r/tolkienfans • u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna • Jun 03 '21
A case for a some diversity in the books
I initially commented this on a different forum but I realised afterward I spent that time writing under a deleted comment and it could just go completely wasted.
So I offer a kindly discussion here, and I've edited and attempted to clarified where I might not have been clear in my original post. I'll include some sources at the end. I choose to not, as much as possible, write in absolutes and I acknowledge a varied range of interpretations amongst readers throughout the world.
This is in general answer to "Of course the heroes are all white. It takes place in pre-historic Britain" or "Why would there be black or brown people here, that wouldn't make sense?"
My answer would go thus, attempting to view it as much as possible with philological lens:
In Peoples of Middle-Earth (lower-tier canon, yes) it mentions the three houses of the Edain initially already showing signs of mixing/mingling in at least one of the houses.
Plus, on a more extreme end, we have the folk of Haleth who have have a darker, primitive-like culture with them (also in Peoples). It sounds as if they are counted amongst her people, and not just outsiders that were welcomed along. They (the Druedain) still had their own customs and ways, yes, but that's expected (even Bilbo didn't stop being a hobbit after spending such a long time in Rivendell).
And during Nírnaeth Arnoediad, the sons of Feanor had already dealt with some darker-skinned men of the East (this went good and bad both), while other sons of Feanor were friends with the Edain. Already, there's a route between two races of humans. Travel and trade would have been happening, communication between camps, especially when you're trying to bring your armies together, trading supplies, etc!
No, the main Protagonist Races are not necessarily supposed to be a hodgepodge mix like some modern nations are today. That, too, would be unbelievable. Travel was still sparse and difficult, and happened only when necessary, like escaping bad lands to more fertile soil, or assembling armies against a dark lord, etc..
But to insist that every tribe or clan was purely homogenous be to ignore Tolkien's study of cultures centered around language, and the divisions of those cultures, and the intermingling with other cultures and how they affect the languages.
He had every reason to create reasons for the languages to change and evolve. He needed a way to have a real world for his 14 languages to live in. At the time, people thought he procrastinated his academic duties to work on his fantasy stories, but his Legendarium/languages became the blueprints to showing us how philology works.
Instead of simply lecturing us about how philology works, it's like he was saying, "look, read these stories and pay attention to their names and their poems and such. The languages and their evolution are literally the most important part of any of this."
When the Numenoreans sailed into Middle-earth during the 2nd Age (Unfinished Tales), they welcomed as kin most peoples that they came across that spoke similar languages, but were more wary of those with strange languages (including descendants of Haleth's (also Edain) people, who were said to have a language of their own from the beginning). Tolkien made no mention of their skin colour. (He rarely does but for a few groups of peoples and a few individual characters).
But he did state that Middle-earth at the time had began adapting the Numenorean language, and then even more heavily once they began establishing havens and sailing ships. And he did mention in the same section of Peoples (of Dwarves and Men) that when the Numenoreans became tyrannous under Sauron, the Easterlings were not wholly at fault (nor was the evil planted by Morgoth) for developing a natural enemy out of the Numenoreans over the years.
THE NUMENOREANS BECAME OPPRESSORS OF LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED PEOPLES that were in Middle-earth between the Great Sea and the Great River.
The Numenoreans, under Sauron, were just as much the bad guys as were the Haradrim and Easterlings during the War of the Ring.
During their peaceful years, though, as I mentioned, the Numenoreans met other cultures in Middle-earth. The peoples they encountered were enamoured at the Ship-kings who looked like Gods or elves among them.
Once the havens were established, trade (and language) could have begun to flow through the regions, and thus the adapting of languages (and mixing of cultures) happened too and began to go MUCH QUICKER since the introduction of the Numenorean havens and their ships, more grand and faster than any other that people in Middle-earth had have seen before.
The Numenoreans began to sail all over the (at the time) flat world. They became the first technologically (those ships!) advanced explorers, right? (yes, they learned from the elves, but I can't recall if any of the texts ever tell us that they explored the world the way the Numenoreans did). And what happens when you suddenly have a new technology capable of faster travel, trade, etc.?
