Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

"The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms."

Yes, it's far from descriptive, but using the phrase "best pictured" definitely suggests a sort of visual likeness, especially as part of the answer to the question "What clothes did the peoples of Middle-earth wear?" and in describing them as both peculiar and archaic. If all he wanted to do was to point to an interest in tombs and love of constructing massive structures, "best pictured in Egyptian terms" seems to be an odd way of putting it.

The picture that he drew of the crown also ties at least some of their style to that of "ancient" Egypt, which is just to say the time of the pharaohs.

I'm not saying that the Numenoreans of Gondor should look EXACTLY like Egyptians of the 8th century BCE, but the point was that Tolkien obviously took references from far more varied sources than just Northern Europe as the poster I was responding to asserted.

"...best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms."

This denotes an approximation, a lead to a path to understand the atmosphere of their culture, and not their esthetic.

"In many ways they resembled 'Egyptians' – the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs."

This is how he follows on, focusing their likeness to Egyptian on the monumental nature of their architecture (and not their esthetic details) and following on with their emphasis on genealogy and tombs. For example we can understand on a conceptual basis the link between Orthanc and an Obelisk, or the Argonath with the Colossi of Memnon, yet read and know that their appearance and artistic style would be entirely different.

The catch is that in this part of the letter, there is not one answer to one question, but two answers to two questions :

'Question 4': What clothes did the peoples of Middle-earth wear? Was the winged crown of Gondor like that of a Valkyrie, or as depicted on a Gauloise cigarette packet?

Question 4A: What clothes did the peoples of Middle-earth wear?

I do not know the detail of clothing. I visualize with great clarity and detail scenery and 'natural' objects, but not artefacts. Pauline Baynes drew her inspiration for F. Giles largely from mediaeval MS. drawings – except for the knights (who are a bit 'King-Arthurish') the style seems to fit well enough. Except that males, especially in northern parts such as the Shire, would wear breeches, whether hidden by a cloak or long mantle, or merely accompanied by a tunic.
I have no doubt that in the area envisaged by my story (which is large) the 'dress' of various peoples, Men and others, was much diversified in the Third Age, according to climate, and inherited custom. As was our world, even if we only consider Europe and the Mediterranean and the very near 'East' (or South), before the victory in our time of the least lovely style of dress (especially for males and 'neuters') which recorded history reveals – a victory that is still going on, even among those who most hate the lands of its origin. The Rohirrim were not 'mediaeval', in our sense. The styles of the Bayeux Tapestry (made in England) fit them well enough, if one remembers that the kind of tennis-nets [the] soldiers seem to have on are only a clumsy conventional sign for chainmail of small rings.

Underlined are the clear statements he made on article of clothing. Per the last one, and multiple depictions in all the books he himself published, armors are made of chainmail, something originating in the European Iron Age. Do note that the 2nd and 3rd underlined passages issue widely encompassinc generic statements.
If we combine those we can assume that people wear breech/pants and tunics together with capes, in a multitude of forms adapted to the local climate and following evolution of local customs, but definitely not an Ancient Egyptian loincloth.

Question 4B: Was the winged crown of Gondor like that of a Valkyrie, or as depicted on a Gauloise cigarette packet?

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled 'Egyptians' – the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs. (But not of course in 'theology' : in which respect they were Hebraic and even more puritan – but this would take long to set out: to explain indeed why there is practically no oven 'religion',* or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the 'good' or anti-Sauron peoples in The Lord of the Rings.) I think the crown of Gondor (the S. Kingdom) was very tall, like that of Egypt, but with wings attached, not set straight back but at an angle. The N. Kingdom had only a diadem (III 323). Cf. the difference between the N. and S. kingdoms of Egypt.

Next he answers to the question on the winged crown of Gondor by first expanding on his inspiration for Gondor's sense of grandeur and other cultural inclinations. This Egyptian link to Gondorian dress is specifically about and only about the crown, which is a symbol of a kingdom/culture as much as its architecture, and not linked to the daily dressing of people : it is by definition something exceptional, and not ordinary, a concept he would be quite familiar as a British subject, with the symbol of the Crown being there very important yet extremely remote from any form of clothing.

