior pastor Coy Barker, a onetime rodeo rider, and agreed to pay him 25 percent of tithes and offerings. With a financial incentive to fill the pews, Pastor Barker tapped the most readily available market -- the middle-class blacks flocking into the area.

By 1984, when the church's current building was completed, the surrounding suburbs were in the midst of a stunning transformation. In 1970 there was one black among the 11,000 residents in the church's census tract. Twenty years later, two-thirds of the residents were black.

Pastor Barker, a typecast televangelist with silver hair, flashy jewelry and a black Lincoln Town Car, had a high-stepping style that mimicked the traditional black preacher. By the time he was forced out in 1993, in the throes of a messy divorce, the church was perhaps 20 percent black and on the road to financial recovery.

Predictably, some whites left. Susan Carithers, a member since birth, could never quite accept integration as God's will. Her husband grew agitated, she says, because "he just didn't want black boys sniffing up to his daughter." They left in 1996, shortly after a black man gave Mrs. Carithers a big hug during a Sunday service.

The Pughs could also have left, but they liked Pastor Brumbalow's preaching and their son's participation in the youth group. And as they got to know black members, they found they liked them, too. A lot.

The black churchgoers did not fit the Pughs' stereotypes. Mr. Pugh noticed that they did not loll around or always have their hands out like the black men who smooth his concrete, the ones he calls "the boys."

Even today he draws distinctions between his black employees and his black church friends. Sometimes he cannot recall his workers' last names, though they have been with him for years. He says that he occasionally has to bail one out of jail, and that if he drives around a corner fast enough he will catch some lounging.

But he admires the blacks at the Tabernacle. They work hard and dress well, often better than the whites, and live in two-story houses on well-tended lanes. "As I began to be around them a lot more," he says, "I saw that there was a lot more of them trying to benefit themselves."

The Pughs held cookouts and invited mixed crowds, disregarding, even slightly savoring, their white neighbors' stares. On Saturday mornings Mr. Pugh would round up a crew of church men, white and black, to go paint a widow's house or serve soup to the homeless. One Easter the Pughs took their black friends Paul and Rudine Hardy to an all-white club for dinner.

"Oh, my God, it was so funny," Mrs. Hardy says. "I said: 'Janice, Janice. These people are all just looking.' They had all this fancy food, and every time I chewed they was just looking."

Mrs. Pugh sometimes gets weepy talking about her deep kinship with Mrs. Hardy and other black women from church. She feels connected to them spiritually and turns to them when she needs prayer.

As she has learned about the bigotry they face, she has come to empathize. It isn't guilt exactly. She doesn't feel she owes black people anything. After all, her life hasn't been so easy either. But she understands, and that is something new.

"When I moved to Atlanta," she says, "I had never had any occasion to know what these people were going through. I'd never had anyone come up to me and say, 'I was treated this way because I was black.' When you hear someone say that, with tears in their eyes, you know they just want to be loved. And I guess I connected with them because I was the same way when I was a little girl. All I wanted was to be loved."

As she sees it, God is using the Tabernacle's integration to test "whether you move on in your walk with the Lord."

Her husband's walk has been less steady. He remains capable of offending black friends even as he beckons them into his life. They recognize that he has come a long way, that he has a good heart. But they also suspect that he continues to use the word "colored," often to their faces, to make it clear that he, not they, will define the terms of their relationships.

"It's a control thing," Mrs. Pugh says. "He wants people to know that he still knows the difference."

Last August, one of Mr. Pugh's black friends decided to confront him, fearing newcomers might be put off by his ways as head usher. But the man later backed down. Don't major in minor, his wife had advised him. "I do value my friendship with Howard and Janice," the man reasoned, "and if it's my friendship with them versus this, it's really very insignificant."

Mr. Burch reacted much the same way at a retreat last year, when Mr. Pugh told him a joke, the one about the black guy who moved next door to the white guy:

The white man was leaning over his fence as his new neighbor mowed the yard. With each pass, the black neighbor taunted the white man, "I'm better than you are, I'm better than you are." Exasperated, the white man finally asked, "What makes you so much better than me?" And the black man replied, "I don't have a nigger living next to me."

"Old Ruben just about fell out," Mr. Pugh remembers. "He didn't have a problem with it." And, in fact, Mr. Burch says he didn't have much of a problem with it, though he was surprised Mr. Pugh felt comfortable enough to tell him the joke. "That's just Howard," he told himself. He let the moment pass, thinking that Mr. Pugh was like an old car, sputtering down the highway: "You just say, 'Well, this is just an old car smoking and we'll go ahead and pass it and one day it'll give out and be gone.' "

No one seems to have mentioned that it is King ARAGORN of Gondor and Arnor who yells "I bid you stand, men of the West!" before the last battle at the end of Return of the King. Theoden, king of Rohan, by this point, is dead, and no one says anything about the "great warriors of the west".

