In response to the recent stoush over Tolkien, race and conservatism, I did a little more research on Tolkien’s racial theories and their similarities to other eugenic and racial theories floating about in the interwar period. I don’t have my primary or secondary sources with me, because my Tolkien Bestiary is in a box in Australia, I returned the MERP books to my mate, and I don’t have copies of the original books, but there are two online resources – the Tolkien Gateway and the Encyclopaedia of Arda – which I am going to use to provide some context and better research to my theories. In this post I am going to give more detail about the human races in Middle Earth, describe Tolkien’s racial mixing theories in more detail, compare them to the Aryan Invasion Theory of history, which was still popular when he wrote, and draw a few conclusions, some of which aren’t so pretty.
It’s my thesis that, independent of Tolkien’s actual political views, his books are a model of interwar racial theory, which holds that whites are superior to blacks, that when whites interbreed with blacks they civilise them but dilute the “good qualities” of whites, and that in general race determines psychological as well as physical traits, and racial mixing is bad. This doesn’t change the significance of Tolkien’s work, but it has ramifications for the political position of the genre it spawned.
Tolkien’s races
Noisms at Monsters and Manuals suggested in comments that a “formalist” reading of Tolkien is necessary to properly understand how the races in Middle Earth might reflect real racial differences. Others online have suggested that Tolkien didn’t give any formal characteristics to his races – that he never said elves are white and Haradrim are black – and that subsequent racially-specified images of them reflect the readers’ prejudices. But reading Tolkien doesn’t support the view that his races weren’t racialised. For example, here is the first Haradrim we meet:
“…a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword…“
We’re talking here about a race with brown skin and black braided hair, which lives in the Jungles and deserts of a hot Southern land, and which rides elephants. I don’t think the racial symbolism of this accidental. They were in the thrall of Sauron and fought for him, so also therefore presumably evil.
There is very little about the physical nature of Easterlings in the descriptions in the novels, because they don’t play a big part; but their most famous contingent are the Wainriders, who pretty clearly represent the mongol hordes. The Easterlings are clearly also allied with Sauron, and are evil. As we will see in the next section, Easterlings were of a different racial stock to the Men of the West. Whether they were physically distinguishable, they were clearly racially distinct.
Tolkien himself described the Orcs as
…squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types
and some Orcs are black-skinned. They are clearly racially distinct from humans and elves, and by definition evil. He also clearly associated the Dwarves with Jews in one of his letters. Details of this controversy over race in LoTR are given a very balanced exposition at the Tolkien Gateway.
Tolkien’s racial theories
Tolkien obviously construed the Elves as superior to Men and Dwarves. He also clearly constructed a racially deterministic world, where some races (Orcs, Haradrim and Easterlings) were evil and some (Mixed and High Men, Elves and Dwarves) were good but flawed. While his good races were capable of doing evil, his evil races were incapable of doing good, or at the very least were so vulnerable to the thrall of evil that they were for all intents and purposes racially evil. But of particular interest here is his division of humans into two racial kinds – Wild Men and Middle or High Men. Wild Men are explicitly under the thrall of evil – they were corrupted from their genesis. On the other hand, the Edain escaped from Morkoth and were contacted by the elves, who gave them special gifts (of long life and magic) which ennobled them. They then returned to Beleriand, and settled in the western half where they slowly intermingled with the Middle Men, and diluted their special gifts. Some of these Middle Men (such as the Dunlendings) are described as swarthy, and were oppressed by the Edain.
The strongest and most obvious example of this racial theory in action in the books is Aragorn. Racially pure, he has retained the gifts of High Men and so has special rights to command his undead ancestors, to use the special magical devices of his old people, and to use magic no-one else knows. Some of these properties are drawn from his noble lineage, but some are a consequence of his racial purity. Noble lineage in the third age is, of course, associated with racial purity, and with nobler traits.
Aryan Racial Theory
The Aryan Invasion Theory is a theory of classical history, used to describe the civilisations of the Indus valley particularly, which posits that a bunch of horse-riding nomads destroyed or captured the peaceful civilisations of the Indus Valley and subsequently learnt the culture of the Indus valley, before writing the greatest religious texts of India. The original theory is mildly neutral or pro-Indian, suggesting that the Aryans were barbarians who were civilised through contact with the Indus valley; but subsequent incarnations of this theory in the interwar period held the Aryans to be a superior Norse race who civilised the Indians. There is no evidence that any of this history ever really happened, and the theory is roundly hated by Indians for its obvious racist overtones.
There is evidence in Tolkien’s letters that he at least knew of Aryan racial theory, and subscribed to it, because he had the singular misfortune of having to argue with Nazi publishers over his books, which would not be published in German unless he could prove he was Aryan. He appeared to subscribe to elements of this theory:
I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware noone (sic) of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects.
though his letters make it pretty clear he doesn’t like Nazi racial theory, at least as it pertains to Jews. Like most scholars of his time, he probably believed the then-mainstream theories about racial history which pervaded the academy, but whether he extended this to his perceptions of the relative superiority of whites over blacks or asians at the time is not known, nor to be assumed.
Tolkien’s novels seem to contain a kernel of this racial theory, in that the most superior race ennobles the Edain, who then ennoble the mixed men they encounter, but are in turn brought low by interbreeding with them. It’s clear that the most noble races are white and the least noble (Orcs and Haradrim) are swarthy or black – there is a colour spectrum here. This pattern follows the pattern of the more racist incarnations of Aryan theory extant when he wrote – particularly those of Abbe Dubois, which were translated in 1897, and the archaeologists who uncovered “evidence” of western influence in the Indus in the early 20th century. It also follows some other theories floating about then about the influence of Nordic culture on the “inferior” slavic and Eastern races, the development of which can be read about in any good (or bad!) text about the antecedents of Nazi racial theory. While these theories are discredited today, they were not at all unpopular or disputed at the time that Tolkien wrote.
Aryan Racial Theory and Fascism
Hitler loved Aryan Racial Theory, which became the cornerstone of Nazi demography, social science, biology and history. Some of the theories on racial mixing – particularly about Jews – propounded by the Nazis can be read online at the Calvin University Nazi Propaganda archive, which is a fascinating way to pass an afternoon. Hitler also took up the Aryan Invasion Theory and ran with it, as part of his two-pronged mission of retaking Europe and founding Nazi colonies overseas. The Nazis believed that Western culture owed all its best properties to the Nordic races, and all its worst properties to the “untermenschen” of the East and South. Any model of racial history which supported this belief was imported and adapted, particularly if it supported any claim to lost homelands in the East or overseas.
Aryan Racial Theory is also very popular with modern Nazis. David Duke (to whom I will not put a link) has a very telling essay on his webpage about the Aryan invasion of India and the effects of inter-breeding with the locals on the morality of the paler Aryan overlords. Modern and WW2-era Nazis both believe strongly that races shouldn’t mix – the Nazis presented the Japanese as racially superior because their island nation had prevented “mixing” with degenerated mongols, for example, while the whites of the US were degenerate through association with Jews and blacks.
Tolkien’s politics
Tolkien clearly objected to the Nazis’ anti-semitism, and plainly thought their race laws silly. He opposed apartheid and didn’t believe language and literature should be held apart. He didn’t like the treatment of colour in South Africa, though it’s possible he did think that blacks were degenerate, or at least that white South Africans were persuasive:
The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort[unately], not many retain that generous sentiment for long.”[1]
Tolkien was willing for his books not to be published in Germany rather than be subjected to silly German laws about racial purity, but he also strongly and openly believed that Nordic society had done much good for the world, but had been ruined by the Nazis:
Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light.
This quote again suggests an Aryan racial theory for Europe, which has been ennobled by the “supreme contribution” of the Nordic races.
Tolkien is also known to have supported Franco, on the basis of some rumours about Republican atrocities in Spanish churches[2]. His letters and stated opinions suggest a man with politics very similar to most upper class white members of the Commonwealth at the time – racial isolationism, tinged with a strong hatred of Nazism drawn from a class bias against National Socialism (“that ruddy ignoramus”, Hitler) and a conservative distrust of radical politics. But like most members of that class at the time, he didn’t necessarily strongly oppose or even disagree with the racial and political theories at the heart of apartheid or Nazism. In the 30s, particularly, Hitler’s theories were much admired in the West, and their philosophical basis had not yet been discredited. Though we don’t have clear evidence either way in the case of Tolkien, it’s difficult to read his letters and get a clear indication of a man swimming against the current of his time.
Tolkien and British Nationalism
Tolkien ended up required reading for the Youth Wing of the BNP, on the basis of its raical theory and lauding of western ideals over eastern savagery. His inclusion may have been subsequent to the movies, which are rather popular amongst people who like watching dark-skinned people getting butchered; but it is no coincidence that the far right associates his work with their message on racial identity. Fascism and racialist nationalism hasn’t moved its racial theories on from the 30s when Tolkien wrote, and there is a lot of concordance between the racial essentialism of his world and the kind of racially segregated world that the modern BNP would like to see.
