Three things - I definitely see the validity of the first point, but I have never claimed that some don't see it as racist/sexist. I simply disagree with at least 75% of the conclusions.

I definitely think that Tolkien was too wrapped up in the concept of England being Shire/home and most enemies coming from more exotic places, but I don't think it's a statement that people of color are evil - in fact, many of the evil/corrupted humans were white. Saruman was corrupted and ruined, Denethor was driven mad. The Numenorians had those who went wrong, the nazgul were white men. Even Sam thinks that the Southron was probably corrupted and mislead by Sauron. Not evil because he's brown.

And, I still disagree that the orcs are a good example. They were specifically corrupted, experimented on and bred to be evil. You're not talking about human races and different characteristics - it's much more comparable to a dog breed having being bred and selected to result in certain characteristics. If people miss this information about the orcs that would be Tolkien's fault, but it still doesn't mean that he was blatantly insensitive to present such a "race."


I've never disagreed that some people find it racist and sexist. I am simply pointing out why I don't necessarily think that is a fair conclusion on several points.


I actually agree, but that's because I believe we're talking mostly about culture. I mean, I was just reading that European Jews were mainly known to have a connection to money because Christians were unable to lend money. We're again back to the medieval Jew as a concept - can we say we're talking about their race? Or are we discussing their monetary culture as it evolved under opportunity? What racial cues are we using to tie Jews and dwarves together? It's a complicated topic to unravel, but I still think we're talking more about a historical culture rather than a race.



I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying here. From the information I have looked up, Tolkien clearly wasn't anti-semitic. Are you claiming he was?


I don't think I was clear. I don't think they are excuses - I said I felt like that's what I was doing. I honestly believe what I presented. For one thing, Tolkien had just come back from war. It makes sense for him to present a character who fought and killed and nearly died for others, and then realizes that war isn't the glorious, honorable thing she had dreamed it would be. PTSD is a real thing, and he would have known that better than anyone. Eowyn's wounds were deeply mental as well as physical, and she is brought back from the brink. Is it that odd for her to be done with killing after such a thing? She says she wants to be a healer - not just some rich horselord's wife. Is that going back to her "place?"


See, I don't think it's fair to give "motherly" a sexist connotation here. Elrond and Celeborn did much the same thing she did - wise old elf offers young races information, aid and comfort. Should we call them "fatherly?" No matter which way I look at it, she was pretty amazing. She challenged each one of them, interpreted the feelings of each, offered Frodo the chance to look into the future and then fought through her own temptation and presented gifts that were extremely insightful and irreplaceable. If that's motherly, it's surely more: "I'm a bad ass motha" who just happens to be on your side. Lucky you.