Talk:Tolkien and race

Images

The moral geography diagram, cited to Magoun, and the anti-Japanese propaganda poster, cited to Ibata, are both important to the article, and both are well-justified by their sources. It's hard to understand why anybody would wish to delete them, but if they have any arguments to bring to bear, they can be discussed here. I've reverted the unexplained deletions; had that been done by an IP editor, they'd have received a templated warning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Foster as a source

Foster is not Tolkien so he's 2ndry, but he's a very weak source as he is neither a scholar nor a major journalist or novelist in his own right. His main activity is just documenting Tolkien, ie providing quick lookup of facts. At the moment the paragraph is very firmly in Wikipedia's voice, which seems a surprisingly strong position to take on such a controversial matter. It might be better to provide a direct quotation attributed directly to him, with a gloss giving his credentials eg 'the Tolkien commentator' or something of that sort. Even with all that, I'd have thought it would still be better to give a scholarly opinion on the matter as the reasoning appears weak and the conclusion doubtful. Tolkien is well-documented as believing that ancestry determines character, and it certainly looks as if he believed that it governed lifespan also. When I'm back at my desk I'll have a look through the literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Foster's paragraph on "Kin-strife" does not mention race or supremacy at all, and nor does the primary source. It looks as if we'd need to start over with this idea using fresh scholarly sources, if such exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Whiteness in fantasy

In the 'Legacy' section, the article briefly summarizes Sam Thielman's report in the Guardian on how people feel about whiteness in fantasy. I believe the article does this accurately and neutrally (it certainly doesn't take a side); indeed, Thielman too takes care to be accurate and neutral on what he rightly says is a matter of "fierce debate". I've checked what the article says against the report, and it seems to match. As always, happy to discuss here, but edit-warring in the article is of course wholly unacceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Other Views

Perhaps a useful addition would be from Michael Moorcock's influential essay Epic Pooh in which he criticises Tolkien and mid 20th century fantasy writing more generally. He notes but dismisses the view that the books' conservatism are evidence of Tolkien's supposed fascistic viewpoint:

Michael Moorcock. "RevolutionSF – Epic Pooh". RevolutionSF. Archived from the original on 24 March 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-14.

"While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us."

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Moorcock's critique, which isn't specifically about racism, is discussed in context in Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings; we could quote a bit more there perhaps. I don't think he adds much to the current article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

There is nothing much wrong with the content of the article, which represents fairly well the different analyses critics have made in regards to allegations that Tolkien's work was or wasn't racist. However, the presentation overall reads as if it were attempting to persuade readers that Tolkien was not racist. Most obviously, in the introduction it characterizes all claims that Tolkien was racist as an "attack," which is a value judgement that violates NPOV.

Rather than laying out the arguments scholars and critics have made, the introduction uses a sentence structure where the non-racist analysis rebuts the racist analysis: ie "some people say Tolkien was racist, however, scholars note that he wasn't." Arguments that Tolkien's work was racist are presented with hedging language ("Some critics have found what they consider to be outmoded views on race"), are usually attributed to "critics," (sometimes "scholars"), and are often followed by counter-evidence immediately. Arguments that Tolkien's work wasn't racist are more likely to be attributed to "scholars," (never attributed to "critics"), and are never followed by counter-evidence that his work was racist.