I am in agreement that Tolkien drew from a wider cultural inspiration to paint his mythology of Middle Earth, but the iconography he used for that was the one of Germanic Myth and Norse Sagas, which described the feats of related mythical heroes in a world featuring half-hidden Elves, Trolls, Gnomes and Goblins, not Djinns, Obake or other fantasmagoric analogues.

[InfiniteCharger]

Perhaps you should rewatch that video you linked a few pages back. You know, the one where he struck down the idea that the Two Trees of Valinor were based on Yggdrasil of Norse mythology and instead were inspired by the Trees of Sun and Moon in India.

And how his inspiration for dwarves drew from a variety of sources, not just those of Northern Europe. From the “warlike” Jews of the Levant (pre-middle ages) to the Romani people and their use of secret language.

And of course his letters that detailed the clothing of the Numenoreans to most resemble those of the ancient Egyptians.

Atlantis was also an important source for Tolkien’s Numenor, it’s roots going all the way back to Plato (Ancient Greece) who suggested that the lost city existed near the Strait of Gibraltar between Europe and Africa.

So no, Tolkien didn’t limit himself to Northern European mythology. He was an educated and worldly man who drew from a great variety of sources.

That is true. But that still doesn't change that the main body of his work is as an extension and addition to European mythology and literature. And as such, there is no melting pot of diversity in Northern European mythology, just like there are no black dwarves or elves either in that literature. European mythology and literature is mostly homogeneous and reflects European identity and culture not "global' identity and culture. Therefore as an Englishman and scholar of English literature and well versed in that mythology there is no reason Tolkien would not reflect that identity. So while he "could" have intended there to be diversity of that type in his work with African dwarves and elves, there is no reason he actually would do it. That purely theoretical position doesn't change the reality of European mythological history and language not having black African elves and dwarves.

Elves from 1850 Europe:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...3%A9r_1850.jpg

An elf (plural: elves) is a type of humanoid supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore (especially North Germanic mythology and folklore). In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves generally seem to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them.[1] However, the details of these beliefs have varied considerably over time and space and have flourished in both pre-Christian and Christian cultures
....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf

In Germanic folklore, including Germanic mythology, a dwarf is an entity that dwells in the mountains and in the earth. The entity is associated with wisdom, smithing, mining, and crafting. Dwarfs are sometimes described as short and ugly. However, some scholars have questioned whether this is a later development stemming from comical portrayals of the beings.[1] Dwarfs continue to be depicted in modern popular culture in various media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_(folklore)



I don't understand why some folks are arguing so hard that Europeans would not write about themselves in their own literature as if that is a 'bad' thing. Everybody else does it and that is the norm throughout history. It is an absurd position to take that people would spend more time writing about other people in their mythology than themselves. Mythologies tend to be archetypes, especially in the gods and heroes, of the people making that mythology.

And most people around the world reading Tolkien would see his world as a reflection of his European heritage.

Now that is specific to Tolkien and what he wrote. High Fantasy as we know it was not a well defined genre in his time. But now 70 years later there are all kinds of stories reflecting a vast amount of diverse creatures, races, worlds, kingdoms and cultures. There is no lack of diversity across all of those works and therefore no need to 'modernize' Tolkien as again that goes against his wishes. Japanese anime has been making high fantasy stories for a while now that are quite popular. There are plenty of MMOs and books set in the High Fantasy genre.

- - - Updated - - -

I would argue that Elden Ring has the best display of Tolkien influence and the monumental nature of what Numenorean architecture could look like.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Tolkien drew his inspiration primarily from the Germanic/Norse Dwarves and then gradually fleshed their cultures with elements of the Medieval vision of the Jews. Focusing only on the latter's antiquity is rather disingenious.

Plus speaking of the actual historical Jews, there has never been an unadultered mono culture since the mythical times of Salomon, or at least the Exile to Babylon, given the accounts of the historical divide between the two kingdoms and the later, sometimes extreme, diversification of the Diaspora ranging from Ethiopia to the Maghreb and England to China.

I’m not a huge Tolkien buff so I’m going off of what other people have posted here mostly the actual Tolkien interview and your the first person I’ve seen mention Germanic/Norse Dwarves.

And ya actual real life Jews even back then had divides and breaks meaning they weren’t mono cultural but when it comes to Tolkien’s dwarfs and there origin they would obviously start as one whole even if they fractured later.

