642 réponses à ce sujet

[Ollys]

Plaintiff wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The haradrim and rhun of Lord of the Rings aren't evil because they are del skinned, they are evil because they follow Sauron. They are dark because Tolkien understood the correltion between climate and skin color.

Middle Earth is a fantasy world. Tolkien could've made the climate anything he damn well pleased. There is no reason whatsoever that the Haradrim and Rhun had to be black, and there is no reason that they had to be written as followers of Sauron. 

Why are the black people only followers of Sauron? Why do no black people side with the Alliance of Elves and Men?

 
Like Tolkin say - it easy to make world with green sun. But in  hard to make this world logical and real, world in what readers will belief.

Black people follow Sauron orders, cuz they country fall under Sauron influence. Its normal - you follow rules of your society. Same reason why islam is mostly dominated religion ob middle east or why orthodox is dominated in Russia and why westerners think that libaralism and democracy is somethink good. When everyone around you did that, you did the same and just follow damn rules and traditions and dont ask any questions about what right and what wrong.  

[What a Succulent Ass]

Steelcan wrote...

To me it would be immersion breaking if the Hero of Ferelden and Hawke were native to a predominantly white society but were not white. Now if they were from Tevinter or somewhere more cosmopoliton it would be a different story.

Dang, forreal?

Because I'm definitely a n*gga in an eighty-percent white country, but I ain't eem get to bend space-time a little, not even once.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:46 .

[Plaintiff]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...
This is not because Nigerians assume black people to be the norm or because Indians assume Indian people to be the norm. It's because the majority of people in their countries and in their market have that ethnicity.

Or it could be because they don't have a lot of white people hanging around, hoping to star in their movies, whereas the United States is racially diverse and could very easily attract stars from other nations (which it has done in the past) if it wanted or needed to.

[Iakus]

Steelcan wrote...

The haradrim and rhun of Lord of the Rings aren't evil because they are del skinned, they are evil because they follow Sauron. They are dark because Tolkien understood the correltion between climate and skin color.

They're not even necessarilly evil:


"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. 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 at heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace." 

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The haradrim and rhun of Lord of the Rings aren't evil because they are del skinned, they are evil because they follow Sauron. They are dark because Tolkien understood the correltion between climate and skin color.

Middle Earth is a fantasy world. Tolkien could've made the climate anything he damn well pleased. There is no reason whatsoever that the Haradrim and Rhun had to be black, and there is no reason that they had to be written as followers of Sauron. 

Why are the black people only followers of Sauron? Why do no black people side with the Alliance of Elves and Men?

Actually Rhun is more akin to Mongolia.  Anyways there is no exclusivity to dark skinned people servob Saurob,the corsairs of Umbar were fair skinned, and some of the harad were described as "pale with red eyes"

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
As per usual you make an off hand comment and then scurry away when I point out that it was utterly inane. Oh I have read to Kill a Mocking Bird, but apparantly the idea of the reader's perceptions placing a particular bias on the literature and then drawing from that there is implied content hasn't quiet sunk in for you yet.

Jesus Christ.

There is no "bias" or "absurdity" in merely pointing out that Tolkien's only persons of colour in Lord of the Rings are depicted purely as villains, siding with a world-destroying evil.

Show me the black people who fight against Sauron, and I'll concede that I've misremembered the contents of the trilogy.

Your comparison to To Kill A Mockingbird was however, absurd, biased and absolutely false. Not only does the novel not condemn white society, the heroes of the novel are all white people.

It's bias and absurdity stating it's implied racism. The only black nation who is beholden to Sauron is the Southrons, the equivalent of Africa geographically, and they are not evil, they are subjugated, and go to war begrudgingly. Or are you trying to make the point, that the Hill tribes, the men of Rhun, the Wain Riders the Corsairs of Umbar and the raiders in Arnor, who seem all to be white or Slavic aren't "evil"? because they certainly are beholden to Sauron. But, we'll just ignore all of that and say. Black people in Lord of the Rings are bad, hence there is implied racism. 

My point was, if I strip away the context of To Kill a Mocking Bird and disregard characters as was done with the above example, I can begin making refrences to implicit racism too. It's absurd. 