What this does and doesn’t mean
It’s unsurprising that an upper class academic from South Africa, writing in the 30s and 40s, should subscribe to a racial model for the creation of his imaginary world. It’s also not surprising that his racial theories would be consistent with Nazi-era racial theories or modern nationalist writing, since all three are drawn from the same source and people at that time were generally supportive of some portion of racial theories of history.
This has obvious consequences for that stream of “High Fantasy” which is highly derivative of Tolkien’s work. Tolkien’s worlds aren’t necessarily popular because of this racial essentialism, but much of the derivative work carries these ideas with it. Some of these notions are comforting for modern writers, some are just easy, and some are fun to play with. But copied whole, they project into the modern literary world a view of race relations which is anachronistic and highly consistent with mainstream conservative views of 60 years ago. They are also congruent with modern fascist politics, which of course holds racial essentialism at its core.
This doesn’t mean that Tolkien’s work is more or less admirable. The timeless appeal of Tolkien’s work as a whole is not due to its political-racial content, but the powerful story elements, the myth-making and the characters. For these elements to maintain Tolkien’s popularity even as the politics underlying the stories becomes anachronistic, they must indeed be very well crafted. This is the miracle of literature – a story whose fundamental social and political basis is no longer valid can still appeal to us, as Shakespeare does, through the power of its non-political elements.
It also doesn’t mean that Tolkien was a fascist or a racist, at least no more than any other upper class man of his time. But most people alive today would consider the politics of an upper class man writing in the 40s to be quite repulsive, and its no surprise that some of Tolkien’s racial theories fit this category. But being a racial isolationist or believing that mongols were inherently inferior doesn’t make Tolkien a fascist, nor does it invalidate his work or even make him a bad person. However, it also doesn’t liberate his work from the obvious criticisms : it promotes a divisive vision of racial separatism and essentialism; and as an influential work in the genre, it has been essential in the reproduction of conservatism in High Fantasy. Critical reinterpretation of this work can liberate modern High Fantasy from the racialist and fascist origins of the genre, without necessarily leading to its political debasement or politically correct caricatures. Just as Tolkien can write an inspiring and great novel with odious racial politics, modern genre writers should be able to liberate the genre from this type of conservatism and still write inspiring and great novels.
—
fn1: A lot of people quote the first half of this sentence approvingly as evidence that Tolkien was opposed to apartheid. The second part makes me think that, while he opposed apartheid, he didn’t necessarily oppose the racial stereotypes underlying it.
fn2: which were certainly known to have occurred, but also exaggerated in a viciously anti-Republican western press. See, for example, Antony Beevor’s work on the Spanish Civil War.
June 6, 2009 at 6:40 pm
One thing that has been left out of the whole post-noisms-fracas is Tolkien’s more-or-less-explicit-attempts-to-channel-pre-Shakespearean-English-lit when he writes.
I mean, he would often say that the kind of writing he liked was Beowulf, Sagas etc. and that LOTR was a kind of attempt to remake this kind of writing. I feel like this works both for and against the idea of “conservatism” in Tolkien.
On the one hand, he often states he’s rejecting modern (and modernist) prose in favor of an earlier model, which is, in the strict sense, conservative.
On the other hand, it suggests that the views that COULD be seen as political in his work are more the result of the model of literature he was attempting to evoke than his own views. You can’t do a pastiche of “mythic” literature without lone male heroes and kings. I mean, you can screw with the formula, but at a certain point it’ll stop feeling like a myth. And part of the point of Middle -Earth was to make it seem kind of like a myth from our own past.
Obviously, JRR’s own views were in there, too, and he’s said as much about WWI “We [the british] are Hobbits” etc. etc.
But I also think part of the sociopolitical (and storytelling) structures in LOTR represent an attempt to make it feel genuinely medieval.
June 6, 2009 at 7:22 pm
An interesting point, and I think it’s true that you can’t write in that mythical style honestly without retaining that conservative feel. Stories which play with the political assumptions of that writing style but maintain its mythic feel would be an interesting idea but fiendishly difficult. In the end though, although this theory would explain the cause of his conservatism it doesn’t change the result – that the genre and style is conservative.
June 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Well, it’s conservative in many, many ways–storytelling conventions, political assumptions, etc. But it was also radical in that it was something new in literature. I mean, that’s why JRRT’s such a big deal. The depth and thoroughness of the world-building, I suppose. I think The Hobbit was the most radical in some ways–the wordplay and the riddles in the dark had a concreteness and a modern sensibility that was new.
June 8, 2009 at 8:42 am
Interesting points. Nothing I can really argue with though. Thanks for drawing my attention to that excellent article on the Tolkein Gateway.
June 8, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Tolkien’s Races
As I pointed out in the comments to your earlier entry, many races are corrupted by Sauron or Saruman, including the Dunlendings, various Northern races, and prior to the LOTR the Numenoreans (and hence their descendants, the Corsairs and Black Numenoreans, both of whom are also white). The fact that Easterlings and Haradrim are the main “evil human” races in LOTR is a function of the fact that Sauron happens to be in Mordor at that time, which is near where they live. Previously he was in Mirkwood and Numenor – and of course the ultimate evil of Middle Earth (Melkior) makes his home in the North. So did the Witch-King of Angmar. You have to remember that The Lord of the Rings has a context and that it is really just a vehicle for popularising the Silmarillion.
For example, orcs are corruptions of elves; this is made explicit in the Simarillion. Your cited quote merely shows that Tolkien was well aware of his society’s own attitudes towards “Mongol-types”.
Aryan Racial Theory
I think you’ve missed what Tolkien was getting at with that quote. “Indo-Aryan” is a language group, a sub-group of what is now called the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. Hindi and Roma/Sindi belong to it, and are related by assocation to Iranian languages like Farsi (Persian). Therefore “Aryan” is a better descriptor of Hindustanis, Roma and even Persians than it is blonde-haired/blue-eyed types. Tolkien was clearly poking fun at Nazi notions of what “Aryan” meant in that letter, by pointing out that he (of German extraction) was not as Aryan as gypsies were, just like the Nazis were not in fact truly Aryan either.
That entire letter is a complete piss-take of Nazi theories about ethnicity and a pleasure to read. Tolkien was many things, but he was not poorly educated. He was a reknowned linguistic expert and knew more about ethno-linguistics than you give him credit for.
Tolkien’s Politics
Tolkien was a devout Catholic, so of course he decried Republican massacres in Spanish churches. I should hardly have to point out that elements of the Republican cause in Spain were just as odious and pernicious as the fascist in their own way.
I don’t see anything wrong with Tolkien’s attitudes about Nordic races; is it wrong to be proud of your own ethnicity? I’m very proud of my Scottish, Irish and Jewish roots – does that make me somehow racist?
Tolkien and British Nationalism
The BNP also uses images of Spitfires on its propaganda. Does that make the pilots of those Spitfires card-carrying supporters of the BNP? Guilt by association is hardly fair.
Footnote 1
The fact that Tolkien uses the word “unfortunately” makes your assertion completely unfounded!
Generally
I’ve said this to you before, but a lot of people don’t see “conservatism” as something to be liberated from, and I find it weird that you seem to think fantasy writers should have liberation from conservatism as an explicit goal, separate from just, you know, writing good fantasy stories.
If anything I’d much rather be liberated from the cloying, unthinking, banal soft-leftism that so many supposedly educated people espouse and which dominates not only the fantasy genre but European intellectual life in general. Speaking as somebody who couldn’t care less about labels and thinks politics should mostly be about empiricism and common sense.
June 8, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Noisms I think you misunderstand my purpose in writing this, I don’t have much time now to respond but here’s a few quick points.
Regarding Tolkien’s races
I think you also aren’t engaging in what you call a “formalist” reading of Tolkien. The haradrim are wild men – they were corrupted by Morkoth not Sauron. Only the white Numenoreans escaped from this event, which occurred at their creation. It’s as if evil marked the others to look swarthy.
Also, the issue is not so much that the Numenoreans can also do evil as that the Haradrim etc. cannot do good at all. Morkoth is evil – he can corrupt anyone. But the Numenoreans are not continually under his influence, they have “human” will. The other races, like animals, are essentially evil.
Tolkien’s letter
I’m aware this was a piss-take (as I said, I’m not trying to suggest Tolkien was a nazi). But it suggests he was familiar with this racial theory. At the time it would have been very unusual for a scholar in Oxford to know of this Aryan theory and disagree with it – it was received wisdom. No-one in academia any longer accepts this theory, or even the notion of Aryans as a race.
