White Castle

[bcholmes]

This year, I bought a new DVD copy of Casablanca in preparation for my annual Casablanca-watching tradition on New Year's Eve. I love Casablanca, but every year I'm jarred by one line that I always manage to elide from my memory: when Ilsa arrives at Rick's Café Americaine for the first time and asks "who's that boy playing the piano?" The "boy" is, of course, an adult black man -- Rick's friend, Sam, from the famous line, "Play it, Sam. Play 'As Time Goes By.'".

(Tangent: Wikipedia mentions some interesting trivial. Dooley Wilson was paid $350 a week for playing Sam, whereas Sidney Greenstreet was paid ten times as much).

I'm thinking about this in the context of The Lord of the Rings. I think I'm just about the only sf fan who has never read the books (I started one of them many years ago, but found it hard to get into). I saw the Bakshi film in theatres, and found it difficult to follow. But by the time I actually saw the Jackson films, I'd already been exposed to a great deal of writing about the racist subtext.

Ian Hagemann, for example, once told me that when he first read the story, he was extremely aware that all of the good people were fair-skinned and the darker the skin of a race, the more evil they were. And, well, actually it's more than just subtext; sometimes it's actual text. Here's a pretty creepy essay: a loving treatment of the racialism of Tolkien's writings.

And here's an interesting blurb from a Tolkien newsgroup FAQ (and, by "interesting", I mean, insulting):

Was Tolkien racist? Were his works?

A full discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Some people find what they consider to be clear indications of racist attitudes in Tolkien's works. It is certainly possible that they are right: racism is notoriously difficult to recognize accurately, and most people harbor at least some level of racial mistrust.

On the other hand, most people who make such accusations seem to do so primarily to stir up controversy and inspire flame wars. In fact, much of the "evidence" presented to demonstrate Tolkien's racism is flawed, and there is reason to believe that Tolkien was less racist than many people of his day.

[...]

In short, while there are racially "suspicious" elements to be found in Tolkien's writings if one hunts for them, closer examination typically reveals the attitude behind them to be benign. That doesn't mean that he was perfect, but it certainly doesn't seem that he should be condemned for intolerance.

I think it's pretty clear that Tolkien is, at least, racialist, in DuBois' sense. A question is: how does that uncritical racialism get internalized in a racist culture?

Other people can debate, more informedly than I, the racialism and/or racism of The Lord of the Rings, 'cause, hey, I still haven't read the books. But I am interested in two things:

1. More often than not, people are pretty silent on the topic of racist or racialist themes in Tolkien.
2. When the topic is brought up, long-time Tolkien fans really downplay or outright refute the idea that there's racism there.

In a sense, it's like me and Casablanca: in all that I've said about the film, I think that this is the first time I've brought up Ilsa's troubling piece of dialog. (Sure, there's an argument that Ilsa's words are typical of the time, and that she's not more racist than the standards of the time. Classic Franz Fanon question: Is covert and ignorant stereotyping less racist than overt racism?). I want to emphasize the good elements of the story and de-emphasize the troubling bits.

It reminds me a lot of this commentary about how to behave when you're called on your racism. And also of the reactions to the complaints about the sexism in the film version of Sin City. The responses, there, seemed to be that:

1. The graphic novels were sexist, so that's okay (it's true to its source material)
2. The genre is sexist, so that's okay (it's true to the genre)
3. Men were horribly injured (including some who lost penii), so any sexism is rendered null and void

I find the race problem in The Lord of the Rings especially troubling in the context of fantasy RPGs. arcady0 made this interesting post which prompted a lot of my thinking:

In DnD the default assumption is that the darker the skin of a given race, the closer to pure evil it will be. A cursory flip through DnD's imagery throughout the years will show this. In modern times, it has even begun to apply native American, African, and Asian imagry to the evil races... and the language used to describe such races as Orcs is not just similar, but is a near -exact- match to the language once used by writers like Mr. Baum in the 1800s when the called for the genocide of the native Americans.

