On the Books MB, there was a post where so wild-eyed nutjob with an axe to grind had a rant linked going on about how JRR Tolkien was racist, and there was considerable discussion back and forth, which I skimmed before I realized I didn't really give a damn. I don't believe Tolkien was racist, because at my job(s), and among certain other eldery people of my aquaintence, I have actually encountered racists, and I know a lot of how they think and their triggers and whatnot, and they are usually a good source of jokes, so I will give their material a hearing at the very least, and Tolkien has none of that. Not unless you demand a level of intercultural contact that is pretty much unheard of in worlds of the depicted level of technological and societal advancement, and then decide that only racism could lead to the exclusion of other races. Tolkien give no sign of having any issues with other races, if for no other reason than they simply did not come to his attention or mind, and given the topics of study with which he was involved, there is little reason to expect him to give them any thought. On the other hand, by the rules of PC judging, Robert Jordan could really pass when given closer scrutiny - after all he is a product of the 20th century and grew up while racial issues were at the forefront of national politics, and does include other races in his books. Jordan, however, shoves all his darkies to the periphery of his series. The important characters are all lily-white, and the only foreign culture with which they interact to any significant degree are the ones who resemble Hitler's wet dream. Sure, one of the main characters gets a dark-skinned love interest, but she gets the least amount of attention or character development, her situation is the most adversarial regarding the other characters, and she is not even the most prominent or important character from her own culture, with those roles leaning more towards the blue-eyed Egeanin/Leilwin and the blonde-haired Alivia.

What it boils down to is, if you are so inclined, you can find reasons to pick up on racial stuff anywhere, and the urge to iconoclasm that fuels so much internet op-ed stuff means that even ironclad proof of Tolkien's equal and sincere love for all of mankind will not prevent people from sifting through his work to discredit them as racist. What it REALLY comes down to is (and the reason I didn't bother offering an opinion in that thread), who gives a damn whether or not he is? Robert Jordan was a Mason and Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, two belief systems I find far more risable than any propensity for dirty jokes at the expense of, or aesthetic disdain for, a particular skin tone. A racist is just a little extreme in his views about Others, about foreigners, outsiders, what-have-you: groups that are different, and which we are hard-wired to distrust, because the groups that stuck to their own and were hostile to outsiders tended to be the ones the survived to promulgate their cultures and secure their livlihoods. The failure to work your way past an atavistic mindset is something everyone is guilty of in one way or another, and it just so happens that it is currently fashionable to hold in contempt those who can't overcome such mindsets against particular physical differences. But with people of differing belief systems, they have deliberately chosen a mindset, a philosophy and a view of the supernatural world which is at odds with one's own. I hold my religious beliefs because they reflect how I view the really big stuff, and the really important realities. Jordan and Sanderson were completely removed and embraced opposing perspectives on that level. Next to something like that, what's a trival & superficial difference like skin color, or preferences thereof?

Let Tolkien be a bigot. It does not affect my indifference to his beliefs or opinions one way or another, nor my view of his writing. And the same goes for Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson or Terry Pratchet or Neil Gaiman or George RR Martin. The latter posted some screed on his blog about four years ago about politics which I found completely inaccurate and prejudicial and indicative of a "four legs good, two legs bad mindset" but that is not nearly as obnoxious as his claim to be both a Jets and Giants fan. Pick one or the other and live with it, butthead! In any case, no matter the issue of blinkered support for a failure of a novelty president, or cowardly equivocating on a crucial hometown issue, it does not affect how I read and enjoy his books at all!

The problem is, we have begun sorting belief systems into good and bad categories. Racism is just another one, like Marxism or Judaism or being a Cowboys fan. Have people killed other people because of racist beliefs? Of course. And even more people were killed in the Holodomor because the people in power were prejudiced against those with a degree of economic success & power. Propaganda against land-owning farmers in the USSR was every bit as vicious as the worst anti-Negro stuff in the Jim Crow south, and more people died of it. The anti-racists started a war and invaded a so-far peaceful country which was the bloodiest in US history! Is that really better, is that morally superior, to a few people being lynched or kept in bad jobs? All belief systems are wrong depending on your point of view, and just because it is trendy now, does not make hatred of racists any more wrong. I will be the first one to admit my assumption of spiritual and moral equality of the other races with my own has absolutely no scientific or factual basis - it is simply my belief system, and I am no more right in condemn a racist who denies that aspect of my beliefs than I am in condemning a Moslem who denies the Blessed Trinity or the communist who denies my Divinely affirmed right to own property.