The difference being that there are plenty of white characters on the "good" side of the conflict, to balance out the portrayal of white ethnicities. The same cannot be said for the black characters.

The Lord of the Rings is an extremely dense text and details are easily forgotten, To Kill A Mockingbird is a short and very simple book, the two situations are not equivalent. If you're a big Middle Earth buff, then good for you, but expecting anyone else to be as well-informed about thaat one piece of fiction? Now that is absurd.

But since you apparently are, you can explain to me when and where the motivation of the Southrons is explained, and you can also tell me what the black nations that aren't beholden to Sauron are up to during this time.

If you aren't that well in formed about a piece of literature then don't get in the middle of a discussion between two posters when you don't have the knowledge to support what was said. 

[What a Succulent Ass]

TommyServo wrote...

There are plenty of ways for Hawke or the Warden to be a non-white ferelden.

...Being that "Fereldan" is a nationality, not a race. The only racial taxonomy that exists (as far as we know) involve dwarves, demons, and elves.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:50 .

[FKA_Servo]

Steelcan wrote...

@Silfren, really? Ferelden = England, Orlais = France, Tevinter = Byzantium, Anderfells = German people in Russia, Free Marches = independent city states.

All you're proving is that it's a Eurocentric high fantasy setting like just about every other one.

Thedas is Thedas. It's a fictional setting.

[Thiefy]

Steelcan wrote...

@Thief of Hearts, I have no objection to your second point.

To your first, in regards to Dragon Age, both the warden and Hawke are both Ferelden in race. This is part of their characterization and is fairly integral. To me it would be immersion breaking if the Hero of Ferelden and Hawke were native to a predominantly white society but were not white. Now if they were from Tevinter or somewhere more cosmopoliton it would be a different story.

 
Hawke isn't "fereldan" ethinically, his or her family is from kirkwall. The Amells have been for while a while and daddy!Hawke is a circle mage. Kirkwall is a port town and the Circl of Magi are known to trade mages, so Hawke being racially diverse is a really big possibility.

Then you have Cousland!Warden, who is native fereldan. I posted this link earlier but I'll post it again: 
dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Alamarri 

there is the exact lore on the indigenious people of Fereldan. No where does it specifically say "white". Most people assume white though because for westerners that's the "default human". If you look at the concept art though, I don't think those features are those that solely belong to white people. I personally don't think they look "white" at all but that's not to say white people can't have those feature, either.

[FKA_Servo]

Random Jerkface wrote...

TommyServo wrote...

There are plenty of ways for Hawke or the Warden to be a non-white ferelden.

...Being that Fereldan is a nationality, not a race. The only racial taxonomy that exists (as far as we know) involve dwarves, demons, and elves.

That was actually a typo - I meant non-white non-ferelden. Edited, in any case.

[Steelcan]

Random Jerkface wrote...

TommyServo wrote...

There are plenty of ways for Hawke or the Warden to be a non-white ferelden.

...Being that "Fereldan" is a nationality, not a race. The only racial taxonomy that exists (as far as we know) involve dwarves, demons, and elves.

And we never see any dark skinned dwarves and elves seem to be pretty celtic in culture and speech.

[Silfren]

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
I submit that To Kill a Mocking Bird is racist because it portrays white society in America in a wholy negative light, discriminating against white society universally.

Maybe you should stick to arguing about books you've actually read.

Yeah, and I know what racist implications written into a narrative are, but I've not quite figured out how a reader can "imply racism" into a book.

I also see that my little gif on implications being a intellectually barren get out clause when you can't make a coherrent point has been lost on you. 

If you can't figure out that I question your intelligence. You just said critics have been claiming that the Lord of the Ring is an allegorical tale. Yet you haven't grasped that your own perception is the determining factor in what you see as the implied content? Wow. 

What I actually said is that critics see allegory in Lord of the Rings.  But that's neither here nor there.  When you write a story where the dark-skinned people are evil and the white people are heroes, there are racist implications. That's not a reader's imaginary perception, it is a critical observation of the writer's biases.

And the dwarves spend their times in the mountains, segregated from other societies and crave gold and riches. It's like the Jews.Ipso Facto Lord or the Rings also implies anti-semetic content. 

I can use the literary content to imply any sort of social ideology based on the flimsiest evidence as you have just done. 