Tolkien’s politics
Regarding the spanish republicans, as I said: read Beevor. The accounts at the time were exaggerated and often false. But again, I’m not trying to say anything here except to present a context for his views. I’m not suggesting that it’s bad he was proud of his race (as you say, most people are), just setting a context.
Tolkien and british nationalism
Since I wrote this section I discovered that the Stormfront forums have a whole, permanent section devoted to “Tolkien and High Fantasy”, and there is a permanent stickie there devoted to building a Lord of the Rings study guide to use it as a way of teaching their racial theories. This is not a coincidence – this movement subscribes to a model of racial theory that hasn’t moved on from the 30s, and their ideas match what was written in the LoTR. This is not “guilt by association”. It is evidence of a shared worldview.
I could turn your question around to ask: is it coincidence that the BNP use nazi propaganda to teach racial theory? No, they use it because they share a racial view. It’s also not a coincidence that they use spitfire images (actually I think they don’t, but anyway). The Spitfire is a symbol of British military prowess and staunch independence, and that is what the BNP like. Thus they used the image.
Footnote 1
I read that “unfortunately” as meaning that he sees these races as inferior, and understands why people take the view they do. Alternatively he could be so enlightened as to recognise that his fellows are racist, but he is not… however, this would require the assumption that he was not a man of his time.
Resucing anyone from conservatism
Unless you think 30s racial theory is apt for today’s world, then it is good to rescue High Fantasy from this. In my view any genre which aims to reproduce interwar social ideals from whole cloth needs rescuing. If you think this is the sort of conservatism the modern world needs, you’re about 60 years behind the times.
I don’t know how many times I need to say this about High Fantasy and the purpose of this (and other) criticism of it. I don’t think writers need to be liberated from conservatism; but I do think the genre could have a wider political context. That is all.
Also, I think you should put up a post on your blog defending this claim of “cloying, unthinking, banal soft-leftism ” that dominates the fantasy genre (we can agree to leave European intellectual life out, in the interests of finishing the argument before Judgement Day). I think you will be hard pressed to find examples. Obviously we’ll never be able to quantify exactly what there’s more of, but I reckon we can give it a damn good going over, to no good purpose…
June 8, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Regarding conservatism and the High Fantasy genre, I’ll just add that the issue taken up by people like Mieville (and, I suppose, me) is not so much that High Fantasy writers are or aren’t conservative themselves. But when High Fantasy as a genre requires certain characteristics in order to be defined as High Fantasy, and when those characteristics are common to conservative politics, then High Fantasy as a genre becomes restrictively conservative.
This is as opposed to, for example, Space Opera as a genre, which is widely enough defined to enable such diversity of political (or apolitical) work as Asimov, Simmons, Banks and Scott Card.
A genre which allows writers to be political in a variety of ways, or apolitical, as it suits them, is good. A genre whose outline structure forces a political view (be it marxist or conservative) is restrictive; and in this case High Fantasy appears strongly inclined towards a restrictive conservative politics. This is what Mieville wants to rescue it from, so that people of all political persuasions can enjoy writing in or reading it.
June 8, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Keep this brief too, because it’s nearly bed time.
Tolkien’s Races: I direct you to the first encounter with Haradrim in the Lord of the Rings, where a dead warrior is very sympathetically dealt with; after reading that I don’t believe it’s possible to argue that the Haradrim are any more inherently evil than any other race. They were unfortunately corrupted and are portrayed more as slaves to Sauron than willing servants.
Tolkien’s Letter: I’m not really sure I understand what your point is, then. Whichever way you cut it, the letter expresses pretty progressive views on race for a man of Tolkien’s era and background.
The whole Aryan theory hasn’t been so much discredited as updated, by the way. The terminology has changed (the people in question are no longer called Aryans, but Proto-Indo-Europeans) but the core idea of a horse-and-chariot riding group expanding from the Pontic steppe into India in one direction and Europe the other is fairly mainstream. Look up the Kurgan Hypothesis or the Kurgan Theory for details.
Tolkien’s Politics: Is Beevor definitive? In any case, exaggerated or not, there is no doubt that tens of thousands of people (from both sides) were massacred by Republicans, especially Communists, during the war. Thousands of clerics were among them.
British Nationalism
The BNP do use Spitfires – got a leaflet through the door the other day. Idiotically they used clipart of a Polish Spitfire, but the point remains!
I really don’t see this shared worldview you’re talking about. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that British Nationalists also read their own interpretations into everything from Shakespeare to Kipling but that doesn’t point to a shared world view so much as an indication that people can read anything into anything if they’re lunatic enough.
Footnote 1
Come on now, he clearly means that lots of people going out from Britain to the colonies (not just South Africa) is horrified by the treatment of colour (e.g. Apartheid, which he loathed) but unfortunately said generous attitude (i.e. being horrified) dissipates over time in many of those people, but not him.
Conservatism
Fair enough, I misread that last paragraph and thought you were talking about “conservatism” in general, rather than the specific 1930s racial kind.
I’ll think about writing that entry.
June 8, 2009 at 11:51 pm
It is indeed bedtime and I must rush too.
If Tolkien didn’t treat even evil men with some sympathy, his storywriting talents would be nil, would they not – look at gollum. It doesn’t change his racial thesis.
Re: Tolkien’s letter, do you want him to be progressive or not? I think he shows hints of that style of enlightened nobleman who sees the other races as inferior but believes they should be treated gently. I agree it’s not clear from his letters but I’m happy not to argue against the general sentiment of his time if I don’t have clear proof. But he’s clearly not some kind of racist bastard, either. Even if he were, it’s irrelevant – his books put forward the theory they put forward.
Of course the BNP use Polish immigrant labour! Which lower middle class Briton doesn’t? That’s hilarious.
If you want to see the link, put on some rubber gloves and go to the stormfront forums. But prepare some disinfectant, you’ll need it for your eyes. You’re right, nationalists read their own interpretations into many things but LoTR isn’t just interpreted – it’s used as a racial teaching tool.
Re: Spain, I think you’re vulnerable to some one-sided accounts of this. Franco started a civil war against a democratically elected government and in the chaos that followed some peasants exacted retribution on the priest class which dispossessed them of their lands. Beevor has a good description of this.
I’m no expert on the aryan racial theory but the links I found suggested it has no meaning anymore except for a linguistic link, and there is no evidence of a conquering race (read the link I gave above).
Off to bed. Don’t think about writing that entry – DO IT.
June 9, 2009 at 11:42 am
We’re getting way off topic but I just can’t let your Spanish Civil War comments lie. Of course the Nationalist cause committed more atrocities, but the Republican massacres were not just a few peasants taking revenge on priests. Even according to Beevor 38,000 people were killed in the red terror, which is called a “minimum” figure by other historians – other estimates put the figure at 100,000 or more. All this is available in the “Republican Atrocities” section of the wikipedia entry, if you’re interested.
I wouldn’t want to whitewash the Nationalists but neither side in that war covered itself in glory. People in this country have a romantic view of the Republicans because of Orwell and the International Brigades, just like they have a romantic view of people like Che Guevara, forgetting that extreme leftists are just as bloodthirsty and just as dismissive of the value of human life as extreme rightists.
June 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm
[…] normal programming on this blog, for which I apologise unreservedly, but it seems coherent with recent posts (which are on topic) and, as an Australian of British descent living in the heart of […]
September 24, 2010 at 11:34 am
[…] board indicating that the Tolkien books are recommended reading for fascists and giving my post on Tolkien’s racial theories as an explanation of why. I’m not, of course, going to give a link to the message board, […]
January 14, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Tolkien was middle class not ‘upper class’.
Aryan was also used for theory of language origins and a synonym for the Indo-Iranian group of languages. On Tolkien’s response: ‘I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian;’ What he means here by referring to Aryan as Indo-Iranian is that Aryan is not a race but a group of languages. Since he is not a speaker of one of those languages he is not Aryan. He also makes the tacit point that if anyone is Aryan in Europe it is the gypsies not Germans!
January 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm
B., thanks for commenting. I don’t know anything about Tolkien’s personal finances but he was a professor at a University in the UK in the first half of this century. That makes him upper class in my book and in any reasonable understanding of how things worked in that time.
I’m not sure what point you’re making about Aryan; the word was certainly bandied about in a lot of different ways and Tolkien may well have used it in the “correct” scientific sense of its day. But the Aryan theory of history and the way the Nazi concept of “Aryan” were real, functional theories in that time period, and it’s perfectly valid to discuss similarities between the history of Middle Earth and these theories – whether or not Tolkien cared for them directly or not. I also think that Tolkien’s reference to Aryan as “Indo-Iranian” as you give it here contains nothing to suggest he didn’t subscribe to the Aryan theory of history.