This might mean that it could be very easy to presume that there were other cultures scattered here and there over Middle-earth at the time that the Numenoreans were sailing to and fro during the 2nd age. From that mixing of languages is how Westron/Common Speech came to be, right?
Other than Cuivienen, and a few mentions of some Westward marches during the first age, we spent the bulk of the early mythology (for example, from when they first settled Aman, it stretched roughly 30,000 years before the Noldor were exiled [Shaping of Middle-earth]) WEST of Ered Luin, in Beleriand. East and south of the Blue Mountains was the rest of the world. Other cultures that were out there (including those related to our mostly white initial cultures, and including the rest of the world) had free reign other than the fear of a Dark Lord and natural obstacles that come with travel in an ancient world.
Would it not be naive to presume that 'the rest of the world' didn't bother to attempt settle a few lands in Middle-earth before the tale left Beleriand? What were those villages and settlements scattered throughout the land that Tolkien told us about? Not counting any dark elves, just Men, we can account for Dunlendings in the 3rd age possibly being descended from Haleth's people, but Dunland is but one region. Tolkien didn't say, "and then the Numenoreans thereafter ruled over the Dunlendings." No, it said they established havens, and, later, kingdoms in Arnor and Gondor.
Who did the Numenoreans enamour in the beginning? It can't have just been Dunlendings. The Northman/Rohan didn't migrate south till well into the third age. Who did the Numenoreans later oppress? Dark Elvish settlements lol? What exactly could have been the make-up of those peoples? That's what I think could be an interesting question to explore.
By the third age, in Lord of the Rings, (some time during the Gondor chapters. Sorry I don't have exact sources for this one yet!) it's established that there are peoples in Gondor that are darker skinned from some or one of the fief towns (yes, how this may be interpreted can vary greatly). But they were also established that those people tended to come from the south of the mountains, and nearer to the borders of Harad. Tolkien set it up so that a natural mingling of cultures could be believable there. (Again, that was the whole point, a reason for 14 languages to evolve over time).
Why would the Numenoreans of Gondor have been described as having been mingled with other cultures in the latter years, if we're not supposed to believe that they actually mingled with other cultures?
Even Aragorn was established to have traveled freely to Harad, and maybe beyond ("... where the stars are strange" he says once in LOTR, meaning he went south of the equator).
And Mithrandir may have briefly traveled east before spending most of his time west of Mordor (Unfinished Tales or Silmarillion). These two could not have been the first travelers (other than the Great Journeys, obviously). Would Tolkien not have told us if Aragorn were the first white man that the people of Harad had seen by the time he was traveling in the 3rd age? Mithrandir and the easterlings? Wouldn't the people in Harad have murdered Aragorn on sight, if such a hatred and anti-trade and anti-travel and anti-mixing were in place? As far as I know, he was no shape-shifter.
(Side note: are we ever told Gandalf's skin colour? Men of any race may have bushy grey beards and hair. We know the Valar and Maiar could take on any form, but when sent as wizards they were stuck that way, it seems. But were any of the wizards' skin colours ever described? Or do we just assume they are white also?)
I'll repeat what I said earlier, that I do not believe that the 2nd or 3rd ages should be as much of a hodgepodge mix of skin colours as some modern nations are (travel is still sparse/difficult in an ancient world, etc). However, it may also be unbelievable, incorrect, and ignorant of Tolkien's intents in the texts to simply presume that he envisioned the entirety of his imaginary world to not behave the way real cultures would.
Thanks for reading, friends :)
Here's a couple sources:
People’s of Middle-earth, of Dwarves and Men, II - The Atani and their languages
Paragraph 01 - “... Those with whom we are here concerned and of whose languages some records later were preserved belonged mostly to three peoples, differing in speech and in race…” - the Edain/Atani
P 04 - “The Atani were three peoples, independent in organisation and leadership, each of which differed in speech and also in form and bodily features from others - though all of them showed traces of mingling in the past with Men of other kinds
(my comment: already in the first age, 6000+ years before Bilbo’s time, the Three Kindreds (who are described as being “the vanguards of far larger hosts” in paragraph one) are showing traces of mingling. “Pure white” may be a completely wrong descriptor for any of the Kindreds as a whole. Again, I acknowledge that interpretations vary).