Tolkien's personal letters are presented as evidence that Tolkien wasn't racist, without citing the particular commentator who has used these primary sources to make this argument, which constitutes original research. These letters are, in fact, the core evidence the article uses to present the "Tolkien wasn't racist" argument. This contrasts with the "Tolkien was racist" side, which does quote directly from one of his letters, but primarily consists of summarizing arguments particular critics and scholars have made. theBOBbobato (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your views. It may help to know that in British English, which is used for all Tolkien articles, "attack" is the normal word for a verbal assault or intense criticism of a person or their writings. I've check the textual side, and don't see any bias there; if a particular attack is launched, it is necessary to indicate in some way that a particular defence is a reply to that attack, i.e. that the two things are causally connected, and form halves of an argument. I agree with you, therefore, that nothing much is wrong with it, so the tag does not appear remotely justified. The article cites sources on both sides, so that all the claims made are reliably sourced; I might note that the attacks are largely popular (journalistic, not scholarly) whereas the defences are in fact more solidly based in scholarship. It is not true that the defence relies on primary sources: instead, as is proper, the primary sources are used by the scholars involved, and the article correctly cites both Tolkien and the scholars. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally remove the NPOV tag without any substantive response to my concerns. This discussion is not yet complete.

On further reflection, I think this article should be re-organized. Rather than being framed as a discussion over whether or not Tolkien or his work was racist, it should simply summarize the analyses critics and scholars have made in regards to how race emerges in his work. When it discusses Tolkien's own views of race, it should be approached as a totally different topic.

The theory of the "moral geography" of Middle-earth (for example) is not evidence that Tolkien was racist, and neither is it evidence that his work is racist - in the same way that the abundance of Elven kingdoms in the Silmarillion is not evidence that Tolkien supported absolute monarchies. These are simply a few element of the whole to be understood in context and by discussing his possible influences. When the article does discuss the question of whether or not he was racist, it should do so by summarizing the conclusions of scholars who have asked that specific question.

I wouldn't do that, but for the fact that your comment revealed a simple misconception, which I mentioned above, namely that the article nowhere uses primary sources (Tolkien) as the sole argument on either side, but uniformly and systematically cites secondary sources. I've repeated one source for you in the article to make clear that this is what was happening (the source was nearby, but had not been repeated directly beside the Tolkien ref).

The question of reorganisation has nothing to do with the NPOV question. On the content and structure, these have been formally reviewed and found satisfactory, so it's certainly not obvious that any such rearrangement would be beneficial. Scholars definitely think that the "moral geography" is racist, for example, and in particular the East=Evil, West=Good aspect of it has been seen as direct evidence of racism by different authorities. On your other point, there are (very) clearly two sides here, asserting and denying or at least partially rebutting racism, and not to recognise that - something clearly acknowledged by the scholarly sources - would be to avoid the most basic aspect of the subject's structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So, to clarify, I recognize that Tolkien's racism is a hotly debated topic and scholars do engage with it, and I agree that the article needs to reflect this when the question comes up. My concern is that, with the article being framed as a debate between "Tolkien was racist" vs. "Tolkien wasn't racist," it heightens the stakes more than it needs to. It's possible to reflect on how Tolkien's cultural environment influenced his perception of race without it being intended as a verbal assault or personal attack on him, and scholars have done this. But this article's framing and language (including the use of the verb "attack" in the intro) makes it harder to discuss the issue in a way which is fair to Tolkien and the scholars who have discussed his work. Tolkien was a flawed human being like anybody else, and it's plausible that he could have been a strong opponent of Nazism who nevertheless wrote books which embodied beliefs some today would consider racist. But because of the way the article is organized, it suggests that his anti-Nazism invalidates the racial analyses scholars have made of his work. This is where we get into dangerous territory in regards to NPOV, and why I think we should avoid writing this article as a debate.

If I were to rework the intro, I would do it something like this:

Scholars have noted that J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth fantasy writings were influenced by Victorian attitudes to race and to a literary tradition of monsters. Some critics have argued that his work embodies outmoded attitudes to race. Tolkien's personal views were consistently anti-racist both in peacetime and during the two World Wars.

Tolkien's Middle-Earth has been described as definitely polycultural and polylingual. Some scholars have posited that the work is underlain with a moral geography where good is in the West and evil is in the East, and others have observed that the allusions to race mixing in the Lord of the Rings embodies scientific racism grounded by eugenics and a fear of moral decline, which was prevalent in Tolkien's youth in the late 19th century and early 20th century. His description of orcs have been compared to wartime propaganda caricatures of the Japanese. Other scholars have argued that these analyses omit relevant details from the text of the Lord of the Rings.