Also I think maybe Tolkien’s theory of race and language was scientifically inaccurate and probably contained large elements of essentialism (I think I mentioned that elsewhere on this blog).
January 14, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Faustus, I’ve mentioned this to you as well: there is a group of languages spoken in northern India and up through Pakistan into Iran called the “Aryan” or “Indo-Aryan” languages (or “Indo-Iranian”). They’re a branch of the Indo-European family. Their existence has nothing to do with some theory about some people called “Aryans”, and I’m sorry, but B’s quotation is very good evidence that he didn’t subscribe to that theory.
You’re also dead wrong about him being a professor making him upper class. It’s a typically “middle-middle class” profession. The upper class is the aristocracy. Also, as any fule know, English class is something you inherit from your parents rather than what your job is. Tolkien’s grandparents were shopkeepers and his father was a bank clerk.
If he was “upper class in your book” then your book is a load of nonsense.
January 14, 2012 at 11:40 pm
The Aryan theory of history concerns the means by which those language groups and/or cultures got to those parts of the world, Noisms. Knowing about these language groups is a pre-condition for an academic-level understanding of this theory, so Tolkien’s “correct” use of these terms does not in any way show that he doesn’t subscribe to the theory.
I’m aware of the British class structure. You’re pulling a cheap gotcha here, pretty much your main debating tactic these days. You know as well as I do what “upper class” means in this context. A professor in Tolkien’s time and place is no more “middle class” than a modern mine worker in Australia is “working class” in the Marxist sense. You’re quibbling.
January 15, 2012 at 5:56 am
Your main argument for Tolkien believing in the Aryan theory of history seems to be that he was alive in the early 20th century. That doesn’t really cut it, I’m afraid, in the face of the actual real evidence which B provided. And it still doesn’t explain why we should care. The theory that modern Indo-Europeans emerged from the steppes north of the Caucuses and spread to Europe and India from there is not one that has been disproved or invalidated – it’s a perfectly respectable view to hold to this day. although the terminology has changed (to the “Kurgan hypothesis”). Ultimately, your argument seems to boil down to the word “Aryan” and the fact that the Nazis used it. The Nazis also had a very robust welfare state, but I don’t think anybody would argue that this meant there was something strange or pernicious, or even particularly notable, about somebody believing in a strong welfare state, do you?
As for the class thing… What you call “cheap gotchas” are worrying indications that you don’t know all that much about what you speak about with such great apparent authority. And this is further indicated by the strangeness of your reply. Tolkien came from a relatively poor background – his grandparents and great-grandparents were just shopkeepers. His father was a bank clerk – a lower middle class profession. Through social mobility he became an academic, but that didn’t make him upper class. If anything in Tolkien’s “time and place” the class structures were even more hidebound than now, and upper class most definitely meant a genuine blue blooded, landowning aristocrat.
It’s important to make this sort of thing clear, because your argument is so much based on innuendo and assumptions about Tolkien’s attitudes because he was supposedly an upper class, white member of the commonwealth (or however you phrased it in your original post). He wasn’t.
January 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm
The Kurgan hypothesis, Noisms? Really? How sweet… I’d never taken you for a Wiccan before. Such hidden depths! The Kurgan hypothesis is not well-respected in academia, and the concept of an Indo-Iranian homeland is disputed and still under debate. The reason we should care is that in the time Tolkien was writing, the main homeland theory – the Aryan invasion theory – was an explicitly racist and imperialist one, used to justify Western superiority over, and historical rights to the conquest of, the Indian sub-continent. The issue is not the search for a common origin of the Nordic and Indian races, but the construction of a theory which asserts that all the good parts of the latter culture were due to the former. I’m guessing you don’t know much about the critical response to the Aryan theory, its unsavoury history in colonialist theory, or its rejection by archaeologists. You could start with the wikipedia page on the word “Aryan,” which might help you to understand its contested role in history. Incidentally, earlier Aryan invasion theories don’t believe that Europe and India were colonized by cultures from the Caucus – they posit that central Asia and India were colonized by Scandinavians.
I make no “argument for Tolkien believing in the Aryan theory of history.” The argument I actually make is:
That is, I discuss the probability that he accepted this theory, and give a little bit of evidence for why I think he was at least familiar with them. This is, in fact, the evidence you claim B provided (the quote B gave is in the text of my original post). I certainly don’t say anywhere that he believed in this theory because “he was alive in the early 20th Century.” Note the use of the word “academy.”
My argument does not boil down to “the word ‘Aryan’ and the fact that the Nazis used it.” The Aryan theory of history predates the nazis by about 50 or more years, the word wasn’t just used by them, and the Aryan invasion theory was well-established outside of Nazi politics. In fact, I’m willing to bet you a groat that there were Aryan history theorists in the 20s and 30s who thought the Nazis were debasing their theory. I think the only person here who is misconstruing the theory on the basis of the word “Aryan” is you.
Incidentally, the Office of National Statistics in the UK has used a standard classification of five social classes since 1911, and since 1911 professors have been in social class 1: the top class. So take up your dispute about “upper class” with the Chief Statistician.
My argument is not based on innuendo, and it seems you still – after repeatedly coming back to this post and being repeatedly corrected by me – haven’t figured out what my argument is, or bothered doing rudimentary research on the basic components of it. Please try harder.
December 22, 2013 at 9:01 pm
[…] at Compromise and Conceit ponders “Tolkien’s Racial Theories” and their legacy in modern fantasy so well I have to quote the conclusion in full (emphasis […]
December 23, 2013 at 6:12 am
Left wing bollocks, trying to attach racism (which in the left wing lunatic’s mind is only perpetuated by white people) to just about anything. Soon, it’ll be racist to sneeze in the direction of a non white. I could have written a long, academic-sounding answer to all the above bilge, but you know what? I can’t be bothered writing in reply to someone whose views are so embedded in a political dogma and viewpoint.
December 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Reading comprehension fail, Mike. This post isn’t about racism. I only use any of the “racism” words once in the whole post, in this sentence:
What about that sentence don’t you like, Mike? And why do you assume I think racism “is only perpetuated (sic) by white people”? I didn’t say that, and I don’t believe it.
Given your inability to read the text and your willingness to make statements without evidence, I really doubt that you “could have written a long, academic-sounding answer to all the above bilge”, but by all means, if you think you can reread the post in a way that engages with the content, rather than with the left-wing culture studies critic in your head, then give it a second try – I’m looking forward to your effort.
December 23, 2013 at 5:28 pm
You could be right. But thoughts often have multiple parents. Tolkien was deeply in love with Norse/Anglo-Saxon mythology, and the dualism of light/good/heaven vs dark/bad/subterranean is well embedded there (see “light-elves” and “dark-elves”), as well as a clear hierarchy of races (from gods down through elves, humans, and dwarves to frost-giants). All this is well before any connection to racism. If Tolkien’s world is to be faithful to this mythology, it has to reflect these aspects as it does. So they don’t necessarily say anything about Tolkien’s personal outlook. The excerpt quoted on Aryans is a typical donnish dig at the ignorant.
Is this genre conservative? Well, it does hanker after an ideal version of the pre-industrial past, and is conservative in that sense. It is certainly not conservative in any modern political use of the word – it repudiates the radical individualism coupled with authoritarian control of eg Thatcher or Bush. I’m not even sure you could call it reactionary – perhaps more a kind of naive utopianism.
December 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
I think Tolkien’s thoughts and Hitler’s thoughts may have had the same parents. The Nazis also drew on Norse/Anglo-Saxon mythology. Maybe this stuff was just floating around at the time, and Tolkien, the Aryan theorists, eugenicists like Pearson, and the Nazis all drew their ideas from the same well-spring, though they came at the issue from very different directions. Perhaps a wash-up of the end of the romantic era was the general dissemination of these mythical ideas through popular society, with a consequent effect on what people thought of researching, what they saw as received wisdom, and the kinds of issues they connected? By way of comparison, a modern social science researcher will not, in general, think of looking for biological explanations for e.g. racial difference – they will look to culture. Even racist social scientists will do this. But at the time Tolkien wrote the possibility of racial origins of psychological or moral characteristics was taken quite seriously. They arrived at very different positions but all these people may have been working from the same framework.
As an example consider Tolkien’s famous response to the Nazi demand to prove his racial purity. He does not give some response like “Hey, in this era no one takes these ideas of racial difference seriously.” Instead, he quibbles about their definition of Aryan. The possibility that there might be a type of racial distinction that is important to prove (e.g. Jews being superior) doesn’t strike him as strange at all – it’s just that that “ruddy ignoramus” Hitler has got it all wrong. He’s a creature of his time, and to argue that he didn’t see race as determinant of morality would require a huge effort, since almost everyone (and most especially, almost all academics) believed this was a normal part of life. It appears to be the case that Tolkien believed one shouldn’t discriminate against people because of their inherent racial characteristics (based on a loose reading of his thoughts on South Africa) but this doesn’t eliminate the possibility that he believed the racial theories in his books.