[Gumble]

No adaptation is 100% accurate. Ever.

Shōgun back in the 80s tried. It is nearly a perfect adaptation. It turned into a 9 hour mini series to do it, but as someone who has both watched it and read the book multiple times, its the best one I've ever seen/heard of.

[Aurgjelme]

I’m not a huge Tolkien buff so I’m going off of what other people have posted here mostly the actual Tolkien interview and your the first person I’ve seen mention Germanic/Norse Dwarves.

And ya actual real life Jews even back then had divides and breaks meaning they weren’t mono cultural but when it comes to Tolkien’s dwarfs and there origin they would obviously start as one whole even if they fractured later.

You are aware that the names of the dwarfs in the hobbit are a copy pasta from dwarfs in the poetic edda and gylfaginning right? I think you would have to be a complete moron not to see how strong the link between Tolkien's work and Norse/Celtic mythology is.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You are aware that the names of the dwarfs in the hobbit are a copy pasta from dwarfs in the poetic edda and gylfaginning right? I think you would have to be a complete moron not to see how strong the link between Tolkien's work and Norse/Celtic mythology is.

I’d by lying if I said I actually remembers what the names of any of the dwarfs in the hobbit were.

But yes Tolkien’s works do have links to Norse mythology though not as strong as some may think like with the trees.

[Adamas102]

That is true. But that still doesn't change that the main body of his work is as an extension and addition to European mythology and literature. And as such, there is no melting pot of diversity in Northern European mythology, just like there are no black dwarves or elves either in that literature. European mythology and literature is mostly homogeneous and reflects European identity and culture not "global' identity and culture. Therefore as an Englishman and scholar of English literature and well versed in that mythology there is no reason Tolkien would not reflect that identity. So while he "could" have intended there to be diversity of that type in his work with African dwarves and elves, there is no reason he actually would do it. That purely theoretical position doesn't change the reality of European mythological history and language not having black African elves and dwarves.

It’s truly embarrassing that you keep harping on the white centric racialist theories that Tolkien so strongly opposed. The idea that European “identity” is inherently white and something sacred in need of maintaining is exactly the Nazi shit that Tolkien thought of as absurd, and is a mentality that he himself stated held no place in his imaginary world. Northern Europe has always been a melting pot with a variety of peoples, ethnicity, and cultures at play. This was true in Tolkien’s time, and long before him as well. That you still think there is such a thing as a “European monoculture”, or that dark skinned Europeans are simply “African” is embarrassingly ignorant.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

I’m not a huge Tolkien buff so I’m going off of what other people have posted here mostly the actual Tolkien interview and your the first person I’ve seen mention Germanic/Norse Dwarves.

As aforementioned above by InfiniteCharger, elves and dwarves preexist Tolkien's writing, even tough elements of his take on them have become the basis on which many later interpretations are made, particularly in the High Fantasy genre.

It is probably much less evident for people that grew up in anglo-saxon countries and the rest of the world, for which Tolkien was arguably the one that popularized the most these concepts, but in the germanic/norse cultural sphere varying figures of dwarves have been ever present in myths, sagas, folklore and tales, from the Nibelungenlied to Snow White, with a common denominator being their affinity to the earth and mountains, mining riches of gold and gems, large (cursed) treasures, master craftmanship and in some cases great strength and power.

Tolkien drew heavily from this corpus to shape his legendarium, from which, beside the concepts of fantastical creatures such as elves, dwarves, trolls, goblins and dragons, he also took the cursed hoards of gold, a powerful ring and a reforged sword among other things.

And ya actual real life Jews even back then had divides and breaks meaning they weren’t mono cultural but when it comes to Tolkien’s dwarfs and there origin they would obviously start as one whole even if they fractured later.

Actually not, as the 7 forefathers of the dwarves, together with their respective mate, were from the very beginning scattered around Arda, each awakening in isolation before siring the 7 clans.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Actually not, as the 7 forefathers of the dwarves, together with their respective mate, were from the very beginning scattered around Arda, each awakening in isolation before siring the 7 clans.

It’s my understanding that when people are talking about dwarfs being a monoculture they don’t mean all the dwarfs clans have the exact same culture it that if you pick what ever clan is being portrayed in the show/book all the members of that clan will all be the same.

