January 15, 2003
NAZGUL, AS IN NEGRO?:
'Lord' of racism?: Critics view trilogy as discriminatory (David Ibata, January 12, 2003, Chicago Tribune)In "Towers" ... which continues to do big at the box office as the second film of the Rings trilogy (the third, "Return of the King," is to come out at the end of the year), the series' heroes -- hobbits, elves, dwarves and people -- for the first time encounter races of human adversaries. They include the Easterlings and Haradrim, denizens of lands in the east and south of Middle Earth who have joined with the forces of evil.The Easterlings can barely be made out under their armor; their faces are covered except for a narrow slit through which glare pairs of coal-black eyes. But their headgear looks like a cross between a Samurai warrior's helmet and a cone-shaped "Coolie" hat. An Asian influence is obvious.
The Haradrim are more recognizable. They are garbed in turbans and flowing crimson robes. They ride giant elephants. They resemble nothing other than North African or Middle Eastern tribesmen. A recently released "Towers" companion book, "The Lord of the Rings: Creatures," calls the Haradrim "exotic outlanders" whose costumes "were inspired by the twelfth-century Saracen warriors of the Middle East." The Saracens were Islamic soldiers who battled Christian invaders during the Crusades.
The "good guys" include the human Dunedain, Rohirrim and Gondorians. All fair-skinned, mostly blond and mostly blue-eyed. ( A third group of human foes in the film is white: the Wild Men. The fallen wizard Saruman incites them by reminding them the horsemen of Rohan oppress them and have driven them from their lands. Cavalry against native tribes; does this picture seem familiar?) [...]
You might ask if I'm looking for offense where none is intended. I believe the issue is not whether Tolkien or Jackson intended to offend -- they did not, I am sure -- but the author's or filmmaker's ability to create images that shape one's view of the world.
And certain scenes in "Towers" remind me of some of the most pernicious images of the cinematic past, from "Beau Geste" to western serials to John Wayne war flicks: that of faceless brown hordes hurling themselves against a band of white heroes.
I'll admit that I joined everyone else, cheering as thousands of Orcs and Urak-hai were slaughtered at the climactic battle of Helm's Deep. They are vicious, violent, ugly as sin, loathsome eaters of "man flesh." As Aragorn tells the besieged defenders, we should feel no mercy for them.
Would we have felt the same thrill of victory if the massacred enemy were humans? [...]
A defense of J.R.R. Tolkien against allegations of racism can be found at "The One Ring" Web site.
To the question that Mr. Ibata asks at the end there (and to his credit it's he who included the link to a rebuttal of the racism charge): Did anyone fail to feel the thrill of victory during Braveheart or The Patriot when it was the English being killed? Or, can anyone fail to acknowledge the bravery, nobility even, of the warriors who are slaughtered by the thousands in Zulu? The dynamics of these stories require that we have a passionate rooting interest for one side over the other far more than they require that one side be dark-skinned.
MORE:
See also, the obstinate blogger's recent essay on racism in the Rings.
I get rather tired of these attempts to read racism into everything not overly praising of non-white, or not critical enough of whites. Much of Ibata's article is pointless whining, but he does raise a good point in that Jackson should not have cut out that reflection on Sam's part after the ambush. It was rather key to Tolkien's work.
If it makes Ibata and others happy, the brown and yellow people are given their freedom in the end and sent merrily on their way home (which I suspect will make him even more furious: how dare white people act magnanimously! The very cheek!). And there were attempts to allegorize LOTR to WWII, all of which Tolkien soundly rejected.
I didn't see "Zulum" but I do know what
mfecane means.
If you are so keen on linking to me, you might want to link to this post
I wrote about racism and humanism in LOTR
.
Jonah Goldberg
dealt with this issue rather nicely a couple of weeks ago:
"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 . . . who see the same repugnant creatures and righteously exclaim 'black people!' Maybe [the critic] should spend less time vetting movies for signs of racism and more time vetting himself if, that is, he free-associates black people with these subhuman monsters.
You may also be interested/amused by science-fiction author David Brin's half-tongue-in-cheek appraisal
of LotR as a sort of defense of feudalism...
Of course LOTR is racist. The Good Guys win and are collectively superior because they are, well, good. The Bad Guys are evil.
Of course, this Manichaen depiction has little to do with real life, where any large group of people are a mixed bag of bad and good. But that is why the bookstores have LOTR in the fiction section.
Nice post Murtaugh, although you still need to get rid of that vomit-inducing green background.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at January 16, 2003 5:27 AM