Also, this genre is intensely conservative. Tolkien was a monarchist, and his stories weren’t about constitutional monarchies. He was a supporter of despotic monarchy in his writings. Do you know any despotic monarchists? No, well that would be because the notion is completely defunct. But all of Tolkien’s work has despotic monarchism at its centre. He also glorifies war. I defined a list of reasons why fantasy is conservative a while ago, and Tolkien is deeply into that stuff.
Frankly, I find the idea that a South African professor working in the UK in the interwar period was not a classic conservative quite ridiculous. I mean, really? Do you know of any other people in his position, from his background, who were immune to the logic of classical conservatism? It’s possible, but the man wrote a book called The Return of the King about a man who regains his racially-inherited kingdom after exterminating a sub-human race. A book with precisely three women in it, only one of whom was human. Really, not conservative?
December 25, 2013 at 7:25 pm
“Frankly, I find the idea that a South African professor working in the UK in the interwar period was not a classic conservative quite ridiculous. I mean, really?”
He wasn’t a conservative because if he was he’d have supported the last 100 years of industrial revolution, not yearned for a return to romantic values.
Tolkien was a reactionary opposed to the politics of the mid-20th C. Churchill was a conservative – he never advocated for the King to have absolute power, never advocated for de-industrialisation and refused to relinquish India on the basis that his nation held it at that time [1].
Furthermore conservative is a relative title. If everyone thinks different races are inferior except one guy who thinks that they just smell funny but have the same broad capabilities, then the smells funny guy is the progressive [2].
You’re applying time based judgments to a dead person. If you want to play that game, it’s easiest to accept that everyone alive to date is conservative in the eyes of a future person due to the inevitable moral changes that will occur. Despite his inclusive non-materialistic moral message, Jesus is a conservative because he didn’t advocate for star marriages. So is everyone who supports gay marriage but opposes them.
You filthy conservative! For a given value of future morality!
Of course, I’m also aware that while people frequently use conservative as a pejorative (or laudatory) term, you’re not particularly doing so here. Your general political stance does render the term a little loaded though.
[1] The ultimate conservative argument: It’s like this now, therefore it must always be like this (or else my little hardwired brain will explode).
[2] Progressing to what is the eternal question.
December 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm
You’re right Paul, good points, I’m using the word “conservative” here in its sloppy internet sense rather than its proper sense. It’s entirely possible that Tolkien was a radical in the sense you describe, and actually recently I read somewhere a blog post describing him as an “anarchist monarchist,” a concept so beautifully confused that I think it deserves its own political party. I’m also trying to avoid calling him a racist while making the obvious point that a South African academic in the inter-war period probably had some views that today wouldn’t get him acceptance in mainstream political parties of any stripe.
I wonder if South Africans of that era were considered radical by the conservatives? This was the country that just 20 years later introduced apartheid, a pretty radical policy, just as the USA was beginning to move towards desegregation – I wonder if their views were correspondingly extreme at the time?
I’m happy to say that I’m applying modern moral values to the people of that time – what else can I do? But I hope it’s obvious that I’m trying to analyze the content of his work and not his mind. My personal suspicions (that he was likely a racist) are based on probabilities. My assessment of the theoretical content of his work is intended to be separate to those personal suspicions, and I hope that’s clear …
December 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm
“I’m also trying to avoid calling him a racist while making the obvious point that a South African academic in the inter-war period probably had some views that today wouldn’t get him acceptance in mainstream political parties of any stripe.”
You’re actually making the point that we can assume everyone in the inter-war period had such views. Tolkien may have been the least racist person on the planet at that time, but you’re arguing the times he wrote in makes his work inherently racist by virtue of standing too close (temporally) to some dodgy people. [1]
“This was the country that just 20 years later introduced apartheid”
Yeah… I’m pretty sure that judging people based on their nationality is considered racist these days. [2]
“I’m happy to say that I’m applying modern moral values to the people of that time – what else can I do?”
You can judge him relative to the standards of his time.
Failure to do otherwise suggests that communism (and left wing thought in general) is based on fundamentally sexist underpinnings because all of the creators came from such a time. The same thing can be alleged of subjects like maths, which can be claimed to be sexist and racist by their failure to explicitly consider non-male/Western modes of addition and subtraction.
“My personal suspicions (that he was likely a racist) are based on probabilities.”
Can you accept that other people consider people who judge others based on probabilities to be, on the balance of probability, biased judges who shouldn’t be trusted [3]?
“My assessment of the theoretical content of his work is intended to be separate to those personal suspicions, and I hope that’s clear”
I can see how you attempt to do so at times, but I can also see how you fail to do so at other points. Saying “Does Tolkien’s style contain an undertone that can be considered racist by today’s standards?” is one thing but every time you say “he was likely a racist” (or something similar) you’ve strayed off message and reduced the effectiveness of your argument.
[1] As a thought experiment: If your arguments don’t stand up without reference to the author’s time and place then your interpretation of the text is probably just hate fueled ranting in your head.
[2] I’m aware that nationality is not race. I’m just also aware that it’s close enough that you generally want to keep your head down to avoid the flame wars/public outcry/naming and shaming/etc. [4]
[3] Even as they consider the inherent hypocrisy in their own judgment call.
[4] Everyone can judge for themselves where the limits of polite discourse lie and what portion of silence is oppression of free speech versus pressuring idiots not to say rude things.
December 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm
I was actually going to add in the following part (about “what else can I do?”) that it’s reasonable to judge citizens of the inter-war era by the morals of our time because there were people in the inter-war period who objected to scientific racism – it was subject to debate. But I’m not arguing he is racist, I’m saying it’s not unreasonable to suspect him of this given his time, nationality, social class and job. He also was an adherent of some theory of racially based linguistic predilections (which, incidentally, I have ordered a book about), which doesn’t sound like something positive. But I should clarify here, the reason I’m raising the possibility that he was racist is because everyone accuses me of saying he is, and I just want to point out that although I’m talking about the content of his work, it’s probably not an unreasonable further conclusion to jump to – and I think part of the reason his fanboys are so defensive on these posts is that they’re aware that it’s pretty likely a man of his time, place and class would have been openly racist, and they don’t like to think about how far removed Tolkien’s morality might have been from our own. I guess a lot of fanboys are a bit worried that Tolkien might have been like their racist granddad (you know, time, place) but they don’t have to worry about that – until someone points out that actually his books contain exactly the same scientific racism that our racist granddads tend to spout at the christmas bbq. Usually when we meet someone’s granddad and they’re spouting scientific racism (and believe me, if you met my grandma, your ears would curl), we assume that they’re a racist. I think pointing out the theory in Tolkien’s books brings this problem to the fore.
Also, although I take your point about judging people on the basis of their nationality and time, I don’t think there’s a big risk in one antipodean white academic stating that it was “likely” that another white antipodean academic from 80 years ago was racist. I don’t like to think too deeply on the racial politics of the leading lights of statistics, for example, who were developing statistics for the genetic sciences 80 or 100 years ago (I’m lookin’ at you, Pearson). (Which brings us to your point about maths – stats was developed by a pack of rich white men who probably wouldn’t pass muster in UKIP today, but we still use their tools!) The past is another country, dead men can’t sue, etc.
Also, Karl Marx was banging his maid. Communism developed by sexist pigs? Tell me it ain’t so! (And consider this: one of the leading lights of anarchist thought was a Prince!)
So I guess what I’m trying to say with these probabilistic statements is: yes, we don’t know anything about Tolkien’s views, the only evidence adduced through all these threads is a vague objection to Nazism before WW2, and some sympathy for black South Africans; I’m interested in the material he wrote and its effect on modern fantasy, not on his inner thoughts about oooh scary black people; but almost all of his defenders jump straight into the “how dare you call him racist without evidence” defense when that is not what I’m doing, but that defense is ludicrous on its face, because his books are full of racist theory, and he came from a time where that racist theory was considered normal and was promulgated by white academics … like Tolkien. So it seems to me that it’s better not to jump straight to this defense, and that the best defense of Tolkien is to say “yeah it certainly looks bad doesn’t it, but what about …?” Which defense Peter T very nicely provided with the Nordic mythology angle (and provided better than Noisms, because Peter T’s version didn’t cover my monitor with angry spit).