If the other posters meant all dwarfs in all the clans were monoculture then that would be a lot sillier as there just being multiple clans would slow that not the case.

[InfiniteCharger]

It’s truly embarrassing that you keep harping on the white centric racialist theories that Tolkien so strongly opposed. The idea that European “identity” is inherently white and something sacred in need of maintaining is exactly the Nazi shit that Tolkien thought of as absurd, and is a mentality that he himself stated held no place in his imaginary world.

There is nothing in the origin of elves, fairies, halflings, goblins, giants or wizards in European mythology that has anything to do with Nazis. And it just shows you are grasping at straws to throw around accusations without any basis in fact. European mythology having mostly white creatures and people in them is not racist or part of any centrist ideology. Tolkien stated many times that he intended his work as a mythology of Britain before all the waves of invasions that have happened in the last 2,000 years erasing their indigenous culture. In fact, using the Nazis as your example shows how misplaced your grasp of history is, as that ideology only came about in response to Germany's desire to have an Empire as big as that of the British. So if anything, your argument would make more sense if you were arguing that Tolkien, a man who was part of the British Empire, served in the royal military and lived in South Africa, was a cultural imperialist. But to do that would also mean that promoting Tolkien, no matter how diverse, is still promoting that same cultural imperialism and puts European culture and mythology at the forefront of global culture and identity.

Northern Europe has always been a melting pot with a variety of peoples, ethnicity, and cultures at play. This was true in Tolkien’s time, and long before him as well. That you still think there is such a thing as a “European monoculture”, or that dark skinned Europeans are simply “African” is embarrassingly ignorant.

Norse, Welsh, Irish, Anglo, Norman, Saxon and Celtic cultures are all white European cultures. To argue that they represent anything other than that is just making up nonsense. And yes, I understand that at one point in ancient times, Europeans would have had darker skin as ultimately originating from Africa. But that is not what Tolkien was writing about as that was long before any of the modern cultures and their languages were established. Instead of dealing with those facts you would rather resort to wild arm waving suggestions of racism when white people being native to Europe is not racist. That is just being silly. And the fact is all of these black actors in this show are of African descent and the argument actually being made by the actors themselves is that they as Afro-Brazilians and AfroIranians or Iranians need to be represented in Tolkien and by extension European mythology as "AfroBrazilian" or "AfroIranian" contradicts you. And the point being made by the showrunners and producers is that the diversity they want is to reflect the diversity of modern Britain from immigration and integration, not any sort of indigenous language, history or culture. It isn't even true that they were even trying to represent potentially a historical 'black European' with European features and dark skin. That is no different than someone migrating to China and demanding that the Chinese change their mythology so that they can "see themselves" in it. It is just a illogical and narrow minded argument and has absolutely nothing to do with what Tolkien intended when he wrote his work.


Ultimately what Amazon is doing with this show is only loosely related to Tolkien and what he intended and skin color is just one small part of that. Tolkien's second age was not supposed to be a reflection of modern British society or any issues and agendas related to race in the real world. As such it was simply a mythology tied to Britain in a fantasy story with a history and languages of its own.

[Triceron]

Still more bullshit.

The idea that skin color is THE distinguishing factor between the men of the South and East isn't rooted in the text.

No one said it was THE distinguishing factor.

I made a point to say it IS a distinguishing factor, one which gets muddled if every culture in the series is depicted as a multiethnic melting pot.

As I've said many times, I have no issues with the creative decisions of the show, and I agree with the idea that the plot doesn't change if you merely swap the races of the actors. What does change is the world building and how the world informs the rest of the story and history of the people who live in it. And the significance of skin tone may not be a distinguishing factor, but it is a factor nonetheless.

As I've quoted several times in this thread directly from Tolkien's Daily Telegraph interview, he was very clear that the racialist 'Nordic' ideas of whiteness being an important and delineating factor had no place in Middle-earth (specifically this small section of Middle-earth where the stories took place). The notion that light skin vs dark skin was really what drove how these peoples viewed themselves is certainly not in line with how Tolkien thought.