In his personal writings, Tolkien strongly opposed Nazi racial theories, as seen in a 1938 letter he wrote to his publisher, while in the Second World War he vigorously opposed anti-German propaganda.

In the rest of the article, I really wouldn't change that much. I would rename "Evidence of racism" as "Race in the Middle-Earth Legendarium," and "Evidence of anti-racism" as "Race in Tolkien's personal writings" (or something to that effect). I would move the "Polycultural Middle-Earth" and "Necessary metaphors" sub-sections to the "Race in the Middle-Earth Legendarium" section. "Other views" and "Legacy" I would keep more-or less as is, with perhaps a few minor changes in linking words and adjectives.

Simply renaming the "evidence of racism/anti-racism" sections alone would satisfy my concerns about the neutrality of this article, even if nothing else were changed.theBOBbobato (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So, your concerns come down to one thing, that "Simply renaming" two sections would bring the article to strict neutrality, given that there is "nothing much wrong with the content of the article", this last a sentiment I certainly agree with.

On your "Simply renaming", however, it is quite hard to see how having a pair of sections that neutrally state "Evidence of X" and "Evidence of anti-X" can be taken by even the strictest reader as a sign of non-neutrality. Given that there is some sort of spectrum of racist views from extremely so (visibly demonstrating the attitude in all one's writings) to extremely not so (actively opposing the attitude at every opportunity), it seems entirely encyclopedic and visibly neutral to document the evidence under these broad headings, as like it or not there are two possible sides on the issue. Some critics have documented what they consider to be evidence of racism in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, and these are cited in the article; others, including some major Tolkien scholars, have documented evidence that Tolkien was actively anti-racist (not merely un-racist, but taking time out to oppose what he saw as racism both in peacetime and during the Second World War). Again, the article cites these sources. The article does not take sides in doing so, either in its text or in its headings; indeed, it's quite hard to imagine a pair of headings that would be more clearly neutral than these two.

Your proposal to create a distinction between perceived views on racism in the legendarium and in personal writings is Original Research, as none of the cited scholars or critics have attempted to split the evidence in that way. Indeed, they have done the opposite; they have boldly treated all the evidence as being just that, Tolkien-racism-evidence on one side or the other, all the same kind of argument-stuff but leading to opposite conclusions. They have seen Tolkien's fictional writings, Tolkien's private letter-writings, and Tolkien's public statements, all alike, as stuff that Tolkien has written that serve as evidence of what Tolkien believed and as actions he took, demonstrating his attitude to race. The article is therefore correct in grouping the evidence simply as on this side or on that: this is what the critics and scholars have done, and we must do the same.

The same applies, by the way, to your secondary proposal to rewrite the lead section. Your "Simply renaming" statement admits that such rewriting is not necessary: I'd go further, and say it's not needed at all, as the lead correctly and neutrally summarizes the content of the article, which is its sole purpose; and that since we actually agree that the article's text is already neutral, there can be no need to rewrite the summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I think simply renaming the sections from "evidence of racism/anti-racism" is because it frames all the material in these discussions as an argument over whether or not Tolkien was racist, which gets into NPOV and original research territory because it isn't always clear who is making this argument. If the sections are renamed so that they'll simply be discussing how race emerges in the works, the NPOV issues are gone because they're no longer explicitly linked to the racist-anti-racist argument. I'll discuss this at length:

In the "Fear of moral decline through racial mixing" subsection, we summarize how some scholars have argued that Tolkien's writings may have been influenced by eugenics and scientific racism, and directly cite these scholars' work. The last paragraph of this section is "in contrast to these interpretations": it argues that Tolkien supported race-mixing and alludes to the King-Strife of Gondor to demonstrate this. It cites passages from the LOTR but does not cite, however, the reliable source who has said these examples are in contrast with the scholarly analyses linking Tolkien with scientific racism.