I guess the job of Tolkien’s defenders on these threads is to either ignore the possibility that Tolkien is racist and focus on what I’ve been trying to focus on (the content of his work and its effect on modern fantasy); or to defend him by refuting the points in the posts directly, not by accusing me of saying Tolkien is racist, and then trying to extricate his morality from its place and time against a backdrop of writings that displayed all the theoretical hallmarks of his place and time. The former is interesting and doesn’t attempt to say anything one way or the other about Tolkien’s personal morality; the latter strikes me as an advanced exercise in pissing in the wind. We will never know what Tolkien’s inner feelings about race were, but the weight of his writing and the legacy of his time and place and class and job make defending him against accusations of racism much harder than making them; so it’s best not to dredge such accusations up in the first place – and, I want to point out, I never did!
I guess I should take this opportunity to once again remind my reader (s) that I’m not trying to draw conclusions about Tolkien’s personal views on race based on his work, I’m trying to analyze the content of his work and its effect on modern fantasy.
December 31, 2013 at 10:08 am
Just two points here. TLOR was taken from a culmination of many ancient myths and stories about a magical ring that gave the wearer the power of invisibility but also corrupted the wearers soul. Second point is that he was born in SA yes, but only lived there until he was 3 when he then moved to the UK.
December 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Thanks for commenting, Kaotik Jezta. I’m not sure what your first point is about – are you suggesting that the racial theories here are essential for that mythical narrative? I can’t see it. Your second point is well taken – that means one should think of Tolkien as British not South African, but he tends to get presented in most discussions as being both. Also, I think all my implications about his attitude also apply if he is a British academic of that era… British academia made a substantial contribution to theories of scientific racism in that time, even if htey would like to pretend otherwise. Remember the Daily Mail supported Hitler in the 1930s …
December 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Tolkien might have been like my mother, for whom “race” was a natural category (if,say, Chechnya was in the news, she would ask “what race are they?”). She thought “race” was associated with various behavioural predilections (of the “Italians are emotional” kind). But she did not rank them, still less assume that some were superior. Kind of like different breeds of dog, perhaps. That’s still racism, but its not the kind that led to Jim Crow or apartheid, or drives the Tea Party.
Also, a statistician ought to know better than to draw conclusions about one thing or person from the general characteristics of a class….
December 31, 2013 at 7:13 pm
I think that’s likely Peter T. I looked back through a few posts on this today and found this one in which I describe an easy, reflexive way to produce a nazi racial theory by combining the type of race-based categorization you describe with a story of divinely-inspired corruption.
A statistician might know not to do that, but I’m not drawing conclusions … I’m just pointing out that alternative, very complicated explanations for Tolkien’s racial theories need to take account of the general characteristics of his class, and not just ignore them …
April 22, 2015 at 5:35 am
I just thought that if random passerby don’t resurrect old discussions, who will?
I want to briefly comment on the point of Tolkien’s position regarding the Spanish Civil War, and the contention above that supporting the militar rebellion would be pretty understandable given his professed Catholicism. It is uncontroversial that the atrocities commited by Franco’s side were much worse, by all metrics, than the violence in the Republican zone. But aside from the numbers, a critical difference is that the repression in the rebel area was systematic, institutional, part of an overarching plan to seize control of the country and to quite literally destroy the enemies of La Patria (in order to cleanse it). On the other hand, violence attributed to Republicans was to a great extent of a spontaneous nature, consequence of the initial collapse of state institutions caused by the millitary rebellion. Indeed, a great deal of efforts were devoted by republican officials to put an end to uncontrolled anti-clerical violence within the Republican-controlled territory.
The figure of approximately 6800 clergymen killed (bad enough on its own) would no doubt have been histerically amplified by the pro-fascist British press like The Daily Mail, along false tales of scores of nuns raped at the point of a gun by red hordes. The question here is what it would take for somebody in Tolkien’s position to see the military rebellion with sympathetic eyes given the information available to him at the time. For one thing is to decry acts of terror against the Catholic church—as the Republican governments did—and quite another to give your blessing to a murderous, fascist regime. Just how far to the violent right of the political spectrum was Tolkien ready to go, arguably in the name of his Catholicism (1), is not known, but surely it was enough to send him to the wrong side of History with no return ticket.
(1) I say arguably, for it’s difficult to see how the stance of Tolkien on this issue can be explained solely out of his concerns regarding religious persecution in Spain, and not, or also, on political, ideological and philosophical grounds, which is precisely the point.
April 22, 2015 at 11:19 pm
Thanks for your comment josec. I’m not sure if you’re resurrecting this discussion or animating it, but here goes … I suspect that Tolkien’s response to reports of Republican atrocities was the kind of reflexive response we all share when events we don’t know much about happen to our ideological brethren, filtered through a biased media. Tolkien’s response may serve to illustrate his ideological allegiances (Catholic, conservative, maybe racist in the pervasive sense it existed in the UK at that time), but that doesn’t mean he had a strong, explicit preference for a side in that war. Or, that is to say, had he been fully informed, objectively, about the circumstances of the war, he probably would have taken a side against the political class that usually represents his interests. But he probably wasn’t much informed (most people weren’t) and so he reflexively responded to news about setbacks for those political forces he agreed with. That doesn’t so much put him on the wrong side of history as make him like most of us, most of the time.
I think if one were to follow the racial and political ideas in Tolkien’s work logically, one would be disturbed at the consequences, but that doesn’t mean Tolkien was willing to go that far to the right, or even saw the full political consequences of the scientific racism his work embodies. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most of the advocates of scientific racism in the 1930s would have been shocked to see the consequences of their logic played out to its final ugly conclusion in Europe. But being naive about how others interpret your theories is not a sign, necessarily, that one would be willing to go right to the end in defense of one’s ideology. Especially in the context of Tolkien’s racial theories, which were probably fairly static at a time that racial politics in Europe was going through major upheavals.
April 25, 2015 at 10:05 pm
I don’t think Tolkien’s affinities with Franco’s fascist rebellion and dictatorship were as temporary and tenuous as the kind of reflexive response you mention would suggest. As late as five years after the Spanish Civil War had ended, he was still regretting C.S.Lewis’ unwillingness to support Franco, whom by then was devoted to common Caudillo tasks such as the torture and execution of many tens of thousands of spaniards, use of slave labour, imprisonment of hundreds of thousands in concentration camps under appalling conditions, and the systematic repression that opened, with the ideological backing of National Catholicism, a revolting 40-year chapter in Spanish history:
“Nothing is a greater tribute to Red propaganda than the fact that [C.S.Lewis] (who knows they are in all other subjects liars and traducers) believes all that is said against Franco, and nothing that is said for him. Even Churchill’s open speech in Parliament left him unshaken.”
–letter to C.Tolkien, October 1944
Ironically, the picture that emerges here is that of someone who simply dismissed the stream of news about atrocities perpetrated by Franco and his forces in Spain that inevitably must had reached him since 1936. How disinformed could someone like him really be at the time, while his own country was at war against nazi Germany and fascist Italy? That an overwhelming majority of intellectuals supported the Republic strongly suggests that this is not a question of lack of information, but of ideological convictions. Furthermore, not everyone of Catholic faith in Spain sided with Franco; notably, the Basques were a source of embarrasment for those promoting abroad the myth of the Catholic Crusade, which deals a blow to attempts at justifying Tolkien’s preferences for fascist Spain on the basis of his religion. The speech quoted by Tolkien in that letter, which much to his dismay failed to persuade C.S.Lewis, can be no other than that in the House of Commons in May 1944, where Churchill complimented the Spaniards for not joining forces with the Axis, hinting at a future open to some sort of collaboration regarding post-war peace keeping in the Mediterranean. Those comments gained Churchill widespread criticism in Britain and elsewhere, in the press and in political circles; it speaks volumes of Tolkien’s mindset that he should find it surprising to see his friend “unshaken” by them.
April 27, 2015 at 10:11 am
Wow Josec, I didn’t know this about Tolkien’s views on Franco. I haven’t got his letters here, and the only letter I regularly find cited on the internet is his famous dismissal of Hitler and Nazi propaganda (which I don’t take as any sign that he rejected scientific racism), so it’s interesting to see how selectively his letters are deployed in his defense on the internet … I have recently finished reading Tolkien, Race and Cultural History by Dmitra Fini and that book also doesn’t explore the role of his catholicism in his writing, though it’s happy to explore the entire history of his development of his notions of faerie. Too much of the scholarly writing on Tolkien borders on hagiographical in my opinion.
One of the problems that defenders of Tolkien’s political vision face is that it’s theoretically sympathetic to fascism – that is, his writing presents an authoritarian leader willing to make hard choices, preferably a monarch, as a good form of governance. This opens the possibility that his problems with Hitler were primarily about his suitability for the role of leader, rather than the political architecture of fascism. One of the common claims made in defense of Tolkien’s writing is that it’s a fantasy unrepresentative of his political vision for the real world. That perspective on his writing is more difficult to sustain when there is written evidence of his support for Franco…
April 27, 2015 at 7:06 pm
I think Tolkien is nostalgic for a world of simple pleasures and acknowledged hierarchies (beer and peasants), but nowhere near fascism. Fascism is corporatist (people as cogs in the mighty machine), sees violent struggle as a virtuous end and is self-consciously imperialist. It has no time for simple pleasures other than those found outside British pubs on Saturday nights.