But we're not talking about how they viewed themselves or how 'light skin = good, dark skin = bad' being delineating factors. We're talking about how they were literally presented within the fiction and mythology, and how it informs the rest of the world. Because a difference in skin color is how certain groups are distinguished from others. It doesn't inform their allegiances, it informs that they are a different culture of people from a different part of the world.

When you imply that we can simply insert the same variety of skin color into the societies of people that were not depicted as such, then it muddles the concept that skin tone was a distinguishing trait at all. And that's the point which is being overlooked. Not that Skin tone is THE distinguishing point, but the fact that skin tone is distinguishing AT ALL.

The idea that men of different cultures not only speak differently, dress differently and have different ideals, but that they also LOOK differently informs how the world of Middle Earth works. All these people may have derived from the same original source, but having lived in a different environment so far removed from another, these people look differently. That's one of the underlying factors at play in the world. If we're just going to talk about skin tones being a product of random mutations and magic, then that is fundamentally a different understanding of how the world works. It is different. Not for the plot, but for the story. Because Story is not just the plot, it is also the setting, the characters, the themes, and everything that influences how the plot is told.

So yes, I would argue that changing how the world works does impact the story. Because Plot is merely a part of the Story, it is not the Story itself.

[Biomega]

What does change is the world building and how the world informs the rest of the story and history of the people who live in it.

Even if this was true (which is far from evident) - would that be a bad thing?

Let's assume that previously skin color was what distinguished these groups. Now it's not, but they're distinguished in other ways. The way they dress, perhaps, or other cultural emblems.

What, exactly, is the problem with that? Other than "it's not how it was originally written" which is a bit of a tautology.

[Voidwielder]

At the risk of stating the obvious - all those who try to hide their racism behind ''critique'' of ''bad adaptation'', I hope explosive diarrhoea comes to you at the happiest moment of your life.

[Triceron]

Even if this was true (which is far from evident) - would that be a bad thing?

I'm not making a point of good or bad. Again, that is something up to the individual to decide.

I'm making a point that not everyone has to agree with the changes. And it's okay for people to not like the changes, and it does not make them 'racist' or 'bigoted' or 'anti-woke' for merely disagreeing with the changes. It's merely a different opinion on the matter. And considering we're talking about a liberal change applied to the original fiction, I consider disagreement to the changes quite reasonable.

Adaptations don't have to appeal equally to everyone, right?

And yet I see posts like above, who will blanketly associate anyone who disagrees with the changes as 'hiding their racism'. So I don't think everyone is on the same page here.

Let's assume that previously skin color was what distinguished these groups. Now it's not, but they're distinguished in other ways. The way they dress, perhaps, or other cultural emblems.

What, exactly, is the problem with that? Other than "it's not how it was originally written" which is a bit of a tautology.

If you're asking me personally, then nothing is wrong with it. It isn't a problem.

What you're describing is an adaptation and I've never had a problem with adaptations taking creative liberties to do its own thing. The crux of my argument has nothing to do with whether something is a 'problem' or not. Problems are really defined on an individual basis.

Like if someone said they didn't like Game of Thrones TV series because it wasn't like the books, then it doesn't mean the TV series having changes is a problem, it means that person doesn't like the TV series and has an understandable reason why they don't. In other words, they have a problem with the TV series having changes from the book. That does not mean the TV series itself has a problem.

To bring it back to your own example, there is nothing wrong with your choice to distinguish these groups in other ways. Yet it doesn't mean that people can't have a problem with the choice you're presenting. Your example isn't somehow immune to subjective criticism, and that subjective criticism isn't merely a product of 'racism' or whatever means people are using to dismiss these opinions. Like, to be absolutely fair I don't actually think anyone on this board is 'racist' for merely disagreeing with the creative choices of the show. It's merely a point of argument that the show is choosing to add diversity where it did not originally exist, and it's not a change that everyone will or has to agree with.

[Biomega]

I'm making a point that not everyone has to agree with the changes. And it's okay for people to not like the changes, and it does not make them 'racist' or 'bigoted' or 'anti-woke' for merely disagreeing with the changes.

That depends, though.

Racism isn't always an active process. In fact, most of the time it's NOT. The people who go "you know what, I really HATE black people" are on the extreme end of the spectrum - and though they tend to have some serious potential for real danger, they're often not actually the biggest problem.

