[Barbarossa]

Eventine brought this up in the Evil races thread, but I think if we discuss it there it would distract from that thread's intention:

There was a much discussed article recently accusing both "Lord of the rings" and "Harry Potter" of racism.

Here are the links again (Kudos to Eventine):
And read that article bfore you read my remarks or post your own comments.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/13/opinion/opinion3.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/0112/13/opinion/opinion100.html

Now I think this could be the stuff for a great discussion, let me start:

LOTR:

The author has a point actually, and for the record, I'm a great fan of Tolkien. But the Lord of the rings has a strong racist subtext. I'm not talking about non-humans either. Let's focus on the humans alone:

People in the Lord of the rings are constantly characerized by their looks alone, and those looks are all the time race related. We have brave, noble and very Aryan looking Roherim, shifty slavic looking Dunlanders, "lower races" (Tolkien's choice of words not mine) from the east and south (the later black of course).

Good people in Tolkien are usually good looking, evil ones ugly.


But did Tolkien write the Lord of the rings with a racist intention? I think not, all these features while there are never at the centre of the story. Those vies are just a part of Tolkien as well as of most of his contemporaries.

Tolkien grew up in a time and society, that from out point of view was deeply racist, and nothing in his later life made him question or think about it much. All this is no excuse but sort of an explanation.

And the whole issue never distracted my from my enjoyment of Tolkien, though racism is one of the few things I absolutely can't tolerate.

Now Harry Potter:

Here I have to question if the Author read the books at all.

He writes Harry Potter and other Wizards are part of a genetic elite, while it is made clear in the books, that many Wizards have non-wizard parents (Harry's mother and Hermione to take two examples).

He writes that we identify with the superior wizards and look down on Muggles. What he doesn't mention is that it's that attitude that is used most often to characterize the baddies as evil. The Malfoys and Voldemort are evil, because they look down on "Mudbloods" and "muggles". Voldemort first showed his evil side by acting against them.

If anything Harry Potter has an anti-racist subtext.

[jbcohen]

I can definitely see what you mean with the Harry Potter novels. Although my understanding, unfortunately, ends there. Not being a fan of Tolkine I have not read many of his novels and can not speak of him. However, many of the novels that I have read there does not appear to be much in the way of what you are speaking of Dragon Lance tends to treat the magic users as the "people next door" and in no way prejudice in any way.

I am currently going through Exiles volume 1 and I am told that there is a lot of prejudice in the novel. I will understand more latter as I get further through the novel.

[Bardos]

Barbarossa: I agree about Tolkien. (About Harry Potter, I don't know, I refuse to read it until now --too cliche, I think.)

BUT, racism can drive the plot in many cases. And I'm not refering to the handsome, oh-so-good folks against the bad-thinking, bad-smelling, bad-looking beasts. But the people of one kingdom may think the other kingdom's people "barbarians", even if that is not so true. And the "barbarians" may think the others "soft". http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/wink.gif Or race A might hate race B for various reasons of the past, or because of different habits, etc, etc.

Note here: I'm against racism! In reality... but not in fantasy! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Penumbra]

Barbarossa: Your topic is so controversial that I think you need to define terms unless you want the same kind of misinterpretations that usually accompany this issue. Tell us what you think racism is. Then people can think about it and respond. If this sounds flippant or foolish, you have only to look at today's newspaper to see how the topic is bandied about and distorted. Witness the recent conference in Africa where Israel was branded racist by the Palestinians or the black representatives who want white America to pay reparations for slavery, as though a half million deaths were not enough. I really think you should clarify it.

[alison]

Barbarossa's intro seemed quite clear to me. And yes, he is quite right in his comments on Tolkien's racism - the triumph of the West and the High Races, against the wicked Southrons and Haradrim (Blacks and Orientals, quite clearly - the Southrons are at one point compared to Orcs, and they all automatically ally with Sauron.) Moreover, they all come from the South-East, the actual place of the Orient, and it buys into all sorts of European prejudices. That said, I still love the book, and it introduces sufficient complexity - Sam's vision of the dead man in the skirmish in Ithilien, for instance, where he wonders what the soldier's home was like, and if he wanted to go to war - for me to forgive him.

And yes, they're totally wrong on HP - and does sound to me like they forgot to read the book. Harry's friends are clearly multi-racial and the genetic elite business is just rubbish. There might be some justifiable shtick to be thrown on prejudice against fat people in the characterisation of Dudley Dursley (I have a plump child, and I worry for him when I read things like that).

I think it's important for readers and writers to be aware of these subtexts when reading any books, myself. (It doesn't mean that it can't be in the book, it's how these issues are treated that matters) Anyone who's suffered prejudice of any kind knows how damaging and insidious it can be.

Cheers

Alison

[estranghero]

"I think it's important for readers and writers to be aware of these subtexts when reading any books..." -- Alison

I'm just thinking that this is kinda related to a debate on whether an author can be held responsible for what the reader thinks. For example, Michael Moorcock I read somewhere disowned a crazed youth who did some nasty stuff because the latter said Elric (Moorcock's character) told him to do it. Something like that anyway.

So my question here, was racism a part of the author's intent such that it can be found in the subtext? Could the reader actually know if the author really meant it so?

I abhor racism myself but with the same disgust that I abhor knee-jerk reactions to what people don't understand and therefore immediately fear, especially in connection to Henning's article.

To quote the letter writers:
"If we try we can see what we want to see in anything." --Jeff Greene
"To whom it may concern, PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!! Thank you." --Ben Hansen


[This message has been edited by estranghero (edited December 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by estranghero (edited December 18, 2001).]

[alison]

Yes, I totally agree that an author can't be held responsible for some of the nutty things that are said or made of his or her work. However, that's different to what's actually _in_ the work. There is a case for arguing racism in Tolkien, just as there is in many classics of Western (and not only Western) literature. To be aware of it isn't necessarily to condemn, but it is to be aware of the kinds of assumptions the book might be coming from. After all, the Inklings were pretty reactionary... it's all part of reading carefully, no?

Alison

[estranghero]

You got a point.

I guess the presumption here is that the people reading the books are smart enough not to be influenced by such stuff. But I guess that's too much to ask for people? (or maybe I'm just being pessimistic?)

[jbcohen]

I quite agree that there must be a definition of what the term racism means before a debate can occur.

Let me propose a definition. Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. And a race is a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

If this is excepted as a working definition then the wizarding world would be a race because of its shared history as told in the novels. Voldomort is a prime example of the shared wizard history. This definition makes it debatable if muggles are racist since they do not see themselves as superior, just threatened by the wizards.

Any comments?

[Lamanai]

First, I'd like to propose another definition.

Racism: A prejudicial belief that one is better than another based on race alone.

Next, I'd like to state that I don't think that prejudices need to be intentional nor conscious to exist. Let's take a person in our society. This person automatically rejects any idea that proposes that the way something's done now isn't the best possible way to do something. He does this without thinking about it. He assumes that he's analyzing evidence and making those decisions. Is that any less chronocentric than the person who is aware of doing it?

This is not to say that I agree with the article, in fact I think the author's doing nothing more than trying to stir up a controversy, but I don't think the author's intent is a vital consideration either. It can certainly exist without being intentional.