Dirty, savage, brutal, uncivilizable people who roam the badlands seeking to kill 'us purer people' and 'rape our women' to create a new race of mongrels.

I've run into bizarre circular logic on some RPG message boards: when Hero Games came out with Fantasy Hero, I posted that I found it bothersome how white all the art was. The response: that's what gamers want to play. They want western Western European fantasy like Dungeons and Dragons. Why? Because what they really want is to immerse themselves in The Lord of the Rings. Isn't that source material.. white-centric? Yes, but it's a product of Tolkien's time. So, Fantasy Hero is a product of Tolkien's time? It's a convention of the genre. A genre of which Tolkien is the exemplar. And Tolkien is so well-loved that we choose not to critically examine the messages about race, there.

Hero Games now has three different fantasy worlds planned: a Lord of the Rings-like world; a Conan-like world and a Celtic myth (King Arthur?)-like world. Can't we give a passing acknowledgement to Tékumel or Nyambe or Earthsea? (Oh, wait. Earthsea is now white, too.)

Maybe I shouldn't think about this as much as I do. Maybe I should just accept the conventions, and write up a new character class for D20: the Magical Negro.

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

I was trying to formulate a thoughtful response, but my train of thought was derailed by one paragraph, and I have to ask: who says gamers want to play white heroes? Was this a couple of fanboys trying to dismiss or ignore concerns about their favourite game, or was it someone who has actually conducted or read surveys on this sort of thing?

In my experience, when game characters come with a standard physical appearance that you can't change, nobody cares what colour they are. My current favourite video game has seven character classes: three are obviously white, two are obviously not, and the other two are ambiguous. (In the prequel to this game, two classes were white, one was black, and one was Asian.) The serious gamers base their preferences on the capabilities of the classes, not on what they look like.

I've heard it said that sf&f fandom is mostly white, although that's changing and more members of racial minorities are finding something to identify with in it. Modern fantasy fiction draws from lots of different mythologies anyways-- stories that stick to western European archetypes are starting to be seen as cliched.

Anyways, roleplaying is about imagination-- when people design the appearance of their own characters, how many of them (outside of beginners with a Mary Sue complex) always design characters who look exactly like themselves?

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I remember being bothered by the racism in The Lord of the Rings from my early teens (I first read it aged 11).

My favourite D&D race was half-orc :-)

[the_axel]

I always disliked LotR. Even before I noticed the racism & sexism, the classism inherent in it is painful.

One of the things that I thought Jackson captured very well in the movies was the obnoxious smug middle class, small town Englishness of Hobbits.

That Boromir is the only character in the entire series with a genuine conflict to work through is telling.

Why? Because what they really want is to immerse themselves in The Lord of the Rings.

That argument is palpably crap.
First off, the heroes of Tolkeins works are Hobbits. Only a very small minority of gamers want to play them, and when they do, they aren't played like Tolkeinian hobbits - in fact, in game settings that include them, their culture is always the one that is most altered from LotR.
Second, Gandalf doesn't cast Fireball or Polymorph Other but he does use a sword.
Third, there's only one doungeon in LotR and the heroes don't kill everything that moves & run off with all the treasure.
Fourth, there's less than a dozen types of monster in the whole trilogy. That's not even enough to stock a decent dungeon.
Fifth, fantasy land morality is modern North American liberal whereas Middle Earth is interbellum middle class English conservative.
Etc.

D&D lifts way more extensively from the Sword & Sorcery genre (Conan, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Elric, &c.).

Why is art in fantasy so white?
Same reason women always have unfeasibly large breasts and inadequate clothing.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

on a tangent to this: i'm reminding myself that i want to research colour symbolism and its history. because i don't know whether the good=white and bad=black notions stem from racism. i think they might not, and it might in fact be the other way around, because light versus dark in survival terms (in light one can see the dangers versus in the dark one can't, light objects are more easily seen and identified than dark ones) are more primal than racism, and existed among peoples who'd probably never seen another race.

i wonder how much of racism stem from unexamined primal fears.