If this subsection were in a larger section called simply "Race in the Middle-Earth Legendarium," it becomes a discussion of how scholars have interpreted Tolkien's representation of race-mixing, how they have understood his intellectual background, and how they have addressed the question of whether or not it was racist. The paragraph that cites directly from the text which suggests that Tolkien criticized anti-race mixing prejudice simply becomes one more aspect of this discussion.

But it comes across differently if this subsection becomes "evidence of racism." Now, the scholars' discussion of how eugenics may have influenced Tolkien is presented, explicitly, as evidence that Tolkien was racist. The last paragraph that opposes these interpretations, which argues that Tolkien supported race-mixing, now rebuts the idea that "fear of moral decline through racial mixing" is proof that Tolkien was racist; by extension, it also argues against the idea that Tolkien's works were racist.

I think you're trying far too hard here, seeing shadows where none exist. And see my next two comments on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is where NPOV comes in - who exactly made this interpretation? Who is the person who read the books, analyzed the story of the Kin-Strife of Gondor, and said that this example demonstrates that Tolkien supported racial-mixing? Who is the person that said this interpretation refutes the notion that Tolkien was influenced by eugenics and scientific racism? The article does not cite the reliable source who has made this analysis; therefore, the implication is that Wikipedia itself is arguing that Tolkien wasn't racist. If this paragraph were merely discussing how Tolkien treated racial-mixing and what may have influenced him, this implied argument would not exist.

On this you are simply mistaken; the kin-strife mention is cited both to Tolkien (to show where the material comes from, not to prove anything else about it) and to a reliable secondary source, in this case Robert Foster ([18]). There is no implication of any Wikipedia viewpoint here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a similar (though less blatant) situation in the "Moral Geography: West versus East" subsection. It briefly discusses Magoun's Moral Geography theory, but most of the content of this section "denies" this interpretation by presenting Tolkien's personal writings. If this were in a "Race in Middle-Earth" section and were simply discussing the symbolic geography of Middle-Earth, it would be fine - it presents Mahoun's theory of the Moral Geography, and then presents material showing how Tolkien himself thought about his books' geography. But it's presented as "evidence of racism" - Mahoun is now said to be arguing that Tolkien was racist and the quoted passages from Tolkien's letters are arguing that he wasn't. Again we have this question - who is it that read Tolkien's letters and said that these examples refute Mahoun's theory? The article doesn't tell us, but it nevertheless positions this material to rebut the idea that Tolkien was racist.

2 things here. 1) It's obviously sensible to group the various "Moral Geography" materials together. 2) Nobody is asserting that Tolkien is rebutting Magoun: he couldn't be doing that as he was writing in 1967, long before Magoun. He does however offer explanations of both the North-South and of the East-West divides, and he does not actually deny that the West was good, the East bad, i.e. he agrees with Magoun that the divide exists, but says it developed naturally. The most that can be said here is that readers can make up their minds for themselves whether Tolkien's explanations make Magoun wrong (I'd say they didn't, really). Once again, there is no implication of any Wikipedia viewpoint. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There's another question hand here. Even if all these counter-examples rebutting the idea that Tolkien was racist cited the reliable source making this argument, what are they doing here? If we're going to divide all the material between "evidence of racism" and "evidence of anti-racism," shouldn't the discussion of the Kin-Strife of Gondor and Tolkien's geography letters be in the "evidence of anti-racism" section? theBOBbobato (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the kin-strife paragraph clearly belongs with the racial mixing material. I kind of see your point here that we could theoretically have yet another (very short) section in the anti-racism chapter, but while the kin-strife example clearly has something to do with the idea of racial mixing, it doesn't directly counter the Treebeard statement about Orcs. What it does do is set up a clear statement of perceived decline through mixing of Men, and (if Foster is right) to do something to counter that: though an open-minded reader might object that talking of relative rates of decline doesn't come across as a madly positive argument, specially given that the reader has to grope about in Appendix A.I.iv ([T3]) to find evidence of the unchanged rate of decline. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, nothing much seems to be happening, and we can't just leave the article tagged indefinitely. I've reworded the headings in question so they are certainly neutral by the criteria stated on both sides, and moved some material in a small reorg to match the headings. Since that removes the material at issue, I've also removed the tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy you found a solution that works! I don't have many opportunities to edit Wikipedia so I'm sorry if my response was slower than expected. Thanks for engaging me on this issue! theBOBbobato (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dwarves and the Jewish People