Seriously, what a dumbass. I especially appreciated that bit in the end when he thanked Mother Earth and the universe for the counterbalancing effect of hip/hop music. Geez

There was a rant written a few years back on the IMC in France that not only accused the movie of being racist, but claimed the title, "The Two Towers" was a reference to the World Trade Center. Basically the author claimed the trilogy was propaganda from the Bush Administration.

Not realizing that the movie began filming before 9/11 or more importantly the books were written over 50 years ago.

there's nothing more racist than that. purveyors of islamophobia, and other earthly delights. it's pretty disgusting. zionists must love it. i'm sure all their little kiddies have read the books a gazillion times.

<<white slaves taken from white nations such as Iceland by North Africans,>>

We British have killed 500 million ALONE from colonial times. What is your point again?

I completely agree. This guy is so obsessed with race that he cannot live every encounter, every experience without throwing race into it.

Yes we all see life differently and have different perceptions, and many times they have nothing to do with race. To constantly dwell on what other people think is downright paranoid.

And the white guilt thing is just pathetic. Get over it. It's 2005 for gods sake. Its a movie based on a book. People like you actually scare me, because if you had your way we would have to analyze every situation, every racial undertone, every experience by your twisted warped view of the world.

{Its a movie based on a book. People like you actually scare me, because if you had your way we would have to analyze every situation, every racial undertone, every experience by your twisted warped view of the world.]

. . . . this is EXACTLY what Hollywood does

or, is it just a coincidence that the leads in movies are overwhelming white, with carefully selected people of color selected for supporting roles for marketing purposes?

or, just look at television, where creeping segregation has created quite a number of shows with few, if any, participants of color, usually in minor roles, frequently in settings, like NY, SF and LA, where, people of color are often in the majority

just look at Friends, for example

if you got your information about SF from situation comedies, you'd be stunned if you actually went there and discovered how many Asians live there

oh, it's just television, you say? OK, if so, what does that say about the creators that they would deliberately create a series about SF (or NY, for that matter), that excludes Asians?

after all, how would you otherwise do it, knowing that there are numerous Asians in the Bay Area when you are developing the show?

a classic example of how this works was a Bond film a few years ago, and Michelle Yeoh was cast as his female sidekick

why, you may ask? apparently, they wanted to boost attendance in Asia, and tap into the market for people who were devoted fans of martial arts films

it would be interesting if "Lord of the Rings" had been set in Africa, white Frodo and Bilbo coming from an idyllic African agricultural village, with all of the villians portrayed in varying shades of white

I suspect that everyone here who perceives the real trilogy as completely sanitized of any social implications, and thus, rendered totally innocuous, would perceive this alternative "Lord of the Rings" very differently

--Richard

so what? It's all Prussian Blue to me...

I relize this is late.

The Haradrim are darker skinned and so are the Easterlings. You just don't see much of their skin. The Easterlings are hardly in it at all. Think about this, what if they live in an area where their skin would be lighter. Hmmmmmm . . . . . I wonder . . . . maby thier skin would be lighter!! AHA!!

I'm only 14. Oh, are you a Democrat or Republican?

Let's see, in every day operations, we commonly refer to things as being on the East Side, the West Side, or to a lesser extent, the North and South sides. Fact is, someone has to live in one general direction, and another has to live in another general direction. Such that when the Northern States were fighting the Southern States, in the U.S., they were referred to (among other things) as the North and the South. Ireland is east of England. Spain is east of Germany. It's a spatial thing. So, if two groups are fighting each other, it's not uncommon to refer to the group who lives in a cardinally opposite direction of you, as the direction they come from, in reference to your own. Hence, a East End Boys and West End Girls come from opposite sides of town.

Now, what this all leads up to is: If the geography of the world were different, would Tolkien have had his characters say, "Brave men of the East!" I'm thinking he would have. I can't say for sure, because I don't have a Ouija board, or signifigant psychic powers to contact the dead, but I think he would have. During what battle, or war, if one side of warriors was clearly from a different cardinal direction than the other, was it not common practice to refer to the other side by the opposing direction? Whether it's a world, civil, or domestic war? I guess, in all fairness, he could have made up his own words for the directions, being something like: Megthrox, Brodiwind, Cormanthris, and Vertardinorimelciarfnardia. Then he could have his people shout, "Brave men of Vertardinorimelciarfnardia! Stand your ground!" and no one would be the wiser, until someone decides that V is just two pen strokes away from a W, meaning Vertardinorimelciarfnardia is an obvious replacement for West, and then the original article finds its foothold once again.

Just a thought.

LORD OF THE RINGS IS RACIST. WHEN WHITE PEOPLE ARE GATHERED AND THERE ARE NO VISIBLE MINORITIES PRESENT, THIS IS PER SE RACISM. WHITE PEOPLE ARE RIDICULOUSLY CONCERNED WITH BEING OVERWHELMED BY MORE DIVERSE ELEMENTS. THIS IS A SILLY WORRY. ENGLAND WILL BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE WHEN IT IS MAJORITY BLACK OR MUSLIM. THIS IS UNDEBATABLE.