The more insidious problem are people who go "what, me, no I'm not racist no way" but ACT in racist ways anyway - they're often not even aware of their own biases, even though they display them in their actions. That makes it not only very tricky to act against, it also makes it hard to get them to understand their own biases.

Take, for example, hiring procedures. It's been demonstrated many times that if you obscure racial traits (photos, names, etc.) then identical candidates tend to get treated significantly more equitably than if you display those traits. But that's rarely because an HR person goes "oh no, we're not hiring a BLACK person heavens no" but because somehow, unconsciously, they find NON-RACIST EXCUSES to exclude them disproportionately more often. If you dig deep enough and insistently enough, you can sometimes reveal those - like people going "I didn't feel they would be a good fit" and you asking them explain what that means, exactly.

This is a similar situation. And it's also why we're asking for JUSTIFICATION when people go "I just don't think a black actor is a good fit here" (or whatever variation thereof). Of course you're not wrong that people going "I just don't like it" is just their subjective preference that we, in principle, don't get to argue with (since it's not an argument to begin with) - but that doesn't mean there aren't biases or bigotry at work there.

And if people stubbornly refuse to give any substantial reason, or if they become evasive or combative or lash out - then those are all indicators that maybe, just maybe, there is more going on here than "I just don't like it". Because it's pretty specific if you "just don't like" people of particular skin colors, and for reasons you can't or won't articulate.

The same way we wouldn't excuse someone going "I just don't like African Americans, that's personal preference and just my opinion" we also shouldn't excuse people who JUST go "I don't like black actors in this, that's personal preference and just my opinion". You can articulate opinions more deeply than that, and you can - and should - critically examine your own opinions to begin with. That doesn't mean EVERYONE who doesn't like the black actors in this adaptation is a racist, but it does mean that probing a little deeper as to whether or not hidden, unconscious biases are at work here is entirely justified.

And let's be clear: the way at least SOME people on here have been arguing and behaving DOES make them being racist pretty damn likely.

[Triceron]

That depends, though.

Racism isn't always an active process. In fact, most of the time it's NOT. The people who go "you know what, I really HATE black people" are on the extreme end of the spectrum - and though they tend to have some serious potential for real danger, they're often not actually the biggest problem.

The more insidious problem are people who go "what, me, no I'm not racist no way" but ACT in racist ways anyway - they're often not even aware of their own biases, even though they display them in their actions. That makes it not only very tricky to act against, it also makes it hard to get them to understand their own biases.

Take, for example, hiring procedures. It's been demonstrated many times that if you obscure racial traits (photos, names, etc.) then identical candidates tend to get treated significantly more equitably than if you display those traits. But that's rarely because an HR person goes "oh no, we're not hiring a BLACK person heavens no" but because somehow, unconsciously, they find NON-RACIST EXCUSES to exclude them disproportionately more often. If you dig deep enough and insistently enough, you can sometimes reveal those - like people going "I didn't feel they would be a good fit" and you asking them explain what that means, exactly.

This is a similar situation. And it's also why we're asking for JUSTIFICATION when people go "I just don't think a black actor is a good fit here" (or whatever variation thereof). Of course you're not wrong that people going "I just don't like it" is just their subjective preference that we, in principle, don't get to argue with (since it's not an argument to begin with) - but that doesn't mean there aren't biases or bigotry at work there.

And if people stubbornly refuse to give any substantial reason, or if they become evasive or combative or lash out - then those are all indicators that maybe, just maybe, there is more going on here than "I just don't like it". Because it's pretty specific if you "just don't like" people of particular skin colors, and for reasons you can't or won't articulate.

The same way we wouldn't excuse someone going "I just don't like African Americans, that's personal preference and just my opinion" we also shouldn't excuse people who JUST go "I don't like black actors in this, that's personal preference and just my opinion". You can articulate opinions more deeply than that, and you can - and should - critically examine your own opinions to begin with. That doesn't mean EVERYONE who doesn't like the black actors in this adaptation is a racist, but it does mean that probing a little deeper as to whether or not hidden, unconscious biases are at work here is entirely justified.

And let's be clear: the way at least SOME people on here have been arguing and behaving DOES make them being racist pretty damn likely.

It comes down to the choices of the production, and whether people are justified in agreeing or disagreeing.