There's a huge difference between critical observation of a writer's bias and your perception implying the bias into the literature. 

Not quite.  If the Dwarves had been written, say, to have distinctly Jewish names, a person could easily point to racist implications written into the book by Tolkien, which is what is being discussed when people point to the fact that Tolkien's dark races are evil servants of Sauron while his white races are heroes of the West. 

But the dwarves are actually drawn from mythological lore about mythological beings.  You reading and saying that the dwarves must represent Jews because (you think) only Jews as a group love gold, that would be an example of the reader bringing THEIR racist assumptions into the book.

So it has to be determined by your determination does it? Why should they require Jewish names, the negative sterotype is there which had been established as the sterotype well into the middle ages. What you've done is a cheap make a cheap out clause.  I don't need a name to draw implications when the hall marks are easily presentable. 

As I said in another post. All the other factions, which are allied or subjgated by Sauron, we'll just sweep them under the provebial rug, so the point you made isn't completely undermined by the evidence that you have removed everything which does not justify your point and declared it not relevant. 

That's what I just did, names aren't relevant. Anti semitism exists in Lord of the Rings. 

Both of these are utterly absurd positions to take.

I was going with your example to illustrate the difference between racist implications being written into a work, and those of reader bringing THEIR racist assumptions into it.  It's not my fault if you lack the intellectual ability to grasp my meaning.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I want to be a guy with Chinese face and African skin color.
Suffice to say that my body members should be as large as Africans not Chinese!

[FKA_Servo]

Careful with the quote pyramids, peeps.

[Plaintiff]

Ollys wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The haradrim and rhun of Lord of the Rings aren't evil because they are del skinned, they are evil because they follow Sauron. They are dark because Tolkien understood the correltion between climate and skin color.

Middle Earth is a fantasy world. Tolkien could've made the climate anything he damn well pleased. There is no reason whatsoever that the Haradrim and Rhun had to be black, and there is no reason that they had to be written as followers of Sauron. 

Why are the black people only followers of Sauron? Why do no black people side with the Alliance of Elves and Men?

 
Like Tolkin say - it easy to make world with green sun. But in  hard to make this world logical and real, world in what readers will belief.

Black people follow Sauron orders, cuz they country fall under Sauron influence. Its normal - you follow rules of your society. Same reason why islam is mostly dominated religion ob middle east or why orthodox is dominated in Russia and why westerners think that libaralism and democracy is somethink good. When everyone around you did that, you did the same and just follow damn rules and traditions and dont ask any questions about what right and what wrong.  

Green stars exist, man. The human eye can't perceive them, but that doesn't make them less real.

So all this tells me is that Tolkien just wasn't very well informed about astronomy or biology.

[Thiefy]

Legatus Arianus wrote...

I want to be a guy with Chinese face and African skin color.
Suffice to say that my body members should be as large as Africans not Chinese!

 
Really? <_< 
Yeah stuff like this isn't at all ignore or harmful to people of that ethnicity.

[Hazegurl]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yet people of color are expected to identify with white people ALL THE TIME.

Indeed. You still haven't pointed out to me how that comes from racism, though.

In Lay terms

Identify:
1. To establish the identity of.2. To ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive characteristics of.3. Biology To determine the taxonomic classification of (an organism).4. To consider as identical or united; equate.5. To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group.

Racism:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now look at Silfren's post again: "people of color are expected to identify with white people..."

The fact that one group is expected(required) to identify with one particular group is based on a superiority mindset which is the basis of racism. I believe that is his point he's trying to make with you.

[Steelcan]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Thief of Hearts, I have no objection to your second point.

To your first, in regards to Dragon Age, both the warden and Hawke are both Ferelden in race. This is part of their characterization and is fairly integral. To me it would be immersion breaking if the Hero of Ferelden and Hawke were native to a predominantly white society but were not white. Now if they were from Tevinter or somewhere more cosmopoliton it would be a different story.

 
Hawke isn't "fereldan" ethinically, his or her family is from kirkwall. The Amells have been for while a while and daddy!Hawke is a circle mage. Kirkwall is a port town and the Circl of Magi are known to trade mages, so Hawke being racially diverse is a really big possibility.