With that in mind, I come to something I noticed when watching the first season of Boardwalk Empire. An oft-repeated complaint about the absurd and implausible TV show "24" was the depiction and use of torture on that show. Yet in almost every case, there was a ticking time-bomb scenario, and all of the "victims" of the torture were caught red-handed in collaboration with attempted or would-be mass murderers. People whined about it so much, that it actually affected storylines on the show. Yet, on "Boardwalk Empire" a far worse use of torture takes place and I have never heard so much as a peep from anyone in any discussion. Why? Probably because the perpetrator was a black man and the victim was a leader of the Klu Klux Klan. That bigotry against racists is the ONLY reason to find this action acceptable. In the context of the show, we know of no criminal actions the man has taken. In the scene where he is taken prisoner, the fact is stated that in that time and place, membership in that organization is not illegal. The man being tortured and permanently mutilated was so treated, solely because of his beliefs and associations, and as his tormentor later admits, he IS innocent, and the torturer realized it well before he stopped his abuse of his victim. Not only that, there is no urgent circumstance, such as an imminent threat to lives, that would justify the use of torture: rather it is done for the absolute worst reason - determination of guilt in a crime! Jack Bauer NEVER seized and tortured a Muslim terrorist with as little evidence, guilt on the part of his victim or lack of urgent circumstances, but because Islam is a preferred belief system in our culture, and racism is not, the abuse of an innocent man is perfectly acceptable.

The black man doing the torturing, by the way, is not only a criminal, but in league with other criminals and a frequent collaborator in rigging elections and smuggling, distributing and unhealthily-diluting controlled substances. The victim was hauled out of a public meeting by corrupt police officers at gunpoint, on random suspicion of murdering one of the black man's racial associates. A black man died, so they sieze and torture a member of an anti-black group without evidence or a warrant: how far would 24 be allowed to run with a storyline where a bomb went off and the protagonists dragged an imam out of a mosque to be tortured and maimed until deciding he knew nothing about it? Incidently, a message left by the killers at the crime scene suggested (truthfully, as it would turn out) that the murder victim was killed for his association with an illegal bootlegging operation. The killers turned out to be criminal rivals of the black's organization.

And what of the particulars of the Klan's operations in the setting of the show? To that point, they had been shown to do nothing but openly recruit and hold a meeting. Meanwhile, the show had already established that in that very town, the black community was organized (by the torturer, incidentally) and mobilized as a political group that helped keep a corrupt political boss & his lackies in power, and his equally corrupt brother in office as the local sherrif (who arrests people and delivers them to be tortured by his criminal accomplices purely on prejudiced speculation). This is one situation where a lot of what the Klan's stopped-clock propaganda happens to be true! What is more, this is not the Jim Crow deep South, but a place where blacks can vote, have political power and use it to keep their criminal patron who is shown buying their votes, in power. If there is a situation where hostility to the black community might possibly have some genuine reasons behind it, this is close to being one such! Later on, in season 2, the Klan eventually enacts vengeance for their leader's abuse, and are portrayed as the villains. They shot up a building where the black crime ring was engaged in illegal activity, specifically their business of diluting alcohol with substances like formaldehyde and other toxic mixtures in order to increase their profits. Later, the torturer bemoans the members of his gang who are wounded and fumes at his white accomplice's dilatory pursuit of justice or retaliation, and the entire setup of the show treats him like the one with a serious grievance! He is engaged in criminal activity of long-standing and on multiple levels. He was a party to the illegal and power-abusing abduction of an innocent man by the authorities, and freely admitted not only the innocence of that man, but also of his deliberate continued abuse of that man beyond what was "necessary" to obtain the truth. Then, when the friends of his victim shoot up his isolated criminal operation, and he becomes Martin Luther King marching in Selma.

By any objective standard, this character & his collaborators would be the villains, except for one thing - a long standing, socially-accepted (like those against blacks used to be) prejudice against racists! The racists on the show were treated based solely on expectations and presumptions of their guilt, because of their beliefs, and because of the prejudice against them, are blamed for a crime committed by their supposed victims' own criminal rivals, who left a message attributing their killing to the victims' criminal activity! Even at their worst, the Klan do nothing worse than act against a group of criminals engaged in probably the most indefensible aspect of the otherwise harmless bootlegging trade, and doing so on behalf of an innocent man. The Klan are graphically shown to be without recourse to legal means of redress, as their member was seized for torture by the head of the local law enforcement agency, in his official capacity.

Hating someone because of his affiliation with a particular group is no different than doing so because of his religion. Just because others of the same group have done questionable things in the past, does not justify the mistreatment of those who have not done the same, nor the denial of civil liberties to them, nor their right to take up arms to defend themselves, even aggressively, in the absence of the protection society owes to all within it.