Today I discovered an interesting interview with one Stephen Shapiro, University of Warwick, which was conducted in 2003 by the German Tolkien fanclub (at least I assume that’s what it is). At that time it would appear he had been working on a research theme similar to that which I’ve gathered here and here, about whether Tolkien is racist, racialist, or vulnerable to interpretation as such. The interview contains support for the claims I’ve made before about how Tolkien can be read, and contains some interesting information I hadn’t previously found about the way in which Tolkien is used by the far right in Europe[1]. The interview came out in 2003 and is, I think, a bit unfair on Peter Jackson – I think Shapiro has a very uncharitable reading of the poster advertising The Two Towers.  I’m no film critic so I can’t say anything about the claim that

In visual terms, there are also uncanny references to both Leni Riefenstahl and DW Griffiths’s Birth of a Nation, the film that celebrated the Ku Klux Klan.

If so, that’s a bit disappointing, but it’s also maybe not unexpected – Leni Riefenstahl is supposed to have done revolutionary stuff, isn’t she?

Shapiro also suggests that Jackson’s film could have been tolerably done in a more multi-racial fashion, and says

For Jackson’s part, he gives viewers too little credit, since many contemporary fans in the “fantasy and role-playing community” of games like Dungeons and Dragons and Everquest often encourage players to avoid racial stereotypes in their games, Jackson makes no concession to ethnic heterogeneity and often seems not to have considered if a non-white viewer would feel that her or his dignity had been degraded by the film’s representations.

I don’t know if I agree with this – D&D et al are games which, while they superficially “avoid racial stereotypes,” tend to also err strongly on the side of making the protagonist white[2]. Also, these games strongly encourage racialism, and I’m not sure that racialism is compatible with “avoid racial stereotypes.”

Shapiro also states that he is aware of someone else (internet link now dead) who claims to have proof that Tolkien subscribed for 20 years to an extremely right-wing, racist magazine called the League for Empire Loyalists. I don’t think this claim can be tested from the comfort of my armchair, so I’d like to add that I know someone whose dog has eaten someone’s homework, and on that homework it was clearly written that Tolkien was a member of NAMBLA.

There is s sizable section of this interview which backs up my earlier evidence about how Tolkien is used by the far right. For example, the Heathen Front (some kind of long-since collapsed British organisation of right wing “volkists”) admired him as “racialist”, and he was also extremely popular on the far right in Italy. One far right movement even ran paramilitary youth groups called “camp Hobbits”, and infiltrated the Italian Tolkien Society in the 80s. The modern Italian far right developed from a rump movement that survived Mussolini, but it developed along very different lines – it eschewed the modernist futurism of pre-war fascism and instead developed a philosophy based on sacred fascism, in which a traditional and a modern world view are in constant conflict, with the traditional worldview slowly decaying but then reasserting itself. This decay is associated with a decline due to racial mixing and loss of religious strength. This ideology of the “sacred Right” is consistent with the themes in Tolkien’s work, and is a very common view across much modern extreme right thought – David Duke espouses it, it’s crawled all across the pages of Stormfront and the other far right websites[4], and the people who are closest associated with it also seem very likely to be Tolkien admirers. The links between the spiritual fathers of modern Italian fascism and Tolkien are well described in this essay, which also points out that modern fascism is now so diverse that it is difficult to ascribe it a single guiding philosophy or even to define it clearly as “fascism” anymore.

