I’m pretty sure that not even the original stupid liberal linked above was arguing that Tolkien himself was racist. Mainly he was worried that actual racists might find validation in Tolkien’s fiction.
No, he was actually arguing that it was racist to depict the orcs as all evil.
The problem with his position, is that it mistakenly thinks of orcs as though they were a subgroup of humans.
But orcs are not that. They are never presented as such.
Orcs are monsters, created by an evil being, with the express purpose of doing evil and destroying the world.
Now, you could create a fiction where orcs are used as a prop to talk about racism. Like that “bright” movie, for instance. In that fiction, orcs are not in fact all evil, but people harbor resentment towards them.
But in Tolkien’s world, they are in fact evil beings. That’s their only purpose in the narrative.
There is no racism involved in the creation of a fictional “bad guy” race. There is no indication that any of their evil qualities were ever meant to apply to some subset of humans. They are merely a narrative tool. A prop.
Within that narrative, even the actions of the men and elves can’t been construed as racist. They aren’t fighting the orcs out of some kind of xenophobia. They are fighting them because they are an army that is led by essentially the devil, that is trying to destroy the Earth.
Can you define “racism” in such a way that Frodo would be racist if he said “dwarves are worse than swine”, but not racist if he said “orcs are created evil”?
This goes back to my question, but you didn’t answer it
Can you give me some clarification? Is that what we are talking about now? How characters in the fictional world are behaving?
This strikes me as, well, as likely to be wrong as it is to be right. You’re basically saying that a writer’s choices can’t possibly be the result of racism. I’m sure on reflection that you don’t mean that, but that’s what you’re saying,
(For these purposes) I define racism as a value judgment of an individual based only on whether they are members of a particular sentient race/species.
So I think the Fellowship’s behavior is racist, but not evil. Because in that fictional universe, judging someone negatively if they look orcish is fully justified.
If we are referencing other fantasy “evil redeeming to good” arcs, The Lady in The Black Company stories certainly travels that path.
So justified racism is cool?
Ok, just so we’re clear… This is now totally a different subject, as we are now accusing the fictional character themselves of racism.
The problem is that you are applying rules from the real world to a fictional world.
In that fictional world, we have the benefit of the omniscient narrator. We know objective truth in the story.
The orcs of middle Earth are not like subgroups of humans in the real world. They are a group of entirely fictional monsters, created via magical means by an evil superbeing, with the express purpose of destroying the world. They are not merely some other culture, or some other group of men.
They are magically created beings, whose entire purpose for existing at all is destruction.
So if frodo describes them as evil, this is actually an objectively true statement of fact.
I understand the inclination you are presenting. If we talked about some group of humans in this way, it could likely be racist, or xenophobic. Certainly, racism and xenophobia often describe groups of people like this, erroneously.
But therein lies the difference.
When applied to groups of actual humans, it’s generally a negative generalization.
But in middle Earth, the orcs do not have the same degree of depth that humans in the real world do. Hell, in some of his writings, orcs are actually presented as effectively just automata.
Again, they aren’t men. They aren’t intended as such, within the narrative structure of the world. They are monsters.
Like in D&D. Red dragons are chaotic evil. It’s right there in the monster manual. It’s not racist. It just is what they are.
omg this is the best please keep going I’ve had a long and difficult day and this is hilarious
If something is justified then by definition it is cool.
The problem is that in the real world, racism is unjustifiable. So what happens to the real world if it’s justifiable in a fictional world?
Yes, that’s the reason we can justify racism in that world.
But the problem is that you don’t need an omniscient narrator. Frodo isn’t omniscient after all. He just happens to be right about orcs. So he is justified in that universe, even without personal omniscience.
Now, what happens if someone in the real world thinks they are justified in their racism? They don’t need to profess omniscience, either.
Bringing this around again, the original stupid liberal brought this up because he tried to re-imagine Middle-Earth in his own work, where not all orcs were evil. Obviously not Tolkien’s intent, but at least it sidesteps this problem.
Again, try to make an in-universe definition of racist that excludes “Red dragons are scum” but includes “Dwarves are scum”. Also, evaluate “Drow are scum”. No D&D character has a copy of the Monster Manual.
Nothing. Because fantasy isn’t reality.
The problem, of course, is that dwarves, being gold fuckers*, are scum.
Literally. As in they have sexual congress with objects formed from a specific element.**
**h/t Myths Retold.
Sure, that’s one side of the argument. Fiction doesn’t affect reality. There is obviously a counterargument, and the matter is hardly settled. But I’m not getting into that here.
Again, this no longer has anything to do with liberalism, but whatever.
But in Tolkien’s world, orcs were always evil. That’s the only interaction that anyone ever had with them. And they weren’t merely fighting for some other army… They were fighting for an army led by the devil. And after he was defeated, they basically disappeared and never did anything useful… Until the devil came back.
Saying they are evil is just a statement of how it is. And they have the benefit of wise demigods like the wizards to know this.
A statement about a species of creatures isn’t the same as a statement about a group of humans in the real world.
Yeah, but they aren’t.
That’s the difference here. And that is in fact a difference.
No group of humans were ever created by the devil and then fought at his side to destroy everything.
I think it has been pointed out enough times already that this is hardly clear at all, that you ought to stop saying it. Tolkien at one time said that orcs were corrupted elves; at other times he thought they were corrupted men. He said quite clearly that they were not created things, because evil cannot create; therefore, they were corrupted things. So it is not the case that they were always evil, not according to Tolkien.
No, it’s fact that there are exactly zero instances of orcs acting in a non evil manner in Tolkien’s world.
You can imagine that there are good orcs living somewhere. That’s fine dude. But that’s just your imagination. That wasn’t actually part of the story.
(And just to be clear, there are actually multiple origin stories for the orcs that Tolkien wrote, but he died before ever really putting them all together into one coherent thing. The most “flattering” one was that they were corrupted elves, created by an evil being to destroy the Earth. So yeah. Their purpose in the narrative is to be evil.)
Yes, that’s what I said; and none of them involved being created evil from nothing. They all involve starting with moral actors (elves, men) and corrupting them.
Again, there are literally zero instances of orcs acting in a good way.
It’s fine for you to think they do. But it’s entirely a construct of your imagination.
It’s not in the story.
Again, who said there were? Are you entirely unwilling to engage with the arguments people actually make? Is it necessary to invent their arguments out of whole cloth in order to debate them?