[gwenners.livejournal.com]

Good topic to bring up and yes, one that many choose to not look at.

Back in my own gaming days, I wasn't so much directly aware of issues of class and race within the confines of the game. Frankly, in the earliest parts of such experience, it seemed to be mostly about killing rust monsters and getting +5 long swords. Issues of such importance were forgotten amongst the frivilous-ness of teenagers pretending to be knights beating up dragons.

As we grew up, I think we all became -- on one level or another -- aware of this. The best example that comes to mind, of course, is AD&D elves, from the pale skinned high elves to the ebon black drow. It doesn't get too much more obvious, I suppose.

Yet, then again, our group tended to pick and choose what we saw within it all. Not that we weren't aware of the above, no, but as our tastes (and other good things, like a conscious) developed, we begin to take a clearer view of what we were playing. By the time our group reached the point where our members were getting married and developing a life beyond those Friday night gaming sessions, well, there wasn't a drow -- or a rust monster -- in sight. The campaign I developed at that time dealt with an indigenous people within a largely pre-Roman British isles dealing with an influx of largely evangelistic Holy Roman Empire-based culture hitting their shores. Within this framework, we touched on all sorts of things including, yes, race relations and the folly of racism. It was not the usual story, and while it did use AD&D as a framework, it was not the average dungeon slugfest by any means.

Of course, D&D is largely based on a Tolkein-esque world, with all its limitations (as well as, yes, Elric, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, Conan, etc.). It's a fantasy realm written by a man who, in many ways reflects his era. To me, though, one can live within those limitations and conventiones, or one can move beyond those limitations. Create compelling stories that reflect one's own reality.

Unfortunately, I know that what our group did was limited: there were not many others trying to expand the genre either via their own gaming or through the penning of fantasy novels. The concepts and constructs have not been all that deconstructed, and you still end up with things like the misogyny of the Thomas Convenant series, or issues of Racism is Jackson's fairly faithful retelling of the Tolkein story.

To me, one can enjoy a thing based on artistic merit, good storytelling, or what have you -- and yet also be conscious of racism, classism, or any other issue that exists in the mind of its creator. As an extreme example, I can look at Birth of a Nation and look at what D.W. Griffith was doing with film during a time when more movie makers were cranking out (literally) weak one-reelers. I also know that Birth of a Nation is about as close to the definition of a racist film as one can get. I'm not going to be watching it to cheer on the KKK as they ride to the rescue of the poor white girl in the clutches of the evil black man.

By the same token, I can enjoy Jackson's trilogy, particularly in how he handled some of the flaws in the storytelling of Tolkein as well as a skilled blending of stellar effects and characters one can care about. I also know that when I'm watching the dark-skinned evil races being born out of the hearth and mud, that I'm looking at imagery that fits well into Matthew Hale's world.

Cheers,
Gwen Smith

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

I believe, to label LoTR as racist misses the point.
Tolkien's desire was not to differentiate races, but classes (hey, he was English, we pick apart class like an itchy scab). Orcs are the industrial 'unwashed' (which, Tolkien coming from a shire counties background and seeing the progress of the Industrial Revolution's reach into his rural ideal was not a fan of at all) rather than being how we might view 'savages' in other words, the mill and foundry owners. The whole thrust of the Scouring of the Shire was that those complacent country dwellers were never going to be ready for industrialisation once it arrived.

[firecat]

I don't like racism. I like Lord of the Rings and Casablanca. They both clearly (IMO) have racist elements.

If something has racist elements, that doesn't always mean I dislike it. Maybe that means there is something wrong with me, and/or with the society in which I was raised and developed my tastes.

The same goes for sexism. But I'm more bothered by sexism in stories, probably simply because I've personally been affected by sexism more than racism; as a white person, I get to ignore racism unless I feel like thinking about it, but as a woman, I don't get to ignore sexism.