Then you have Cousland!Warden, who is native fereldan. I posted this link earlier but I'll post it again: 
dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Alamarri 

there is the exact lore on the indigenious people of Fereldan. No where does it specifically say "white". Most people assume white though because for westerners that's the "default human". If you look at the concept art though, I don't think those features are those that solely belong to white people. I personally don't think they look "white" at all but that's not to say white people can't have those feature, either.

Hawke was born to a Marcher who could be of any race really, but Hawke's father, being Ferelden was in all likely hood white because that is what the vast majority of Fereldens seems to be.  I'll quote Gamlen on this "Ferelden apostate". 

The Cousland warden's family is all white.  The warden can be different, but everybody else is white.  Their appearance did not change as far as I know.

[Gotholhorakh]

I would be firmly in favour of more variation in these games so that everyone can find people like them.

re: Tolkien

a) Middle Earth was intended to be a mythos for the English. It is not simply an imaginary world but a backdrop to the real world, and as such it is snowy in the north and less so in the south, the men of the east are often turkic or slavic, the men of the south are black and so on. Mordor is in the south east of the setting.

The author (on a few occasions) wrote of his particular dislike of allegory, which is also recanted by those who knew him, and he specifically stated there is no allegory in the Red Book of Westmarch

c) How dare you call J R R Tolkien a racist because of your inferences, one of the finest minds of his time or any, by all accounts a kind, decent man and a veteran of the Great War, who almost single-handedly gave us most of the bloody genre from which Dragon Age sprung and created most of the fantasy tropes you all wheel out every thirty seconds in every thread on this forum.


How dare you impugn the great man in your mission to make everything seem a bit more worthless and demoralized. Go stuff yourselves for that.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:56 .

[Plaintiff]

billy the squid wrote...
If you aren't that well in formed about a piece of literature then don't get in the middle of a discussion between two posters when you don't have the knowledge to support what was said. 

I never had anything to say about Lord of the Rings, until just now. It was your blatant intellectual dishonesty about the content of To Kill A Mockingbird that prompted me to post, and nothing else.

I was only ever talking about To Kill A Mockingbird. Don't make your discussion with me about Lord of the Rings.

[Plaintiff]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I would be firmly in favour of more variation in these games so that everyone can find people like them.

re: Tolkien

a) Middle Earth was intended to be a mythos for the English. It is not simply an imaginary world but a backdrop to the real world, and as such it is snowy in the north and less so in the south, the men of the east are often turkic or slavic, the men of the south are black and so on. Mordor is in the south east of the setting.

The author (on a few occasions) wrote of his particular dislike of allegory, which is also recanted by those who knew him, and he specifically stated there is no allegory in the Red Book of Westmarch

c) How dare you call J R R Tolkien a racist because of your inferences, one of the finest minds of his time or any, by all accounts a kind, decent man and a veteran of the Great War, who almost single-handedly gave us most of the bloody genre from which Dragon Age sprung and created most of the fantasy tropes you all wheel out every thirty seconds in every thread on this forum.


How dare you impugn the great man in your mission to make everything seem a bit more worthless and demoralized. Go stuff yourselves for that.

Many otherwise great and admirable people were racists. I suggest you get over it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:58 .

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
But since you apparently are, you can explain to me when and where the motivation of the Southrons is explained, and you can also tell me what the black nations that aren't beholden to Sauron are up to during this time.

Sure, towards the end of his life, Tolkien wrote that the two Blue Wizards travelled to the Sauron-controlled East and there incited rebellions against the Dark Lord and that this civil conflict helped thin the numbers of the Easterlings that attacked the West.
A quick google search will confirm this.

[billy the squid]

Silfren wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
I submit that To Kill a Mocking Bird is racist because it portrays white society in America in a wholy negative light, discriminating against white society universally.

Maybe you should stick to arguing about books you've actually read.

Yeah, and I know what racist implications written into a narrative are, but I've not quite figured out how a reader can "imply racism" into a book.

I also see that my little gif on implications being a intellectually barren get out clause when you can't make a coherrent point has been lost on you. 

If you can't figure out that I question your intelligence. You just said critics have been claiming that the Lord of the Ring is an allegorical tale. Yet you haven't grasped that your own perception is the determining factor in what you see as the implied content? Wow. 