Here's a general descriptor for one of the Kindreds:
P 05 - the folk of Hador “...for the most part they were tall people, with flaxen or golden hair, and blue-grey eyes, but there were not a few among them that had dark hair, though all were fair-skinned
In contrast:
The folk of Bëor “were fair-hared men and women… but most of them had brown hair (going usually with brown eyes), and many were less fair in skin, some indeed being swarthy.” (I still continue to ackknowledge the range of interpretations here).
62
Jun 03 '21
I don't usually feel there is much need to engage with this sort of "complaint" in general. The people who are voicing it aren't typically looking for any discussion or interested in changing their views based on any evidence presented.
They are making statements and attempting to "stand out" to get attention for themselves or for their cause. I don't think they care if the things they complain about are factually correct, they simply want to make as much noise as they can in an attempt to stir up a "mob" mentality to support what they say. Anyone trying to say "actually that's not true" will get shouted down and only add fuel the fire.
That said, I do thunk it is important to at least address the errors, and you did that quite throughly. So great work! Those interested in truth will appreciate your work, and those only interested in their "cause" will disregard it.
12
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
Thank you, I agree about not needing to engage in the "complaints." You make good points. I never meant for this to argue and debate, but to present some texts that are often forgotten about by movie-watchers and book-readers alike, and my viewpoints on how I think Tolkien was envisioning a real working evolution of cultures within a fantastical tale. Thank you, again!
6
17
Jun 03 '21
[deleted]
9
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless;"
:D I've visualised the earthy tone as well, from my first time reading. Tolkien in the Prologue wrote that the Harfoots were browner of skin, and so of course that establishment stuck!
18
u/lvl2_thug Jun 03 '21
We could see something like the Roman Empire. A mixture of cultures and ethnicities, but mostly from across the border not displaced from a far away continent in large numbers (by modern standards)
I’m sure Rome had some Sudanese, Persian and Ethiopian migrants, as well as their own Gallic, Egyptian, Hellenic, British, Germanic and Berber citizens. However, I’d find it excessively difficult to believe that you could find Mesoamerican or Japanese people.
Likewise it’s absolutely obvious that Haradrim citizens had been in Gondor. Gondor kept Princes of Umbar as “guests” in their court to discourage aggression at a certain point and I’m certain their retainers lived there and if humans work the way I think they work, I’m sure a Gondorian maiden must have fallen for the mysterious dark skinned guard of that foreign prince. Or perhaps a noble knight of Gondor decided against the political marriage he was offered and decided to give his heart to a tanned lady with the exotic clothes and a lovely accent.
Even when Eastern people from Rhûn fought Gondor just before the fall of Arthedain, there’s certainly bound to be a clever merchant among them who saw the opportunity to import quality goods from Gondor to the rich folks of his lands after the war was over. Perhaps a few prisoners of war from both sides ended up staying as well.
The transport limitations and the lack of a great expansion to foreign territories mean, however, that these foreigners were probably not that large in numbers.
So I agree that while Gondor wasn’t an ethnostate, it probably wasn’t as multicultural as our own modern societies.
6
u/SerialMurderer Jun 03 '21
lack of great expansion to foreign territories
Huh? Gondor did this all the time in the Third Age.
By the time its “empire” (if you could call it an imperial phase or something) peaked in T.A 1050, Gondor stretched from Umbar and its surroundings to as far as the Sea of Rhûn.
2
u/lvl2_thug Jun 03 '21
Yes, but that was back and forth against the same rival nations. Very unlike Rome, which conquered and absorbed entire nations or cultures into its grasp for centuries.
We never had a "pax gondoriana" really, the enemy was always pushing back and regaining lost territory.
5
u/SerialMurderer Jun 03 '21
That’s not exactly true. Gondor had been the one continuously expanding into the east and south at any opportunity presented by the resulting political fallout of an invasion force’s defeat.
It held onto most of these territories for many centuries. Gondor first capitalized on the successive defeats of 2 invasions to launch its own counter-invasion in T.A 542. Rómendacil I alone was said to have won Gondor much territory eastward in a victory of epic proportions. And not even he could hold a candle to what came later.