I think that had Tolkien’s work been popular in the ’30s it would probably not have been popular with the Italian fascists, who were much more into futurism and total war than they were into romantic recreation of bucolic rural utopias. It might have influenced those who wanted religious re-development under the regimes, but these people were never popular with their leaders[5].  Had it been associated with Fascism then I doubt it would be very popular now, either, so it’s all round good luck for us that he published just a tad late. But I think in the post-war age there are clear parallels between the mythology and cultural history of the Lord of the Rings and the tale of cultural decline and racial mixing which the modern far Right want to tell. It’s not a coincidence, because like his fellow fantasy authors (and pretty much all of the white world) in the pre-war era, Tolkien believed in the Aryan mythology, the now-discredited model of Aryan archaeology, eugenics and the dangers of racial mixing; and he was, apparently, on the right-wing of British literary activity. Because he wrote such a detailed, lyrical and evocative world based around these ideals, he has become the literary standard for those elements of the modern far right who subscribe to the same mythology. I think he would probably see a lot of things in the modern far Right of which he would approve, but I think he would also see a lot (particularly in Berlusconi’s Italy) that horrifies him, and I think it highly unlikely that he would ever have supported the goals or politics of any fascist organisations in the 20th or 21st centuries. But his writing supports their ideals and he has been used shamelessly to reinvigorate their cultural background in the last 20 years[6]. Given the influence of Tolkien on role-playing and the fantasy world today, I think it’s fair to say that role-playing has a cultural heritage in these fascist ideals, and the closer one hews to the work of the pre-war canon that was steeped in them, the closer this heritage is to one’s game.

I don’t wish to draw too many conclusions about what this says about people like me who enjoy playing in these worlds. Some choices:

  1. It’s actually really easy to sterilise artistic work of nasty meaning if you like the work itself
  2. Good literary work can transcend even very powerful politically objectionable ideals (Nabokov, anyone?)
  3. The reader’s intentions and goals are much more important in the interpretation of the work than even the most blatant political intent on the part of the author[7]
  4. I’m an outrageous fascist who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes

I do think, though, that there must be some extent to which this racialisation in standard fantasy and role-playing has to make it seem exclusionary to non-white readers. Even if 1) were true, some proportion of non-white readers who would otherwise enjoy the work must be put off by their obvious placement on the wrong side of the story in the pre-war canon (and by extension, much of the post-war canon). I wonder how many role-players in the creation of their own worlds unconsciously move away from the outright racialism in the early work, or subvert it in some way. I know I have done by, for example, making Orcs noble (I did this long before I knew about this critique of Tolkien) or by making Elves fascist (in my 4th Age Middle Earth Campaign)[8]. But it’s really hard to preserve D&D in any original sense without keeping the racialism, and I think this must be a turn-off for some people, and I would guess particularly for non-white readers who are perhaps more aware of the consequences of racialism than a lot of white readers are.

fn1: For those who don’t want to wade through all the other crap I’ve written on this, I should point out that although I think the association of LoTR with the far right is evidence that it is easy to read as racist, I don’t take it as evidence that Tolkien was racist and I don’t care if he was[3]

fn2: There is a whole literature and 15 years of internet debate over whether making your protagonists white is a sign that you, your story, your game, or your movie, is racist. I think that it’s better if, where race is an explicit motif, the races in question are inclusive. I don’t think in early D&D they are. I don’t take this to mean Gygax (or anyone else) was racist

fn3: In the sense that, I think it’s bad to be racist, and I think it’s bad if a book sets out to tell a racist story, but it doesn’t change my appreciation of all the other appreciable elements of the book. And I think it’s interesting to investigate the politics of a book and of its writer, but that doesn’t mean I think every book should be PC, etc. blah blah, insert other ritualistic disclaimers about not being a killjoy here.

fn4: As ever, I’m not going to link to these sites, because they’re evil and I don’t want them coming here!

fn5: Am I the only person who thinks it highly suspicious that “hyperborea” and “hyborea” sound very, very similar? I might have to investigate Howard, who wrote “The ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiquity gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme fighting man of the earth.”

fn6: It’s worth bearing in mind that after a movement engages in the level of monumental fail that the fascist movement fell to, they need some serious help reinvigorating, and a completely new ideological direction. It’s a miracle really that they’ve managed to survive in any way, shape or form and I’m sure any kind of long-term survival depends on their finding a new ideological basis.

fn7: Again, I’m not saying here that fascism was Tolkien’s intent. It’s worth noting that Orwell is consistently misused too, and loved by people on the right, even though he’s obviously a ferociously left-wing writer

fn8: This is really piss-poor subversion, because it doesn’t change the inherent racial essentialism of the framework, just reverses who gets what trait. Is this better? I would argue not… it’s just fun. I think Stephen Donaldson may be a good example of a popular canonical fantasy writer who screwed with the racial essentialism in the most obvious way – by writing a recognisable fantasy world mostly devoid of racial structures.