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

I've always thought I was expected to ignore sexism, even as a woman. If a story is sexist, I'm told "well, it just reflects the time in which it was written", but if a story is racist, it gets lots of academic thought and attention devoted to it. Sexism doesn't seem to be as important.

[firecat]

I've run into that attitude toward sexism too.

[rbowspryte.livejournal.com]

One of the most ick! things I see that is shockingly sexist and distrurbing yet completely conventional is the covers of the romance novels that I see every day at my job (at the library).

Titles like Mistress to A Millionaire, Millionaire's virgin, Baby boom and Her Royal baby...It wouldn't bother me so much if every title didn't involve babies, millionaire's, trapping men with babies and millionaries with seduction and of course men in uniforms.

From this I can assume only a few things about womyn's needs.

I wonder about the patron's who read these titles. It would be interesting to get an opportunity to talk at length to them about life, gender and some of the ideas they have...just for curiousity sake. Or maybe it wouldn't be.

[rbowspryte.livejournal.com]

Yes Tolkien is certainly racialist...there is no doubt in mind!

However when taken into context (Tolkien's place in time, his Anglo-Western upbringing, his interest in Anglo and germanic art forms and languages...)He was like any of us a product of his environment.

Th whole of the western world was colonialist (still is apparently), anglo-centric and completely smuggly self assured of it's superiority. Let's also not forget his other crimes of priviledge (most great men of the era suffered from these...the Christian, the upper class breeding) he is "guilty" of many crimes by those accounts as well.

(Delving deeper into Tolkien's works all the "good" races practice forms of monogamous relationships and or realivily monotheistic religious practices. The evil one's worship Morgoth (Sauron's god also called an adversary) and practice no monogamy whatsoever, they instead breed in "pits") this rings (haha) of Christian assumption about other cultures and practices surrounding religion and sex. Not very PC at all!

Despite his "limited" views of the "good races" and select diversity (elves, dwarves, men, hobbits etc.) At least he had an idea of men and different types living and co-operating together but seperately. Which is a cut above the nationalistic attitudes of the times.

Tolkien may have been limited simply because despite his ability to play god and create a world that spawned a bevey of followers and fellow creators, he was after all just a man.

As for other fantasy visions inspired from Tolkien's world ...we can change this "vision" remarkably by playing around with the fantasy races and types a bit.(Elves can be darker skinned "desert people" like they are in Eberron for example).

So to summarize...Tolkien was a man of his times, he was a racilaist, a privledged anglo and a unrepentant political Christian.
On whether you should read it...of course you should! If anything just to help think about how you could improve on the implied ideals and culturally limited landscape of the mythos.

and I think you are right...it is a bad thing that we CHOOSE to ignore these glaring coloquial racialisms in the work...something wrong there we don;t want to face about ourselves I think.

TTFN

[jennyaxe.livejournal.com]

I recall reading an interview with Ursula K LeGuin regarding Earthsea, where she mentioned that she'd been contacted by a reader who thanked her for creating a hero that non-white people could identify with. Still, it's a bit ironic that this was ina setting where the gender roles were so very traditional... That's why I prefer her Hainish books.

As for Tolkien - yes, both he and C.S. Lewis were quite obviously Eurocentric, or racialist, or whatever you want to call it. There are the the Calormen in the Narniaverse, for instance - they bear a striking resemblance to our picture of Arabs a century ago or so. (One thing, though , with Tolkien - I'm not sure he used the word "fair" to mean "blonde" or "pale". He was also a scholar of Nordic languages, and the word "fager" means "beautiful". I always had an image of the Numenorians as being blackhaired rather than pale/blond.)

But yes, it's striking that "degree of non-English equals degree of evil" in both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis's works (with the exception of Nordic-based groups). Nowadays it's more non-American rather than non-English, but the correlation is equally obvious.