Leave it to Inybay to make a childrens book the opitimum of racism. Tolkien turning in his grave. Perhap he has worn a hole in his coffin.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!

Elvish is based of Finnish mostly.

Lord of the Rings is not racist or sexist. One of the centrel themes was bonding beetween races, one of the better examples being the close friendship between Gimli and Legolas. You seem to not mention the fact that one of the main evils was white a.k.a Saruman. And it shows us a very good case of gender role reversalin the tale of Eowyn and Faramir. The shield maiden and the culture loving bookworm. And bring up the fack that alot of the elves have blonde hair and blue eyes- that a load of crap. Most elves would have greys eyes and different colours of hair. For example ( movie) Legolas with blonde hair and Luthien with black hair. Did you relize that that the fellowship was of all the free races of Arda? (Minus the ents) Hart you are dumber than a can of spam.
Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible, and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works...
J. R. R. Tolkien (1892 - 1973)

you suck dork. go and jump off a bridge.

I can't believe that you actually took the time to type this. This movie is no more racist than movies like Hustle and Flow or White Men Can't Jump (both movies imply whites can't do something because of their skin color). Of course you don't hear whites complaining that they were degraded or discriminated against. It is the same everywhere...let's surpress the white culture so that we don't offend anyone else. Heaven forbid if a white person is proud of who he or she is. Kids can't even wear a shirt with a rebel flag without being kicked out of school but a kid of African American ethnicity can wear a shirt of Malcom X or of Africa. My point is, get over the race issue...it is a movie.

This is very debatable. I find it hard to believe that you woudnt say "England will be a better place when the majority is muslim or African" unless you were in fact African or Muslim. The problem with everyone using the race card is that you use it for the smallest, most minute things. So Tolkein wrote that the evil in LOTR happened to be clad in black, or have darker skin. You also have to remember that in the times Tolkein wrote this, and with his education of poetry and Anglo Saxon culture (which he alludes to throughout the books) darker, gloomier, black colors were the symbols of evil. Are you going to come out and say that the Roman Catholic church is racist because of the symbolism from thousands of years ago? Your argument is absurd.

A number of people positng comments seem to have made a direct analogy between overly PC and the left, which i believe is completely unfounded.

Firstly let me just say i am a big fan of the LOTR and agree that there was no intentional racism in the books or the film. As others have pointed out with numerous points which do not need retelling.

I would just like to remind people that the left, an almost obsolete term anyway has been responsible for nearly all social reform in Britain and Europe. It was the left who pushed for expansion of the franchise, it was the left who did the most to combat racism and it was the left that built the welfare state which we in Britain value highly even if its performance isn't always satisfactory. Personally overly PC values stem from neither left or right but from a noble but flawed idea of trying not to offend which has certainly been taken to far as most from the left would agree. Its simply because we respect the ideal behind it that we find it more palatable, but that doesn't meen we don't recognise its flaws.

The article in question is seriously flawed. Wide sweeping generalisations and a black and white view of complex topics such as Arab-European realations for the past 5000 years make it rather ridiculous. Your assumption that all Western technology is based on Eastern concepts has some merit, but is ultimately flawed as numerous ancient civilisations such as the Greeks and Romans created whole new lines of technology and culture with no precedent, an example is the Greeks and critical philosphical thinking.

Ultimately this article has far to many inconsistencies and is ulitimately flawed.

Hi

I am a asian and i do not udnertand why so much discussion has to be udnertaken for a movie which is supposed to be pure entertainment.. as a matter of fact till this dicussion started on whether and how racism is present in the 3 parts most of the people did not even give any thought to it since they were engrossed in the movie, its storyline so much..

Anyways guys...leave it be...

And anyways are what race are hobbits/dwarves ( with viking traits ) supposed to be

You forget, dark skinned Gondorians defended Minas Tirith. Or how Sam wondered if the Haradrim was really evil or just led to war by Sauron's lies.

Some Hobbits were tan or brown skinned.

There were whites among the enemies of the Free Peoples of Middle Earth as well.

Then of course, is the intermarriage between the different humanoid species. Something that racist eugenicists would abhor.

The Orcs come in all colors, including white.

The leaders of the Free Peoples forgave and pardoned their defeated enemies. Unlike the racist solution of racial cleansing, which would result in genocide, or the seperatist solution of kicking out the defeated forces and sending them into exile.

Adopting racism to kick out foreigners is wrong, but to let it fall to foreign cultures is also not the answer.

Lord of the Rings does neither.

The enemies of the West are defeated, yes. This is necessary to preserve the West.

But they are not kicked out or thought of as inferior because of their skin.

I am confused. I for one am an african american and I have nothing against the Lord of the Rings, I just think your looking too much into this. If people are doing this to your wife, then you need to say something to them. I am not saying that you dont have the right to post something like this, but I see no point to it. I am pretty sure no one from another country is actually seeing it that way either. Once again no offense to you.