Posted in , , , , ,

26 responses to “The use of Tolkien to defend fascism”

  1. Tom Fitzgerald Avatar

    “Tolkien believed in the Aryan mythology, the now-discredited model of Aryan archaeology, eugenics and the dangers of racial mixing; and he was, apparently, on the right-wing of British literary activity. Because he wrote such a detailed, lyrical and evocative world based around these ideals, he has become the literary standard for those elements of the modern far right who subscribe to the same mythology.”

    What evidence do you have for this? This does not sound like the Tolkien who was appalled by Nazi ideology.

  2. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    which part of this paragraph do you want evidence for?

    “Tolkien believe din the Aryan mythology”: this is clear in the famous letter of response to the Nazi publisher, in which he makes clear his knowledge of Aryan history and his agreement with its general principles. He also indicates a view in this letter that he agrees with ideas about racial traits (he would be honoured to have the blood of the superior jew in his heritage).

    “he was… on the right of British literary activity”: see the linked article

    “he has become the literary standard for those elements of the modern far right who subscribe to the same mythology”: I’ve put up multiple links on this and other posts in support of this, that I don’t think need repeating here.

    It’s worth remembering (and I think I’ve said this before) that

    a) It’s almost impossible for a senior academic at a prestigious university in inter-war Britain to not have been a supporter of eugenics, aryan history and racial ideology
    b) Tolkien was from South Africa, and at that time in history the southern hemisphere nations were enacting eugenic policy on a national level, which indicates it was a normal part of political and academic discourse in the world he grew up in
    c) Being an adherent of these theories in the inter-war period does not make you a nazi or a nazi sympathiser. Churchill abhorred nazism but he subscribed to horrible racist views and famously opposed universal suffrage, for example. The nazis were an exterminationist and radical offshoot of a political view that was common throughout Europe and the Empire at that time

    I don’t think the claim I’m making is controversial or surprising.

  3. Tom Fitzgerald Avatar

    It’s predominantly the idea that Tolkien created a world based on those ideals that I take issue with. I am inclined to believe that there is no equivalency between Aryan and elvish, that Tolkien’s mythology was explicitly Christian i.e. the blood that ennobles the Dunedain comes from the high elves who saw the light of Valinor/Heaven. This has nothing at all to do with any real racial group.

    Tolkien was aware that his work was a work of fiction and, of course, deplored allegory and would, I think, have deplored this kind of attribution of real-world political motivations to his work. I think anyone using Tolkien’s work to support an agenda would have offended the man.

  4. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I’m not claiming that Tolkien sat down at his writing desk with the intention of writing an explicitly racialist book, but the work is dripping with racial essentialism, and eugenic and racial ideals were heavy in peoples consciousness in the period he was writing, so I think he just translated his notions of history and race across to his new world. He was, after all, trying to inject a nordic mythological tone into the story, that was his interest, and at the time he wrote people interested in those things tended to have a strong attachment to this racialised view of history. It doesn’t have to be representing real races to be representing this history, though there are also some pretty clear racial parallels (the “good” people are white, the “bad” people black, etc.)

    There doesn’t have to be an equivalency between aryans and elves for the work to be based on racial ideology. There just has to be a distinct ideal of racial essentialism, and a notion of noble races weakening when they mix with lesser races [which is exactly what happened with the Numenoreans].

    Have you read my other posts on this? It’s really hard to believe that Tolkien could have written a story quite so strongly allegorical of the racial ideals extant at the time, entirely by accident.

  5. Paul Entwisle Avatar
    Paul Entwisle

    Just to check: Is this still the idea that if bad people read your work and then cite it in a way to support their bad ideas then you’re bad by association? Doesn’t that violate just about every human right concept? And could I get you to write a post on how, while you yourself are not a bad person, we should examine your work for racist overtones by going and putting a supportive post of your work on a dodgy website?