April 27, 2015 at 10:45 pm
That’s as may be Peter but I can see in Tolkien’s writings a softness for authoritarian leadership that in his time and place was filled by autocrats and fascists – and Franco particularly steeped his leadership in catholic and monarchic imagery. I can see the appeal to someone who wants an acknowledged heirarchy with a bit more gravitas than a beer-hall putsch. I wonder if his vision of Orcs derived from anti-communist roots?
April 28, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Well, one thing that pissed me off in the film was the decision of the ents to go to war against Saruman. In the book, it’s a decision arrived at after considerable debate in a general meeting; in the film it’s a GW Bush trick. There’s a world of difference between legitimate leadership (however arrived at) and authoritarianism. Which is not to deny he seems to have had a soft spot for Franco (who cunningly never settled on any one source of authority – sometimes he was a fascist caudillo, sometimes a Catholic leader under the monarch, sometimes a simple general called to service a la the juntas of resistance against Napoleon….)
April 30, 2015 at 7:54 am
Faustus, I don’t know about the scholarly writing on Tolkien, certainly the web is full of people who seem to have a problem reconciling their love for a book, some of the themes in it, and the political views of its author. I couldn’t be in that group even if I didn’t recognise the fascistoid overtones of The Lord of the Rings or didn’t know that Tolkien was a fan of a bloodthirsty dictator, for I don’t really enjoy the books anymore. This I discovered only recently when, many years since my teens, I decided to go through them for the fourth time. That I don’t feel engaged with the story anymore is perhaps not extremely surprising. What really called my attention were some of the things that I had not picked up on my previous, now distant readings; incidentally, it was by reflecting on and searching information about these issues that I ended up here.
Nevermind the fact that Sauron wants to conquer it, the Middle Earth is a truly awful place, where you are nobody unless you are the son of somebody, and those somebodies will not miss an opportunity to remind you of your place in the world. The extent to which Tolkien highlights the gap in pedigree between even main characters reaches comical levels when Boromir’s sword is gratuitously described as similar to Aragorn’s, but of “less lineage”. See, I get it that he is not the heir of the throne, but surely he could afford himself a pretty decent blade from the arms depot in Minas Tirith. I understand that we are talking about an ancient artifact, the point here is the ever present stench of hierarchies and classes tied to races, blood and surnames. We do not get to see people toiling in the book, but toil they must considering the medieval technology and political arrangements of that universe. What we get instead is ad nauseum longing for the past, when the greatest and wisest lords kept everything in place, well before the material and moral decay of the current days. A very partial revival of those times will be realised through, of course, a bloody war. War that seems to have pretty salutary benefits. The king of the horsemen could hardly walk until he was convinced to take his sword again, and his servants are jubilant when they see their master rejuvenated in battling mood. Even trees (!) who had been mostly sleeping for hundreds of years find renewed energy and motivation in giving themselves to savage acts of violence and revenge. You would be excused for thinking it is a great party these characters are going to. Thankfully, from time to time Tolkien reminds readers that the hours are sombre…by saying so. Even Legolas of the wise race gets carried away; upon hearing no news of Gimli’s whereabouts in the midst of the battle his lament is not for his safety, but for the impossibility to update him on his personal head count.
Glorification of war and associated imagery, reverence for traditional hierarchies, purity of race, the rebirth of the old nation, exaltation of personal strength, power and authority…There is a reason why The Lord of the Rings is popular in some fascist circles, and not so in any particular way in the pub.
—
By the way, I found quite interesting in the following article the suggestion to consider The Lord of the Rings as a story told by the winner side (a possibility apparently explored in the non-authorised derivative work The Last Ringbearer, which I have not read):
http://www.salon.com/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/
April 30, 2015 at 8:31 am
“highlights the gap in pedigree”
“Boromir’s sword is gratuitously described as similar to Aragorn’s, but of “less lineage”. See, I get it that he is not the heir of the throne, but surely he could afford himself a pretty decent blade from the arms depot in Minas Tirith.”
I don’t see the sword’s lesser pedigree as aligning with the class based power levels of the characters [1]. It’s a different trope bemoaning how things used to be better but that the modern age has lost. It’s totally anti-progressive thought and given the constant moaning about how things can only get worse (i.e. Elves can only die/leave, Gondor will never be Numenor) it actually makes conservative thought look progressive in that conservative thought at least allows for the possibility of controlled progress!
[1] It is funny that in high fantasy how good you are at fighting appears to have bugger all to do with hard work and a total correlation with who your Dad was. “Orphan son of a dead king by a random lady? Better keep him away from the butter knives as he’s bound to be deadly with them! Worked as a soldier for 10 years training ceaselessly? Yeah, he’s probably OK.” And don’t get me started on Elves.
April 30, 2015 at 12:27 pm
Paul, I think the Pratchett story Guards! Guards! was a piss-take on that theme, though my memory could be wrong. I guess it’s natural that in a magical world being born rich (which offers temporal and physical benefits in our world) should also offer additional supernatural benefits. I recall reading a series of novels a few years ago (name forgotten) where this was made explicit: the magic guild was only for the children of the wealthy, and the lead character was exceptional for being allowed in despite a low class. This really pissed me off about the Harry Potter novels too, because despite being set in the modern world they repeat this trope. Harry isn’t born rich, but the lightning mark on his forehead gets him all sorts of benefits and the person most obviously born poor but who achieves through striving (Hermione) is constantly missing the glory she deserves.
Josec for me the thing I think that started me on this path of looking in more depth at Tolkien’s racial theories was the movies, because the visual depiction of his themes was so striking and made it so obvious that it made me want to dig around in more depth into what he was up to. I guess before then I was vaguely aware of it but the movies really made me notice. I think when the first movie came out I reread one or more of the books and it really stood out, along with some of the worse decisions that Tolkien made about plot and placement – I remember reading the appendix to The Return of the King and being impressed by the movie scriptwriters’ decision to move Elrond’s speech to Arwen into the body of the movie, because it’s surely one of Tolkien’s best moments.
Peter T, I have a vague memory that Pippin and Merry convinced the Ents to go to war through an argument to defend their forests, in which case Pippin’s(?) trick in the movie is not so far divorced from the story, though annoying. Also it’s not a George Bush trick – a George Bush trick would be to give a shoddy CGI video of trees being cut down that Merry had downloaded from the internet, when in fact Saruman was safely bottled up in his tower with no weapons of any kind, doing no damage to the forest.
For the record I hate Ents, I think the whole episode with the Ents is really childish and stupid, and the movie really made clear to me that while Ents might be a good idea in your imagination as an opponent for evil adventurers in a schlock D&D adventure, they’re actually a really really stupid monster that should never be deployed. Why not just make them forest giants? Grrr.
April 30, 2015 at 12:34 pm
Also re: Paul’s comment about “it makes conservative thought look progressive,” I don’t know much about mainstream conservative thought of the time but I think I agree. For example Churchill, a classic British conservative, was a very forward-looking big-government science-funding kind of guy, and as I pondered in this post after a visit to the Science Museum in London, I’m intrigued as to how it is that the modern conservative movement could have become so reactionary in this regard.
This is also another way in which Tolkien was quite far removed from fascism: while the European fascists were at the vanguard of thought on how technology could shape humanity (and e.g. the Italian fascists were deeply involved in futurism), Tolkien was harking back to a romantic vision of agrarian monarchism. Sure, the Nazis would deploy this old-fashioned bucolic agrarianism on occasion but they were really deeply opposed to it in practice, and really only were interested in it as a rhetorical veneer to lay over a very “progressive” scientific establishment that wasn’t going to be held back by anything as old-fashioned as morality, environmentalism or mysticism. I wonder if this is another way in which Franco appealed to Tolkien more than the other fascists – he didn’t develop Spain the same way as the Germans and Italians, and was fighting to restore a kind of backward feudal agrarian heirarchy.
May 2, 2015 at 10:27 am
Faustus
Have to say that your memory is wrong. The ents are upset because Saruman is cutting down the forest, but divided on how to respond. Pippin and Merry bring the news that Saruman has allied with Sauron, the ents debate and then decide to go to war one last time. In the movie, they decide against war, then see Pippin persuades Fangorn to take the road via the destroyed forest, he is outraged and calls all ents to arms.
re Franco – he was a horrible dictator, but he covered many of his crimes with a veneer of Catholic conservatism and traditional royalism. Since Tolkien was well in with both these currents, he probably gave the guy much more latitude than he should.