Like if the production decides to cast an all-white cast, and people are okay with it. Does that make them racist for agreeing to a product that has no diversity? And if they express how they enjoy the all-white cast depiction, does that make them anti-diversity? Because that is the standard which some people are arguing here.

"I prefer the depiction of Dwarves in Peter Jackson's movies than I do in Rings of Power". Would you consider this an anti-diversity or racist statement?

The same way we wouldn't excuse someone going "I just don't like African Americans, that's personal preference and just my opinion" we also shouldn't excuse people who JUST go "I don't like black actors in this, that's personal preference and just my opinion".

Is anyone actually making a point to say 'I don't prefer African Americans in Middle Earth' at all? I think you're jumping the gun here.

Cuz there's a big difference between 'The books depict it this way, and so should the casting' and 'I don't want black people cast at all'.

[Biomega]

It comes down to the choices of the production, and whether people are justified in agreeing or disagreeing.

Like if the production decides to cast an all-white cast, and people are okay with it. Does that make them racist for agreeing to a product that has no diversity?

That's a very bare-bones hypothetical. In the present day? In an American production? You bet your ass people would complain if something was ALL WHITE for no good reason. And they should. If you have no good reason to exclude people of color from your production but do it anyway, holy hell yes that is racist.

But this doesn't apply retroactively. Social standards and contexts change over time. You can't really call someone from the 1920s racist for not having a diverse cast in a film. You can call their TIME racist, but you can't really hold people from different eras to contemporary standards any more than you could apply the standards of other eras to the present day.

And if they express how they enjoy the all-white cast depiction, does that make them anti-diversity?

That's not the same thing, you're smuggling in a category error here. Just because you're biased doesn't mean you're anti-diversity; one is personal, the other is programmatic. Are biased people more likely to ALSO be anti-diversity? Sure. But there's not a simple causality at work here, where one means the other.

Does them enjoying an all-white cast make them RACIST? That depends on what you mean by "enjoying an all-white cast". Do they enjoy the fact THAT IT IS an all-white cast? Then racist. So, so racist. Do they enjoy the WORK, which just also happens to have an all-white cast? Not necessarily racist, but also not excluded of course. You'd have to quiz them further.

"I prefer the depiction of Dwarves in Peter Jackson's movies than I do in Rings of Power". Would you consider this an anti-diversity or racist statement?

Not in and of itself, no.

But "I prefer the depiction of Dwarves in Peter Jackson's movies than I do in Rings of Power, because the PJ movies didn't have black dwarves"? Absolutely racist, no question.

That's why I'm so interested in justifications. Tell me WHY, because otherwise anything can just become a smokescreen for biases - even if you're not aware of it. Heck you should ask YOURSELF why to begin with.

Is anyone actually making a point to say 'I don't prefer African Americans in Middle Earth' at all? I think you're jumping the gun here.

Not literally, obviously. I talked about this - the people who go "you know what I hate black people" aren't the big problem. It's the people who make all sorts of other statements that DISPLAY racism without EXPLICITLY ARTICULATING it.

Cuz there's a big difference between 'The books depict it this way, and so should the casting' and 'I don't want black people cast at all'.

Not as big as you think.

If the ONLY reason you don't want black people is "they're not in the book", we need to have a very serious talk. Chances are, stuff is going on.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Man you can really feel that some people want to just say “negro’s need not apply” signs are totally fine and not racist but they don’t want to face the back lash of just saying it out right.

[Biomega]

Man you can really feel that some people want to just say “negro’s need not apply” signs are totally fine and not racist but they don’t want to face the back lash of just saying it out right.

It's an all-too common phenomenon.

I've talked to a ton of US people about racism at this point, and there's a dangerously high percentage of people who were pretty much convinced that UNLESS you actively go "fuck all black people" you COULD NOT POSSIBLY be racist.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's an all-too common phenomenon.

I've talked to a ton of US people about racism at this point, and there's a dangerously high percentage of people who were pretty much convinced that UNLESS you actively go "fuck all black people" you COULD NOT POSSIBLY be racist.

Ya and a big problem with it is that people get really defensive when it’s brought up which heavily stifles any further education on the subject.

Add in media fandoms and people “just wanting to stick to the lore” and it gets ten fold worse.