    That aside. Why do you associate species in LotR with races in real life? None of the LotR races are interfertile (barring divine intervention). I mean Beren literally had to come back from the dead before he married the elven princess…

    That said the Southern race treatment isn’t very kind, but equally it could be argued they’re not bad people they’re just slaves (which still puts Gondor as the heroic white men).

    Would you be happier if all species in LotR had a range of skin colours, but kept their essential characteristics? So Elves might be black or white, but they’re always 100% cooler than you. Orcs could be yellow or pink, but they’re always nameless evil scum without even the excuse of being a noteworthy bad guy…

  6. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    No no! Read footnote 1 etc. The idea is that if your work is consistently understood to contain a certain meaning, then maybe it contains that meaning. Not that the author believes the meaning that is consistently contained in the book. I don’t contend that Nabokov was a paedophile, for example.

    I’m taking its broad appeal to fascists and racists as a sign that its racist content hasn’t just been invented by a few PC leftists – it’s an enduring feature of the book that has been noticed positively by racists for a good 20-30 years, and that has to be a sign that the content of the book is racist.

    It certainly doesn’t mean that the author is racist and it could be that all those fascists are mistaken and there genuinely isn’t any racist content in the book. But it’s not looking likely given the diversity and longevity of the appeal that racists see in the work.

    I could not possibly be happier if this book were any different. But it would be less racist if the characteristics of the races were not so clearly defined. e.g. make all the elves white as the driven snow, but give them the same range of moral characeristics as orcs. i.e. remove the racial essentialism.

    Of course if you did that it wouldn’t be LoTR anymore, and that’s my point – LoTR contains a racist ideology, racist enough to be popular with Nazis.

  7. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    and yes, Paul, if I was consistently cited over 30 years by racists in several countries, including people who wanted to turn my work into a study text for young nazis, then it would probably be safe to say that my work contained racist ideals.

  8. Paul Entwisle Avatar
    Paul Entwisle

    “and yes, Paul, if I was consistently cited over 30 years by racists in several countries, including people who wanted to turn my work into a study text for young nazis, then it would probably be safe to say that my work contained racist ideals.”

    Can I check, theoretcally, if people consistently referenced a book for multiple conflicting messages then you wouldn’t say that the book is inherently promoting one message? An example is the Bible which (taken as a whole) could be (and is) read as a call to universal compassionor alternatively to more frequent gay smitings.

    The reason I’m asking this is I suspect that you’re finding easy use of the racist interpretations of Tolkien, but (as we’ve discussed) I actually find other messages that are far more prevelant, including racially positive interpretations based on the Fellowship needing different races to work together, or the marriage of Elrond’s parents (cross racial marriage produces overpowered supermen).

    I accept that I haven’t seen journal studies on these, nor seen multi-culturalism classes using the matrial, but I have heard other readers make similar statements about the series and I wonder if our failure to be as loud as racists means you assume that there is only one interpretation of the book instead of saying “People can get almost anything out of it…”

  9. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I definitely think that’s a message you can get from the book (in fact on the stormfront forums you can occasionally read Nazis complaining about this element of the book and how it “supports multiculturalism,” though they seem to be in the minority). You can also get messages about the importance of friendship, etc. I’m not saying that it’s a 1-dimensional fascist screed. Or a fascist screed at all. But I do think it’s got some pretty clear racialist and potentially racist messages in it, unsurprising given it’s provenance and of no relevance to its value as a story. My main reason for pointing this out is that a) it backs up prior claims I made about the conservatism of high fantasy [given a certain definition of conservatism that you and I are in never-ending dispute over] and b) it explains a lot of subsequent developments in the role-playing world, and maybe has some relevance to the whiteness of the role-playing, fantasy and heavy metal scenes. Also, of course, it’s interesting.