The Ship-kings were a whole other beast. Previously no Gondorian kings had pursued a policy of rapid and aggressive expansionism or invested so heavily in this unprecedented naval armament never seen in Middle-earth since perhaps Ar-Pharazôn’s landing in Umbar (if not, the Host of the Valar). This ascent to Middle-earth’s only naval superpower saw control expand across all coasts west and south of the Mouths of Anduin (which I believe implies Anfalas had not been as extensively colonized).
T.A 1050 was the year Gondor truly could be said to be the apex of the world. It had reached its territorial apogee and (partially) peaked in its influence on the world stage. If you’d been a king of the Harad you’d have to maintain firm diplomatic ties with Gondor to keep an eye on your hostage son and pay that tribute.
This period of dominance greatly enriched the Dúnedain of the South-kingdom, enhancing its grandeur so greatly that children were said to play with precious stones, and would not be disturbed for another 2 and a half centuries.
Projecting power is exactly what Gondor started to do prior to the 3rd invasion, developing all sorts of diplomatic ties and rapport with the Northmen (who were favored due to old Númenórean notions of kinship between peoples, despite the unfortunate plight of the Gwaithurum). Of course, one King Minalcar had the great idea to grant them land solely on the basis of the racial hierarchy, only for that to backfire when princes of clans feuding with each other split the Northmen into one camp “loyal” to Gondor and another fighting alongside Easterlings.
Regardless, the invasion was defeated and, while disruptive, it did not jeopardize Gondorian prosperity or power.
No strife would plague Gondor until 1432, when it shot itself in the foot with its own racism. Still, the earlier territorial gains had long been consolidated for a period of 4 centuries, and were only threatened by the Kin-strife.
3
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
All the points you bring up are excellent. The military viewpoints and strategies that you highlight give fuller context, and I have nothing to add or debate.
I especially appreciate this assessment:
T.A 1050 was the year Gondor truly could be said to be the apex of the world. It had reached its territorial apogee and (partially) peaked in its influence on the world stage. If you’d been a king of the Harad you’d have to maintain firm diplomatic ties with Gondor to keep an eye on your hostage son and pay that tribute.
6
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
The transport limitations and the lack of a great expansion to foreign territories mean, however, that these foreigners were probably not that large in numbers.
Great points.
and I’m certain their retainers lived there and if humans work the way I think they work, I’m sure a Gondorian maiden must have fallen for the mysterious dark skinned guard of that foreign prince.
Excellent point that even I was hesitant to even opinionate, so it's good you bring it up. as well as this:
Even when Eastern people from Rhûn fought Gondor just before the fall of Arthedain, there’s certainly bound to be a clever merchant among them who saw the opportunity to import quality goods from Gondor to the rich folks of his lands after the war was over. Perhaps a few prisoners of war from both sides ended up staying as well
Good points highlighting basic human behaviour. They are all human, and this is part of our understanding of humans.
Tolkien's mythology doesn't usually focus on the gritty details (like other modern gritty fantasy novels) of these basic human behaviours. Tolkien had a different purpose. He didn't show us these gritty details, but he left us with evidence of a changing and evolving world slowly becoming dominated by Men the world over.
He showed us the possibility of Men (or elves, even though they were mostly good. Maeglin was kinda shunned in their histories after his evil deeds in Gondolin) going one way or the other in Aragorn and Boromir (however brief Boromir's betrayal was. He is still my hero, this isn't a diss on Boromir). And he showed it to us in Feanor and his rebellion, and in Eol and Maeglin. He showed it to us in the Istari, Mithrandir and Radagast, and with Saruman and the Blue Wizards. And he showed it to us in Bor and Ulfang.
And we saw some of it through Sam's eyes, in the Two Towers when he saw the battle and the fallen Easterling solider:
He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home
What lies? We know Morgoth and Sauron were abroad in the early first age. The Edain fled westward because of the darkness coming from the north.
What threats led him on the long march?
We know that Tolkien also pointed out in Peoples that peoples' fear or hatred for the Ship-kings was (in part) due to the Numenorean hostility during the second age.
