Agreed, in general. The tremendous bad faith and sophistry turn me off, though.
Dan Send a noteboard - 29/01/2012 09:31:04 PM
I really hate the whole "privilege" meme that's been going around online, lately. I can't disagree with the substance of their issues, but their conceptual frameworks and the prescriptive stances they take from it are just so fucking dishonest.
The major objection I have to this is the semantic slight of hand revolving around the notion of racism. Namely, that it's now an institutional and cultural structure, i.e. "prejudice and power", and that by participating in it unknowingly, unwillingly, and unconsciously, we are now "racist". Granted, some people make the pro forma distinction that one's statements or actions are racist, but it quickly dissolves into yelling and accusations. The fact is, they are exchanging one definition of racism for another, very different definition, and but using the rhetorical force of the former definition to gain traction in argument.
They delight in decrying people as "racist", seeing them scramble and apologize, and expect all right-thinking people to conduct their bile at them, but most of this comes from the older connotation of racism that involves the conscious and deliberate belief in race, racial inequality, and furthering that inequality. Their invective would gain significantly less traction if they made it clear that people were insensitively and unconsciously participating in a cultural structure or worldview that was prejudiced. When people who haven't been made privy of this paradigm shift to being called racist, they are of course branded as evil privilege mongers who Deny Racism, despite the fact that they object to an entirely different concept, all the while utilizing the leverage that the baggage of the term supplies in the argument.
I think at heart though most of the people advocating this worldview identify the two concepts. Intention and conscious deliberation have no role any longer, and it's all about they system one participates in. It's very, very similar to original sin in this way. I find that particularly amusing, since this was Foucault's reduction of Derrida, and god knows that the above worldview reeks of the worst of post-modernism.
Not a huge fan of her tone at times (at other points I do find the blunt comments justified, though), and the Twitter convos she links to are hardly something to be proud of. Writing that "The neckbeards of today likewise think of themselves as progressive, liberal, and open to gay marriage – but spend your time in the company of any neckbeard and you quickly realize they are some of the most regressive people you’ll find outside of an Aryan Nation meeting" is fairly nonsensical.
That there are racist and sexist messages in Tolkien is difficult to deny; and the former aspect at least is almost inevitably copied into any Tolkienesque "high fantasy" (the sexism often as well). Still, it's important to note a passage like the one with Sam and the Easterling, or the ones where Galadriel's importance is underlined, in order to make clear that the racism and sexism are side-effects of Tolkien's nostalgia (as so often with nostalgia, one could say nostalgic to a past that never existed), rather than intentional propagations of his beliefs. Judging by the above-quoted comment, the blog author doesn't think the distinction is one worth making, but I certainly do. If you make a three-line summary of LotR, odds are it will sound like neo-Nazi propaganda; it's certainly important to point out that it's really not.
Her point about how the human-Elven couples in Tolkien all have Elven women and human men was new to me, though... I'd never really considered that before, that there are no men giving up their immortality for a mortal woman, or even just marrying one for the duration of her life. That said, Lúthien is the only one who does give up her immortality, and I do think she (like Galadriel) should count as a valid strong female character. Eowyn is admittedly a different story, and Arwen gets too little "screentime" to make any meaningful analysis.
The major objection I have to this is the semantic slight of hand revolving around the notion of racism. Namely, that it's now an institutional and cultural structure, i.e. "prejudice and power", and that by participating in it unknowingly, unwillingly, and unconsciously, we are now "racist". Granted, some people make the pro forma distinction that one's statements or actions are racist, but it quickly dissolves into yelling and accusations. The fact is, they are exchanging one definition of racism for another, very different definition, and but using the rhetorical force of the former definition to gain traction in argument.
They delight in decrying people as "racist", seeing them scramble and apologize, and expect all right-thinking people to conduct their bile at them, but most of this comes from the older connotation of racism that involves the conscious and deliberate belief in race, racial inequality, and furthering that inequality. Their invective would gain significantly less traction if they made it clear that people were insensitively and unconsciously participating in a cultural structure or worldview that was prejudiced. When people who haven't been made privy of this paradigm shift to being called racist, they are of course branded as evil privilege mongers who Deny Racism, despite the fact that they object to an entirely different concept, all the while utilizing the leverage that the baggage of the term supplies in the argument.
I think at heart though most of the people advocating this worldview identify the two concepts. Intention and conscious deliberation have no role any longer, and it's all about they system one participates in. It's very, very similar to original sin in this way. I find that particularly amusing, since this was Foucault's reduction of Derrida, and god knows that the above worldview reeks of the worst of post-modernism.
Requires Only That You Hate (one of my favorite blogs to read when I need a different perspective on the social/gender/racial issues found in SF/F fiction) has a thought-provoking article up on the racist and sexist elements in Tolkien's writing that addresses some of the usual defenses of his work. I thought this might be of interest to some here, so the link is below.