    I don’t take the bible as promoting a single message (I think most people agree it’s a mess), though it’s hard to get a message out of the old testament other than “destroy your enemies and hear the lamentation of their women.” But it’s generally believed to promote a “coherent” message of redemption through faith (several minor religions have been built up around it) so I think it’s safe to say based on the behaviour of its adherents that the message is in there somewhere – and lo! and behold! when you read it you find the message.

    Looking for messages in books is fun.

    Incidentally, I think there is no such thing as a “multi-culturalism” class (anymore than there is a fascist class), but Australian literature departments seem to be heavy with post-colonial studies, which do look for the multi-cultural and multi-racial themes in supposedly whitebread “canonical” texts, and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone hadn’t identified that in LoTR, as per your suggestion. The absence of multi-cultural/post-colonial references in that PhD thesis I’m simultaneously reading was very obvious to me, and a bit surprising given that it was about an American migrant to Canada and by a New Zealander. I suppose I haven’t paid much attention to it in LoTR because it’s so much a part of my cultural background (multiculturalism etc.) that I didn’t really notice it. Which is perhaps exactly what can be said about a lot of people reading LoTR and not noticing the racialism (which is still a very strong cultural trope in, for example, the UK).

  10. noisms Avatar

    Tolkien believed in the Aryan mythology, the now-discredited model of Aryan archaeology, eugenics and the dangers of racial mixing

    Firstly, citation needed.

    Secondly, you’re unfairly conflating two things here:

    1) The concept of the “Aryan race” (that modern day Indo-European language speakers constitute a race called the Aryans), which is a racially neutral proposition even if false, because the majority of Indo-Europeans/Aryans probably live in India. I’m not an expert on human genetics or anthropology, so I don’t know the merits and flaws of this theory in great depth, but there’s nothing racist about it.

    2) The now-discredited Nazi view that the Aryans are a superior race.

    Tolkien may well have believed in the former because it was a widely accepted theory at the time (it’s why the Nazis latched onto it, amongst many others), but he certainly didn’t believe in the latter.

  11. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    I’m basing this on the letter he wrote in response to the Nazi publisher. At the time he wrote it, as far as I understand, 1) and 2) were bound up together and inseparable. In that same letter Tolkien also makes it clear he thinks Jews are racially more intelligent. That’s also a meaningless and wrong racial theory that he believed in.

  12. Paul Entwisle Avatar
    Paul Entwisle

    “given a certain definition of conservatism that you and I are in never-ending dispute over”
    That’s only because your inherently a conservative holding onto outmodelled philosophies and I’m a radical whos aim is to tear down existing social structures and arguments through a combination of ridiculousness and selective deafness.

    “relevance to the whiteness of the role-playing, fantasy and heavy metal scenes.”
    Yeah, I think we’re always going to disagree on the reasons here. To me prevelance of a particular race in a story probably indicates that the author probably was that race. This is ignorance/blindness but it isn’t racism any more than a lesbian half black Welsh speaking woman failing to include alien life in her novel. Sure, it’d be an ommission of something due to a failure to perceive the missing ingredient but calling that racism goes too far.

    “But it’s generally believed to promote a “coherent” message of redemption through faith”
    You find that in the Bible? I can see it in the new testament, but the old testament’s message is clearly “Believe in me or I’ll come round and set your house on fire” with a side order of “My father in heaven is stronger than your dad”. But that’s what you get when lack editing fails to gel multiple authors work together.

  13. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    haha, schooled by the radical 🙂

    It’s not the prevalence of a particular race in these stories which I think might turn non-white people off gaming/fantasy/metal (though there is that, and I agree with you about the reasons for it). Rather, the racial essentialism probably seems a lot more odious to people who hear it about themselves in the negative in real life, and a lot less interesting to play. As opposed to, say, the goth scene, where the explicit whiteness of the scene (as in, white face paint) might actually be a turn off for some non-white people.

    I was only being charitable about the bible, of course. But you knew that.

  14. noisms Avatar

    I’m basing this on the letter he wrote in response to the Nazi publisher. At the time he wrote it, as far as I understand, 1) and 2) were bound up together and inseparable.