October 26, 2015 at 5:31 am
Good piece and interesting discussion. I share this difficult relationship with Tolkien: I was read ‘The Hobbit’ and LotR in installments as a bedtime story when I was a child and spent a lot of my childhood drawing the maps & c. I loved the mythological underpinnings (by 9 I was reading translations of Icelandic sagas for fun) – but as I grew up, and became more aware of the politics of Tolkien’s work, I could not accept the world-view, despite my love of the world-building.
<blockquote. I wonder if this is another way in which Franco appealed to Tolkien more than the other fascists – he didn’t develop Spain the same way as the Germans and Italians, and was fighting to restore a kind of backward feudal agrarian heirarchy.
Exactly that. Clericofascism as opposed to ‘modernist’ fascism. At the end of the day, as his views on Spain reveal, he sympathised with people who killed Federico Garcia Lorca, and who would have killed people like me. He believed in absolute monarchy/divine right of kings. His women are idealised figures on pedestals. He took the Norman Conquest and the Reformation as personal insults.
December 26, 2015 at 9:00 pm
A long article about “Tolkien’s Racial Theories” and the author admits in the first paragraph that he doesn’t have access to any of Tolkien’s writings. People are expected to pay attention to this? It is typing for the sake of it.
December 26, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Then it should be terribly easy to show where I’m wrong, based on citations from the writings I don’t have access to. I think you can’t – you’ll even note I’ve cited Tolkien quite a bit in this series, if you’ve bothered to read what I typed “for the sake of it”. Have at it.
June 14, 2016 at 5:19 pm
well let’s see:
1.elves are the ruling class: nobility, kings,etc
2. humans are the army
3. mages are the priesthood
4. dwarfs are the craftsmen. Note that even if they have several occupations like mining and banking in some cases their main activity is building things. Most weapons and tools from middle-earth are created by the dwarfs.
5. hobbits are the farmers. Some are landlords while other are bondmen. bondmen are apparently free but bound to the land. They need to provide a certain quota each year to the landlord regardless if it was a good year or a bad year for the crops. This made them have a life at the edge of survival.
But how about the orcs? We now nothing about the orcs except how they are seen by the elves. Also the fights between the class system led by elves and the orcs are almost never initiated by the orcs. It is clear to me that the army lead by the elves occupied a big part of the land previously belonging to the orcs and now the orcs want it back. Think at orcs as tolkien’s version of Spartacus.
June 29, 2016 at 11:03 pm
[…] Hobbit so that you could see what it was that we were trying to work through. And probably some of Tolkien’s writings on race and imperialism and stuff […]
August 13, 2016 at 2:13 am
Oh, yeah… Final paragraph of your essay. Tolkien was the man of his time. Which means – he was racist. And he had the centuries of mythology as very, very strong support. That’s all right. The problem is when you westerners are trying to make Tolkien acceptable for your “liberal” values. Even bigger problem is that you can’t really find foundation of your liberalism. It would be nice if Tolkien could act as the one, but it wouldn’t work. Instead, Tolkien reminds you how hollow and shallow is your “current mainstream”. So, either you’re building this much needed foundation, I’m doubtful, either your chant of today is just a trick of corporative propaganda. I strongly dislike racism, and would like to consider myself a liberal, not for sake of the political correctness or propaganda. Yet, it’s easy to say and hard to achieve. And I’m sure that I can’t take Toliken books with me as an aid. Tolkien waits, at least, his William Boyd.
August 13, 2016 at 7:53 pm
Thanks for your comment Antonio. I think it’s normal for people to want to reconcile a book that is dear to their hearts with whatever political philosophy they follow – I’m sure that there are Marxists out there who want to somehow pretend that Tolkien wasn’t a monarchist, just as there are likely fascists who love Mieville’s work and want to somehow overlook the strong commitment to racial miscegenation in those books (dude fucks an insect-woman! That’s surely a hanging offence!) I hope I don’t give the impression that I’m trying to make Tolkien a foundation for liberalism, because that would just never work. Rather, I would like the fantasy genre to be more of an ally of liberalism than it is, and I think it can’t engage with liberalism as a political force (or any other political movement of the past 50 years, probably!) until it ditches the conservatism of High Fantasy. As I said above, science fiction allows a wide range of possible political positions and has a rich depth of political critique in it, whereas high fantasy allows one political tradition and no political critique at all. Since I wrote this post I have done a whole series of posts on fantasy gaming and post scarcity, and I would really like to see the genre open up more to explore all the possibilities it offers. I don’t think it will while people worship at the altar of Tolkien.
January 20, 2017 at 12:43 pm
Regarding that quote about the fallen Haradrim man that Sam saw…you clearly cut that quote short on purpose; the rest of that passage hurts your thesis, I think.
January 21, 2017 at 9:55 am
Michael that quote is intended to show that the Haradrim were envisaged as black. If you think there is a context I have missed which clearly shows they are white, please present it.
May 13, 2017 at 3:52 am
Personally I see nothing racist in any Tolkien’s work, be it The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings (and appendices), The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales or other texts he wrote. Case of Orcs, the hilariously brought up fragment of letter describes their looks as ‘degraded versions’ but nobody seems to notice that it’s not stated here that Orcs ARE Mongols, Tolkien simply states how they are to look like if we are to imagine them but they’re not one to one comparison of any real culture or race. They are evil so what, as even Tolkien points out they are not worse than any human in real life were.
“…Orcs – who are fundamentally a race of ‘rational incarnate’ creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today.”
In fact interestingly one character in book is mentioned as “more cruel than any Orc” and it was a Man (precisely a Black Numenorean who most likely is fair skinned 🙂 🙂 :)), but more seriously within context of the story and it’s fictional world, we know WHY Orcs are evil, because they are artificial creatures designed and bred for being what they are, they were made by corrupting preexisting beings.
I find it all as exaggeration or simply oversensitive thinking on the part of the audience. I enjoy the work of fiction for it’s merits alone, whether they have good engaging story. I’m baffled by all those accusations of racism, classism, sexism or whatever other ‘-ism’ (or even that story propagates war, hehe, it’s actually one that preaches pacifism if to go by Frodo’s case) one can find, what’s the point in that? I see nothing wrong with Tolkien’s stories in fact they propagate some good values, if you do see something ‘bad’ then it’s your opinion, in the ‘eye of the beholder’ so to speak. The author’s opinions and views and his personal favourite topics may affect the story he writes and he does not have to appeal to anyone in particular, it’s his freedom to write what he wants after all. Also it’s worth mentioning that curiously Tolkien points out in one letter that what characters in story say, do or believe in, it’s not necessarily what author believes in, the quote goes like that:
“Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand.”
Here in context of statements given by Treebeard in story, that some readers assumed were views of author and one asked about in letter, but as Tolkien also points out he dislikes allegory, there is some as he called it, applicability but the story itself is not supposed to be allegory of real life events.
Also when it comes to bringing up Tolkien’s political views, he wrote in another letter:
“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.”
May 15, 2017 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for commenting fantasywind and for some nice quotes from Tolkien. Unfortunately though the author’s intent doesn’t change whether the content is racist.
November 27, 2017 at 2:20 am
“Incidentally, the Office of National Statistics in the UK has used a standard classification of five social classes since 1911, and since 1911 professors have been in social class 1: the top class. So take up your dispute about “upper class” with the Chief Statistician”
My understanding is that the highest of the ONS’s 5 social classes is the “upper middle class”, not the upper class. And that makes sense given that they’re measuring class by occupation – the landowning aristocracy the earlier commenter mentioned have no occupation. This is what we traditionally think of as the “upper class”.
November 27, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Thanks for your comment, A. My invocation of the ONS classification was a response to Noism’s attempt to deny Tolkien’s class background, and I should point out that strictly speaking the ONS does not assign class grades (upper, lower or in between) to its classifications – it’s just obvious from the class Tolkien was in (professional) that it is an upper class position. Your understanding of the ONS’s 5 social classes is wrong, since they don’t refer to any “upper middle class” at all. But we don’t need to ask the Chief Statistician, here’s Tolkien describing his upbringing from the age of 12 (this from Wikipedia), regarding his guardian:
Before he was assigned to his guardian, we learn that his family cut off financial support to his mother when she converted to Catholicism. It’s unlikely that he wasn’t from an upper class background if his family were able to support his mother without her working. But he clarifies the point himself about his own childhood, then of course grows up to become a professor. This has nothing to do with social mobility or him coming from a lower class family and somehow breaking into academia. It’s also, as I keep trying to say, irrelevant because I’m not trying to infer the content of Tolkien’s soul – that is the exclusive province of those who think they can defend his work by calling on his personal history and opinions.