Not a huge fan of her tone at times (at other points I do find the blunt comments justified, though), and the Twitter convos she links to are hardly something to be proud of. Writing that "The neckbeards of today likewise think of themselves as progressive, liberal, and open to gay marriage – but spend your time in the company of any neckbeard and you quickly realize they are some of the most regressive people you’ll find outside of an Aryan Nation meeting" is fairly nonsensical.
That there are racist and sexist messages in Tolkien is difficult to deny; and the former aspect at least is almost inevitably copied into any Tolkienesque "high fantasy" (the sexism often as well). Still, it's important to note a passage like the one with Sam and the Easterling, or the ones where Galadriel's importance is underlined, in order to make clear that the racism and sexism are side-effects of Tolkien's nostalgia (as so often with nostalgia, one could say nostalgic to a past that never existed), rather than intentional propagations of his beliefs. Judging by the above-quoted comment, the blog author doesn't think the distinction is one worth making, but I certainly do. If you make a three-line summary of LotR, odds are it will sound like neo-Nazi propaganda; it's certainly important to point out that it's really not.
Her point about how the human-Elven couples in Tolkien all have Elven women and human men was new to me, though... I'd never really considered that before, that there are no men giving up their immortality for a mortal woman, or even just marrying one for the duration of her life. That said, Lúthien is the only one who does give up her immortality, and I do think she (like Galadriel) should count as a valid strong female character. Eowyn is admittedly a different story, and Arwen gets too little "screentime" to make any meaningful analysis.
This message last edited by Dan on 29/01/2012 at 09:32:36 PM
The racist elements in Tolkien's writing
- 29/01/2012 01:31:02 PM
2494 Views
She has some points, of course.
- 29/01/2012 02:25:32 PM
1274 Views
Quite a few points
- 29/01/2012 02:40:45 PM
1368 Views
I don't find the tone blunt; I find it leading, patronizing and often wrong or inferring too much.
- 30/01/2012 01:43:27 AM
1282 Views
Agreed - reading it, I struggled to find any redeeming qualities
- 30/01/2012 07:32:58 PM
1366 Views
Agreed, in general. The tremendous bad faith and sophistry turn me off, though.
- 29/01/2012 09:31:04 PM
1473 Views
Mostly agreed with the article, but thought she undermined herself with her own racism.
- 29/01/2012 02:50:11 PM
1341 Views
Just read your Twitter convo... nice try, but looks like wasted effort. *NM*
- 29/01/2012 10:37:08 PM
578 Views
Well, I'll be honest.
- 29/01/2012 10:34:46 PM
1216 Views
Let me try to summarize some of her points with the invective filtered out, then.
- 29/01/2012 10:48:24 PM
1411 Views
Thank you.
- 29/01/2012 11:10:13 PM
1441 Views
What the hell, might as well go and play devil's advocate, right? 
- 30/01/2012 04:50:30 PM
1348 Views
- 30/01/2012 04:50:30 PM
1348 Views
I expected that. 
- 30/01/2012 05:39:59 PM
1246 Views
- 30/01/2012 05:39:59 PM
1246 Views
Of course you did. I'm predictable that way.
- 30/01/2012 10:28:10 PM
1234 Views
Re: Of course you did. I'm predictable that way.
- 31/01/2012 12:39:46 AM
1134 Views
Re: Of course you did. I'm predictable that way.
- 31/01/2012 08:38:46 PM
1178 Views
I <3 you, but there are several very key things we are not going to agree on.
- 31/01/2012 10:02:22 PM
1598 Views
- 31/01/2012 10:02:22 PM
1598 Views
Hmm?
- 31/01/2012 10:10:22 PM
1167 Views
Yeah. I got to reading Encyclopedia of Arda just now, and it told me the same thing.
- 31/01/2012 10:35:54 PM
1091 Views
As a sort of group answer (I've been mostly absent from forums the past two days)
- 31/01/2012 10:45:55 PM
1432 Views
I don't mind if you tell me I'm out of line here, but
- 31/01/2012 11:55:04 PM
1272 Views
I'm rarely ever offended
- 01/02/2012 01:54:58 AM
1457 Views
She was referring specifically to the Twitter "conversation" I had with the blogger.
- 01/02/2012 09:05:28 AM
1240 Views
Yes.
- 01/02/2012 10:47:22 AM
1372 Views
It makes me wonder what she thinks is happening in Zimbabwe, for example.
- 01/02/2012 11:13:11 AM
1408 Views
I've been thinking about that.
- 01/02/2012 11:29:18 AM
1198 Views
That blog post was mostly good, but the exception is a rather large one.
- 01/02/2012 08:35:57 PM
1120 Views
What's a neckbeard? And why am I supposed to care? *NM*
- 30/01/2012 01:29:07 AM
650 Views
neckbeards are when the person (either intentionally or through misfortunate genetics)...
- 30/01/2012 03:21:09 AM
1178 Views
acrackedmoon is a racist, sexist bore. And I don't even like Tolkien. *NM*
- 30/01/2012 01:14:17 PM
1309 Views