    Tolkien was a philologist, and moreover a professor of philology at Cambridge University. He was probably among the top dozen people in the world at that time who was qualified to know about linguistic development. The idea that he’d conflate the academic theory of an Aryan origin for the Indo-European peoples with vulgar “Aryanism” is absurd.

    Also, 1 and 2 were not bound up together and inseperable and never have been, except in the eyes of politicians. My Dictionary of Languages from 1999 still uses the term “Indo-Aryan” for the group of languages (including for example Farsi, Hindi and Bengali) spoken throughout Persia and Northern India.

    In that same letter Tolkien also makes it clear he thinks Jews are racially more intelligent. That’s also a meaningless and wrong racial theory that he believed in.

    That letter was pretty tongue-in-cheek. Even so, I think Tolkien was making the point that during his lifetime Jewish people (e.g. Einstein, Freud, Mahler, Kafka, etc.) were at the pinnacle of European intellectual life and clearly outshone, in this case, the achievements of the mythic superior Aryan German race.

  15. noisms Avatar

    Tolkien was of course professor of philology at Oxford. Duh.

  16. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    Tolkien was a philologist, and moreover a professor of philology at Cambridge University. He was probably among the top dozen people in the world at that time who was qualified to know about linguistic development. The idea that he’d conflate the academic theory of an Aryan origin for the Indo-European peoples with vulgar “Aryanism” is absurd.

    except that Aryanism wasn’t “vulgar” at the time, it was an important philosophical ideal in archaeology, genetics and, probably, philology. I rather doubt that as a top professor Tolkien would have been immune to it.

    With his comment about Jews, Tolkien may have been (rightly) commending their role in cultural life at the time; he was also implying it was heritable.

  17. noisms Avatar

    Except that Aryanism wasn’t “vulgar” at the time, it was an important philosophical ideal in archaeology, genetics and, probably, philology. I rather doubt that as a top professor Tolkien would have been immune to it.

    You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. There is a respectable, if perhaps outmoded, concept of an Aryan race of which all Indo-European language speakers are a part (leaving aside colonialism). This is a theory Tolkien was certainly aware of and may have believed in, as it was widely believed at the time. He may not have believed in it, because as a linguist he would have known that language and anthropology are not the same thing.

    Regardless, believing it is not the same as, and does not come close to, the Nazi understanding that Aryans are a race of supermen and that the closer somebody is to a pure Aryan the better they are, which is what I’m calling vulgar Aryanism. The Aryan Theory may be wrong but it is not racist; Aryanism is scientifically racist but is something Tolkien never espoused in any shape or form.

    With his comment about Jews, Tolkien may have been (rightly) commending their role in cultural life at the time; he was also implying it was heritable.

    In the way that parents pass on their culture to their young? I’d argue it’s heritable too.

  18. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    The Nazi understanding of Aryanism was simply an extreme version of a general racist view at the time that Aryans came from Europe/the North. I think you’re judging too much of what Tolkien might have known by what modern linguists know; and you’re underplaying the racial element of much of academic study at the time. If you’re not sure about the kind of racist environment in which these theories were developed, I suggest you look up the academic background for child removal in Australia at that time. The Empire was riddled with quite shocking racist genetic and linguistic ideals, passed straight down from academia; it’s unlikely Tolkien was above them.

    I’m interested that you claim to not care if fantasy is conservative; you even seem to think some conservatism is a good thing; you’re undoubtedly of the belief that books should be judged in the context of their time, not our modern morals; and you have previously stated that you don’t care about the politics of a good book or its author (escapism being your interest); yet you’re trying very very hard to rescue Tolkien from the politics of his time. Don’t you find this contradictory?

  19. noisms Avatar

    The Nazi understanding of Aryanism was simply an extreme version of a general racist view at the time that Aryans came from Europe/the North.

    It really isn’t that, and by talking about Aryans “coming from Europe/the North” you’re kind of revealing a bit of ignorance on the subject. The Aryans were believed to have come from Northern India or the Caucasus region; even Hitler seems to have believed this.

