"The Lord of the Rings" is racist warmongering propaganda!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
haven't read the article, but I'm going to agree because I hear way too much about LOTR anyway
 
speedracer said:
So say one writer for The Guardian and another for The New York Times.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg010303.asp

Sigh.


here's the $ quote from NR...


...One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people ? like me ? who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, "Cool, Orcs!" On the other hand we have people, like Mr. Yatt, who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim "black people!"


what are the links to the guardian and times?
 
Boy, if Trent Lott ever admitted to reading The Lord of the Rings, he would be kicked out of the Senate.

Same arguments were raised for Star Wars I and II. Jar Jar nonsense aside, many different characters were deemed offensive to one group or another.
 
us3 said:



...One is tempted to ask who is the real racist here? On the one hand we have people ? like me ? who see horrific, flesh-eating, dull-witted creatures with jagged feral teeth, venomous mouths, pointed devilish ears, and reptilian skin, and say, "Cool, Orcs!" On the other hand we have people, like Mr. Yatt, who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim "black people!"



wow....:|
 
Give me a freaking break.

Hmmm...yes, completely racist, considering the (original) fellowship is made up of: a wizard, 4 hobbits, a dwarf, an elf and two men. 5 different races, working together for the common good and the good of the world.

That money quote completely nails it.
 
I would say that any "racist warmongering" is purely incidental. In the realm of ideological criticism, we simply reflect our culture, consciously or subconsciously. From a 2003 perspective, what LOTR says could be interpreted as culturally repugnant, but that is perhaps because that we, as a culture, are different than Tolkien's cultural background. I think that the above reviews simply take it way out of proportion.

Melon
 
yes and billairds is racist because it's the job of the white ball to drive all the other colors off the table and it ends when the white ball drives the black ball off the table
 
The article exposes the intensely ignorant (and illiterate) perspective of the author.

Tolkien's epic was an affirmation of the importance of the Earth, against the 'industrialization' and destruction of the world, the danger of the destruction of pluralism and a basic battle for survival when Sauron's dark forces choose to wipe out all of humanity.

Not 'warmongering'. This article is pure nonsense.

Ant.
 
though i dont think it is, it might be worthy to mention that klu klux klan folk love this movie like none other.

even more than the iron eagle movies!
 
The fellowship is made up of hobbits, men, dwarf, wizard, elf...but how come they're all white? I don't think Lord of the Rings sets out to be racist, after all, Saruman is white too. It just doesn't really include any, ummm, beings with human characteristics, that aren't white. Orcs etc, aren't white, but aren't any other colour either...theyre just orcs. I think the only mention of anyone coloured is of the Easterlings, or something, who are working for Sauron...
I think the books and movies are great, but this did use to kinda bother me a bit. Not because I thought Tolkien was racist, but because it just seemed to be a really kinda narrow world view that he had....as if the existence of races with coloured skin just didn't occur to him...
 
I don't personally like LOTR but I think it's so annoying how literature is attacked like this. Something is wrong with our world and all of a sudden it's spurred by literature or a movie? :rolleyes:
 
Hey folks,

New guy here, and I realize I'm coming in late with comments to this one, but in case anyone's interested...

First of all, I think there needs to be a distinction between Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies. While I think Jackson did an exceptional job transferring the story to film, there are differences, some of which are obvious, and some not so obvious. One thing I noticed was that Tolkien seemed to be delivering the message "War is sometimes inevitable", while Jackson decided he'd rather say "War is a terrible thing".

If you consider the original statement (Tolkien's) to be warmongering, then maybe there's some validity to the claim. I think it's clear to anyone who's read the books or seen the movie that there was never any possibility of negotiating with Sauron or resolving things via diplomacy. The "bad guys", including the orcs, are just plain evil, and no attempt is made to humanize them at all - except possibly Saruman.

Whether or not Tolkien was deliberately referring to WWII in LOTR is a matter of debate I guess, but let's just say it seems possible. And even if not, most people would not object with equating Hitler to Sauron. In any case, he wasn't out to write a story in which the conflict could be resolved peacefully - the war is obviously a key part of the books, and that can't be denied.

Personally, I liked the books and the movies and don't try to read any politics into them. But I can certainly see how a critical analysis could uncover some opinions that we might disagree with today - true of most literature, right?

Anyway, just my opinion, for what that's worth!
 
Also keep in mind Tolkein was tryng to create a mythology for England. Not a lot of people of color running around there in the ancient days...

dream wanderer
 
Back
Top Bottom