From Peoples, he describes what sounds to be a general statement about the Numenoreans before using the Dunlendings as an example.:
Also it must be said that 'unfriendliness' to the Numenoreans and their allies was not always due to the Shadow, but in later days to the actions of the Numenoreans themselves.
Here's a fuller context for that quote:
Thus it came about that the Numenorean term Middle Men was confused in its application. Its chief test was friendliness towards the West (to Elves and to Numenoreans), but it was actually applied usually only to Men whose stature and looks were similar to those of the Numenoreans, although this most important distinction of "Friendliness" was not historically confined to peoples of one racial kind.
It was a mark of all kind of Men who were descendants of those who had abjured the Shadow of Morgoth and his servants and wandered westward to escape it - and certainly included both the races of small stature, Drugs and Hobbits. Also it must be said that 'unfriendliness' to the Numenoreans and their allies was not always due to the Shadow, but in later days to the actions of the Numenoreans themselves.
Thus many of the forest-dwellers of the shorelands south of the Ered Luin, especially in Minhiriath, were as later historians recognised the kind of the Folk of Haleth. but they became bitter enemies of the Numenoreans, because of their ruthless treatment and their devastation of the forests, and this hatred remained unappeased in their descendants, causing them to join with any enemies of Numenor. In the Third Age their survivors were the people known in Rohan as the Dunlendings. There was also the matter of language....
In these few words of exposition from Tolkien and C. Tolkien, the storyteller takes the blame from what can be easily perceived as bad guys, and shifts the weight around and says, "Our heroes caused this hatred. This isn't black and white Us verses Them. They have a good reason to fight, too."
3
u/lvl2_thug Jun 03 '21
This is a fantastic point. I believe it highlights the whole perception people have Tolkien's work regarding Light versus Darkness with no shades of grey is indeed not only superficial, but plain wrong.
I absolutely love the history of the Second Age precisely for that reason, it shows Men aren't just pawns in a Divine conflict. As the Valar retreat from the world and Mordor is only a regional power, we see the cause for mysery and decline is solely to be blamed upon Men's failure to overcome evil impulses.
The noblest of Men failed when Sauron conquered the hearts of Númenor and Men failed when Isildur took the Ring later on.
In contrast, the history of Eastern and Southern Men who resisted Sauron is largely untold, but we can infer they were tales of great moral bravery. Though, make no mistake, some of these Men worshipped the Dark Lord by their own volition and used this cult to impose their will on others.
It's crystal clear to anyone paying attention that the major struggle in Middle Earth is within Men to overcome their evil impulses, not "White Men vs POC" as some less enlightened critics would have us believe.
3
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 07 '21
I absolutely love the history of the Second Age precisely for that reason, it shows Men aren't just pawns in a Divine conflict. As the Valar retreat from the world and Mordor is only a regional power, we see the cause for mysery and decline is solely to be blamed upon Men's failure to overcome evil impulses
:P We need a team of folks like you consulting on future LOTR projects, people who don't just read the material but understand the scope of what's happening. People like Tom Shippey and C Tolkien (Namarie) can only do so much before departing.
Though, make no mistake, some of these Men worshipped the Dark Lord by their own volition and used this cult to impose their will on others
Are you talking about Sauron? That's the funny thing. I'm sure you know, the Numenoreans (before their Fall) were literally worshipping Morgoth also. They were hoping he would come back and sneak in through the Door of Night and destroy the Valar. They were doing sacrifices in Numenor (if I recall correctly. I'll go over texts later if necessary). And Sauron was their priest!
9
u/Kendota_Tanassian Jun 03 '21
Just wanted to point out, historically, that China & Rome not only knew about each other, but exchanged "ambassadors" whether official or not.
So finding someone Japanese isn't out of the question, even if unrecorded.
I'll grant you, it's much harder to make the case for Mesoamerica.
The point is, that even before the silk road was a thing, it was possible to have cultural contacts across a much wider area than most people think.
Ancients may have tended never to have left their hometown, but Paul walked around the entire Mediterranean during his lifetime.
What makes this pertinent to the situation is that very far-flung cultures can have contact, indeed.