    The Nazi understanding of the theory was that the Aryans were a superior race to all the others. This is not the same as, or even a more extreme version, of the belief that there is or once was a race of people known as the “Aryans”.

    The Empire was riddled with quite shocking racist genetic and linguistic ideals, passed straight down from academia

    Tolkien voiced strong opposition to those ideals, and being born in South Africa he knew about them pretty well. Read his letters.

    I also suspect, from everything else I’ve read, that he was anti-Empire generally, though I’m not sure he ever said so publicly. But you only have to read his views on politics, tradition, religion and history to get a good idea of what he would have had to say.

    You’re trying very very hard to rescue Tolkien from the politics of his time.

    I’m trying to rescue him from unfair misinterpretations.

  20. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    No Noisms, I’m not revealing ignorance of the subject at all. The Aryan migration theory was a popular theory in the inter-war period which posited that the speakers of these languages came from Germany. You can check the wikipedia article for an outline. At the time it was supported by linguistic theory and was an important part of the eugenic theories which underpinned the behaviour of Imperial and European eugenicists at the time.

    There’s no misinterpretation going on here.

  21. noisms Avatar

    Shot down by wikipedia! I’d suggest you read it more carefully yourself, though. It’s really not the picture you’re painting.

    There’s no misinterpretation going on here.

    You’re right: Wikipedia says that Aryan migration theory = the Aryans came from Germany, QED Tolkien was a scientific racist! Are you going to deal with the fact that, er, he wasn’t? 😉

  22. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    He doesn’t have to be a scientific racist to be generally aware and supportive of the theory. I’m obviously not quoting wikipedia to say what you claim there, Mr. Misrepresentation. I’m just pointing out that the theory wasn’t, at that time, a harmless piece of philological taxonomy, but carried a lot of racist and imperialist baggage. And it was well supported at the time. If you look at what was being written then in Australia and New Zealand about indigenous people, you’ll see that scientific racism had a very strong hold on the establishment throughout the commonwealth.

    Do you seriously think that one got to be professor of anything cultural at Oxford university in the inter-war period by being Anti-Imperialist and rejecting the common cultural and racial ideals of the time? I doubt it’s even possible now, let alone then. As a South African he may have had a chip on his shoulder about the treatment of the Boers, just as Australians did about Gallipoli; but that would likely have been an objection to the politics of turn-of-the-century England, not the Empire itself.

    You really don’t need to rescue Tolkien from his time. It’s no big deal to admit that his work carries a racist legacy into role-playing. It’s just a matter of interest, really.

  23. Josh Avatar

    I’d just like to point out that the racist magazine in question was “Candour”, not the “League for Empire Loyalists” which was established by A.K. Chesterton, who also founded and edited “Candour”.

  24. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    Thanks for the comment Josh. How did you discover this magazine and Tolkien’s link to it? I would like to know more about it. And was Chesterton a racist? That’s a grave disappointment.

  25. shinjinspirit Avatar

    There are a number of unquestioned assumptions at play here, chief among them the (very modern) assumption that racism/racialism (the recognition of essential differences between racial groups) is somehow wrong, despite being universal throughout human history; and the assumption that the supposed “discrediting” of the Aryan racial theory was supported by evidence rather than motivated by modern sociopolitics in the aftermath of WW2. The “bought-and-paid-for” academic establishment have done a good job of convincing people that language is historically unconnected with racial group, at least in the case of Aryans/ Indo-Europeans, despite clear evidence to the contrary right before our eyes wherever we look: after all, Semitic peoples in Semitic lands speak Semitic languages, African peoples in African lands speak African languages, Asian people in Asian lands speak Asian languages, and Polynesian people in Polynesian lands speak Polynesian languages… but the people who speak Aryan (Indo-European) languages are *not* Aryans in Aryan lands, good lord, no, how laughable! The bottom line is, the Aryan “theory” makes sense linguistically, historically, sociologically and racially, and there is no evidence to discredit it that cannot be otherwise explained. The concerted and blatant effort to deprive the European Aryans of their identity and history, and negate their close kinship with their brothers in India and Iran, is so focused and insistent, it makes one wonder exactly what the motivation is. You guys have obviously swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  26. faustusnotes Avatar
    faustusnotes