What I actually said is that critics see allegory in Lord of the Rings.  But that's neither here nor there.  When you write a story where the dark-skinned people are evil and the white people are heroes, there are racist implications. That's not a reader's imaginary perception, it is a critical observation of the writer's biases.

And the dwarves spend their times in the mountains, segregated from other societies and crave gold and riches. It's like the Jews.Ipso Facto Lord or the Rings also implies anti-semetic content. 

I can use the literary content to imply any sort of social ideology based on the flimsiest evidence as you have just done. 

There's a huge difference between critical observation of a writer's bias and your perception implying the bias into the literature. 

Not quite.  If the Dwarves had been written, say, to have distinctly Jewish names, a person could easily point to racist implications written into the book by Tolkien, which is what is being discussed when people point to the fact that Tolkien's dark races are evil servants of Sauron while his white races are heroes of the West. 

But the dwarves are actually drawn from mythological lore about mythological beings.  You reading and saying that the dwarves must represent Jews because (you think) only Jews as a group love gold, that would be an example of the reader bringing THEIR racist assumptions into the book.

So it has to be determined by your determination does it? Why should they require Jewish names, the negative sterotype is there which had been established as the sterotype well into the middle ages. What you've done is a cheap make a cheap out clause.  I don't need a name to draw implications when the hall marks are easily presentable. 

As I said in another post. All the other factions, which are allied or subjgated by Sauron, we'll just sweep them under the provebial rug, so the point you made isn't completely undermined by the evidence that you have removed everything which does not justify your point and declared it not relevant. 

That's what I just did, names aren't relevant. Anti semitism exists in Lord of the Rings. 

Both of these are utterly absurd positions to take.

I was going with your example to illustrate the difference between racist implications being written into a work, and those of reader bringing THEIR racist assumptions into it.  It's not my fault if you lack the intellectual ability to grasp my meaning.

I fully understand your meaning, it's bloody stupid and devoid of any coherent analysis.

Don't dodge the point. What's the difference between critics reading allegory in the work, or you stating that there exists implied racism in the literature, from the absurd example I just gave? Becasue there isn't one. 

Other than, "becasue there is and I can see it" you've got nothing.

There is no way that you can justify implicit racism in the literature as seperate from your own perception and bias implying it into the literature where none exists. 

Modifié par billy the squid, 01 juillet 2013 - 11:49 .

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I would be firmly in favour of more variation in these games so that everyone can find people like them.

re: Tolkien

a) Middle Earth was intended to be a mythos for the English. It is not simply an imaginary world but a backdrop to the real world, and as such it is snowy in the north and less so in the south, the men of the east are often turkic or slavic, the men of the south are black and so on. Mordor is in the south east of the setting.

The author (on a few occasions) wrote of his particular dislike of allegory, which is also recanted by those who knew him, and he specifically stated there is no allegory in the Red Book of Westmarch

c) How dare you call J R R Tolkien a racist because of your inferences, one of the finest minds of his time or any, by all accounts a kind, decent man and a veteran of the Great War, who almost single-handedly gave us most of the bloody genre from which Dragon Age sprung and created most of the fantasy tropes you all wheel out every thirty seconds in every thread on this forum.


How dare you impugn the great man in your mission to make everything seem a bit more worthless and demoralized. Go stuff yourselves for that.

Many otherwise great and admirable people were racists. I suggest you get over it.

And you only have an inference from a book to suggest he was racist.  In all likelyhood he was a bit of the old racist grandpa, however going by the haradrim in Lord of the Rings is not the way to try and prove it.

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
If you aren't that well in formed about a piece of literature then don't get in the middle of a discussion between two posters when you don't have the knowledge to support what was said. 

I never had anything to say about Lord of the Rings, until just now. It was your blatant intellectual dishonesty about the content of To Kill A Mockingbird that prompted me to post, and nothing else.

I was only ever talking about To Kill A Mockingbird. Don't make your discussion with me about Lord of the Rings.

Then read it and understand the context and point of what I said. If you can't then don't. If you think that is what I derived from To Kill a Mocking Bird, then you hoplessly misunderstood what I said and didn't read properly.