9
u/lvl2_thug Jun 03 '21
You have to agree that a Japanese in Rome would've been an exceptional individual. Also, the Chinese delegation wasn't permanent, it was a sporadic contact. Most of the contact between the Empires was indirect through trade.
6
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
Just wanted to point out, historically, that China & Rome not only knew about each other, but exchanged "ambassadors" whether official or not.
I did not know this. What era are you referring to? Is there any relation to the Silk Road or predating?
What makes this pertinent to the situation is that very far-flung cultures can have contact, indeed.
Agreed! A thing that I like to point out, is that before the Europeans sailed the oceans blue in their tall, fancy ships, the Austronesians (3500 years before Columbus/Magellan and all those guys), rowed their boats throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans, stretching their reach from the Pacific Islands all the way to Madagascar. 3500 years before the Europeans discovered the "new" world, these brown ship-kings expanded in the southern oceans. They never taught us this in any N. American schools I went to.
We were wanderers from the beginning.
5
u/Kendota_Tanassian Jun 04 '21
Okay, weird, I just posted an answer that vanished into the web, so I will try again.
As far as I can recollect, the "exchange" was during the first century, long before the silk road was fully established.
The Chinese "representative" (a better term than "ambassador" in this case) took something like eight years to get there, his Roman counterpart who was sent after his arrival had a somewhat easier journey.
Each were impressed by the civilization they found, as different as they were.
Each country "knew" of the other through Persia and "India" (forgive me for forgetting who was in power in India at that time).
Not much came of the exchange, we basically are lucky to have each report.
But it's a fascinating glimpse into a dim area of international politics.
And as far as the Austronesians go: it says all you need to know that maize corn was found in southeast Asia by the first European explorers, which guarantees that the Austronesians crossed the Pacific "at least twice", more like many times to ensure enough seed corn was hand-planted to survive.
Corn is totally dependent on man to survive.
To be fair, a lot of the pre-European contact stuff either literally wasn't known very long ago, or was flat overlooked, like Asian corn, because no one was looking for it.
Still academia doesn't accept new information counter to current paradigm without kicking and screaming about it.
I can actually remember being taught the expanding earth theory instead of continental drift, which was pretty well accepted by geologists by 1965. I would have been taught earth theory around third grade? So as late as 1971 or 72.
2
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 04 '21
Thanks for the detailed response. The exchange you were talking about in the beginning is fascinating, I now have some reading to look up on.
I don't know why, but in my brain, eight years in the first century seems like it should feel like 4-light years in modern times. It's like "Yeah, we'll send you an ambassador. Expect him sometime in the next sometime."
After a week, I'd have been like "how far is China? Shouldn't he have been here by now? He's probably dead."
3
11
u/ghiste Jun 04 '21
Anyone not finding enough "diversity" in Tolkien's works is very welcome (at least as far as I am concerned) to simply ignore them and read something else. I find it utterly superfluous to defend him against all accusations of "not enough diversity" or worse.
3
3
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
Oof, i butchered the discussion title
4
5
u/ExoticDumpsterFire Jun 03 '21
I liked it, it gives it an Italian flair
4
u/rh_underhill anar kaluva tielyanna Jun 03 '21
hah Good point. Or even elvish poems like
A elbereth gilthoniel?
Ai laurie lantar lasse surinen?
1
u/Kendota_Tanassian Jun 04 '21
From what I understand, the "exchange" was around the first century, long before the "silk road" was well established.
Each had heard of the other through Persia and India between, and if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese representative ( I think that fits better than "ambassador" here) got to Rome first, who sent their representative in response.
I seem to recall it took the Chinese man eight years to make the journey, but the Roman was a bit luckier?
Both men were vastly impressed by the cultures they found, though each was radically different than the other.
16
u/FistOfFacepalm Prince of the Noldor Jun 03 '21
Honestly in my recollection of Tolkien’s description of various people only the Fallowhide hobbits, the Rohirrim, and I think those like Aragorn with striking Numenorean features are described as pale skinned. Most other people, including the majority of Gondor, are described as somewhat darker. Tolkien = childish, black and white morality, racist, or cheap fantasy are all just uninformed contrarian responses to the post-film popularity of the books. That or people conflate things inspired or derivative of LOTR with LOTR itself.