    Shinjinspirit, I think that one of those assumptions has gone far from unquestioned here. But I’m happy to continue with my assumption that “racism/racialism … is somehow wrong, despite being universal throughout human history” because, well, it’s wrong. Here I’m not talking about identified minor differences between races, such as size or running prowess or whatever, but moral differences. The idea that moral differences are racially essential is a very, very dangerous and evil idea, and it has not necessarily been “universal throughout human history.” The smallest and most obvious example of this is the revolution in anti-semitism that happened when the Nazis cottoned on to racial essentialism. Before the Nazi era, there was widespread anti-semitism in Europe but it was generally founded on the idea that Jewish religion and culture was alien, but could be neutralized through conversion: Jews who converted to christianity were no longer seen as a threat. But with the turn-of-the-century injection of racialism into German racist theories, anti-semitism came to be seen as a biological trait of the Jewish “race.” The natural consequence of this for a movement like Nazism was obvious: only through extermination could Germany be saved from Jewish evil. This idea was also applied to the Soviet Union (the Russians were seen as a lesser race, mixed in with Jewish blood and corrupted by Jewish politics) and the Slavs, who were seen as inferior and used as slaves. This is the consequence of racialism when it is applied to moral traits, and it is clearly wrong. It’s not an assumption I think many people here are interested in challenging, and that’s why the debate has raged over whether or not LoTR supports this theory.

    Now, I have a suspicion you’re less interested in talking about the books than you are in defending racism as a concept, but I’ll just add (since that’s what the thread’s about): the books themselves make it clear that racially essential morality is a bad thing, since the presence of a race that propagates its evil biologically and cannot be redeemed leads to war, and the corruption of the better races (e.g. the Dunedain) through inter-breeding. As Noisms likes to remind me, Tolkien even said that the corruption of the Orcs was Morgoth’s greatest crime. So even if you, personally, must cling to the idea that it’s okay to say that black people are evil, perhaps you can set aside your enlightened views for the period of your presence in this thread, and discuss the book’s particular take on racism?

    The second “assumption” – that the Aryan racial theory is discredited – has been debated over these threads, but the idea that it was discredited due to modern sociopolitics is ludicrous. It was discredited because there was and still is no evidence to support it. The underlying goal of the theory – to identify the origins of the indo-European languages – and the existence of an Indo-European language group are not disputed or seen in any bad light. What was wrong about the Aryan racial theory was its postulation (without evidence) of a culturally superior white race that brought the languages to India, along with culture, and then was corrupted by inter-breeding with the darker locals. I think you’re another person who doesn’t understand what the theory is or why it is wrong.

    Your last point is just risible. You say that language is historically connected with racial group and then give as your example

    African peoples in African lands speak African languages, Asian people in Asian lands speak Asian languages

    Do you know how many different racial groups and languages there are in these places? Do you know the difference between the “Asian” languages of Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese, and can you explain why people who are very racially similar manage to somehow live right next to each other speaking these languages? Maybe you think that the Japanese are an entirely separate racial group to the Chinese? Your theory falls apart in just the Indonesian archipelago, where Indonesians speak Chinese and Chinese descended “Asians” speak bahasa (or a range of local dialects). Try applying it to anywhere in China or India and see how long your theory holds up – and that’s without considering how ludicrous it is to talk about “African peoples” or “African languages.” I don’t think you’ll find much support for the idea of language as racially linked, and no this is not a “concerted and blatant effort to deprive European Aryans of their identity and history,” it’s a simple recognition of reality.

    Your comment starts with a defense of racial essentialism as it is portrayed in the LoTR, proceeds through a defense of the Aryan racial theory and ends with a discredited theory of linguistics and race that Tolkien himself is believed to have held – based on highly simplistic, colonial-era notions of race. And all of this in a debate about whether Tolkien is being used to defend fascism. It’s like you popped up here to argue my case by example.

Leave a comment