I think a section should be added regarding Tolkien's Dwarves and their similarity to the Medieval Jewish diaspora. There is a section on this in the Dwarves in Middle Earth article, which I think would be good to either transplant here (or at least make a linked reference):

(Dwarves in Middle-earth#Jewish history)

Certainly not transplant. I'll add a link to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Bbreslau (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Template addition

I’m attaching the tag/template in a good faith effort to clean up this article so it may mostly closely adhere to Wikipedia’s point of view guidelines.

On arriving to the page from a link to the main Tolkien article, I see this page as to be (a) well-intentioned yet a one-sided apologia of his views rather than a balanced comprehensive view and (b) in turn more focused on defending him rather than offering an encyclopedic focus on why (besides coming to Tolkien’s defense) it is relevant at the expense of maintaining a neutral point of view.

Let me be very plain in admitting that I am no expert on Tolkien nor do I have any pertinent information that disputes the claims in the article. However, while I was more or less expecting to get a more nuanced view insomuch as learned opinion is concerned, there are several sections (even in their titles, in some cases) which present so much rebuttal of criticisms without sufficient foundation of criticism so that it is unclear why the existence of this article is necessary outside the possibility it means to “debunk” accusations (which is not in keeping with NPOV content.

I absolutely don’t want to be seen as wanting to inject opinion-only, unfounded claims racism or having this article include unnecessary “false equivalence” counter-points. I just want to see a better structured article over all that is nuanced and encyclopedic where, for instance, it attempts (without context) to use letters from those defending Tolkien as dispositive “evidence” of his views. Belowenter (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your personal opinion. However, the article is fully cited to reliable sources. All the views described in the article are attributed to their authors. Many of those are hostile to Tolkien. Readers are free to make up their own minds as to the evidence.

On the only actual items you name, Tolkien's letters on race, these are agreed by multiple scholars, cited right there in the letters section, to be evidence of his anti-racist attitudes, and readers can again use the quoted texts to decide for themselves if that is correct.

The section headings are chosen to summarise their contents accurately and neutrally; since the list of headings presents multiple viewpoints, it is hard to see how it could be taken as one-sided.

The rest of the overlong posting consists of personal feelings, wishes, and charges that are both vague and unjustified by anything in the article. There is, in particular no editorialising anywhere in the article, so the tag is no doubt well-meant, but wholly misplaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the article could probably be expanded, and the lead section maybe cleaned up, especially of citations, this is a Good Article and it is preferable that the lead section does not include references but only summarize that the main article text says. @Belowenter: would you mind if I asked if you could post an example of what you think is a problematic sentence or section in specific?★Trekker (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

StarTrekker, 99% of my Good Articles have no citations in the lead. However, this is an exception, because otherwise, honest readers and first-time editors seize on contentious-sounding statements in the lead as uncited, and presume they are editorial. I've therefore taken the permitted step of ensuring that the lead is fully-cited to avoid needless confusion and extended talk page discussion. On expansion, I'm totally open to that, but having read a shelf's worth of scholarly books about Tolkien, I'm reasonably confident I've covered "the main points". All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, since the rather vague and general points made have been rebutted, the opinion-holder has been invited to respond, and there has been no substantiation in the form of anything specific, the tag should now be removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)