1. #2821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.
    "It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks, and become one with all the people."

    ~ Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Ethics for Tomorrow"

  2. #2822
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang View Post
    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.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  3. #2823
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-16 at 04:09 PM.

  4. #2824
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-16 at 04:48 PM.

  5. #2825
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  6. #2826
    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.

  7. #2827
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-16 at 05:35 PM.

  8. #2828
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  9. #2829
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-16 at 05:49 PM.

  10. #2830
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  11. #2831
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    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.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  12. #2832
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.

  13. #2833
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  14. #2834
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.
    I think the only ones here saying that are those pretending to be virtuous because nobody else is saying that.

    And by that logic, then European mythology, authors and artists must also be racist for not painting black Elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.

    This is what you get from such inane grandstanding.

    The problem with this particular show is that you have Amazon standing on a podium claiming to want to bring "modern diversity" to Tolkien.
    Yet they only plop a few people of African descent into the show as representing that diversity. Like that just sounds half hearted at best and not really worth the time and effort to even justify. If anything, a good portion of Nunemor should be black, half the Elves should be Asian and African and there should be Asian Dwarves along with African ones and some Polynesians, Indians, Pakistanis and other people included as well in all these groups.

    It seems to me that their idea of the diversity of the entire middle earth revolves a few people of African descent in various roles and thats it.

    That is simply hilariously shallow and inept in this day of all black TV shows, movies, plays and so forth. It isn't ground breaking or special in the least. Because contrary to this nonsense, black people have been successfully able to apply for and get roles in entertainment and Hollywood for quite a while.....
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-16 at 06:56 PM.

  15. #2835
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    Then we're in disagreement here, because you consider any production that lacks diversity as being racist, regardless of whether an individual expressing a certain opinion is actually racist.

    And you extend this to being a mandate of all future productions to avoid all-white casts (I don't even know what would consider a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast would be) and any argument against would be considered racist. I disagree with that description of the terminology.

    For example, a movie like the Lighthouse (2019) has an all-white cast. There is nothing (inherrently) racist about the choice of the production to have an all-white cast in this day and age. And there is absolutely no objective standard to define what a 'Good reason' is to justify the Lighthouse having an all-white cast. It simply does because the creators chose to.

    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.
    Fiction is not a reflection reality. Entertainment is not a reflection of reality. I don't think you can apply social standards directly to how we perceive entertainment, because ultimately it is not a reflection of reality.

    I understand that modern productions try to abstain from depicting anything racially insensitive, or try to avoid using language or terminology that is insensitive to various groups, or that they're trying to broaden their casting choices where possible to build an environment of inclusion. But it doesn't mean having a creative choice to cast a certain way that excludes all other ethnicities is equal to being 'racist'. That isn't how the terminology works or is applied. I completely disagree with this connotation, because while this modern shift towards inclusion and diversity in casting may be a product of our times, it is a product by choice, and one that not everyone agrees with. Ultimately all art is free to be expressed any way it sees fit. If there were a future PJ production that goes back to depicting an all-white Dwarf cast, it is not subject to being 'no good reason for an all-white cast' and deemed racist. It would be, itself, an adaptation with its own freedom to adapt as it pleases.

    This is why there exist so many people who actually push back at the idea that there should not be a production with a mono-ethnic cast for the sake of social/racial insensitivities. Fiction isn't a reflection of real life, and shouldn't be limited by our own social standards.

    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.
    I'd argue that many people are blurring the lines and assuming that biases are indications of anti-diversity. Look at some of the blanket statements people made above.

    "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."

    This literally implies that anyone who has a critique of the adaptation being bad should be assumed to be a hiding their racism. I mean, is there any other way to interpret this statement?

    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.
    And how would you consider a depiction a certain period of history in a location that would have been all-white? Or a piece of fiction that depicts a society where people are all-white? Are these considered good reasons or bad reasons?

    And to bank on your own line of questioning - are the people who are criticizing RoP's creative choices doing so because they only enjoy an All-white cast merely because of the fact it is all-white? With no other motivation to make the argument that it should be represented that way? Because I would argue that the depiction of races in the fiction already outlines an understandable reasoning to have an all-white cast be represented. As we already have with adapations such as the Peter Jackson Movies.


    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.
    I completely disagree with that statement. Your conclusion omits any possible reasoning for PJ movies not having Black Dwarves.

    If you gave a stipulation of 'All white cast with no good reason' then you imply that there can exist exceptions with good reasons. While here, you give no indication of that at all. You merely blanketly assume that anyone who does not want to see Black Dwarves in an adaptation has no good reason to do so.

    And whether you may agree or not, I will say that in the eyes of many people who are against the creative decisions, 'Black Dwarves did not exist in the original fiction' is an understandable and reasonably good reason to disagree with the adaptation's changes. Because that is also how the PJ adaptations depicted Dwarves.

    There is no nuance in your conclusion. I think you need to insert that nuance back in to make contextual sense of why people prefer PJ's depiction and would want that extended into other adaptations as well. It's because it's a commonly accepted depiction of the original fiction.

    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.
    I have been telling you why. What do you think is the importance of pointing out that Black Dwarves didn't exist in the original fiction if not to illustrate a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast? Like I said, I'm justifying the very reason Peter Jackson's depiction of Dwarves has been commonly accepted, and why there is no point of contention with said depiction whereas people do have an issue with Rings of Power. It has nothing to do with the casting of Black actors, and everything to do with how people regard adaptations and depictions of the original fiction.

    And you can feel free to disagree with my argument, but it doesn't change my point and exactly why people are literally concerned about this topic at all.

    I don't understand why people can't just be mature enough to accept that these changes aren't for everyone and don't automatically make them racist for preferring a certain depiction. Like you said, there's a difference between biases and being anti-diversity. Yet your statement above literally leaves no room to make that distinction.

    "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

    There is no room to distinguish whether these reasonings are due to certain biases (I want to stick to the original depiction/PJ adaptation) or if it's literally anti-diversity. You're merely stating that PJ's adaptation didn't have Black Dwarves and blanketly pointing at a preference to it as being racist. I don't think you're using a great example here because "PJ movies didn't have Black Dwarves because the original fiction didn't have Black Dwarves" is an understandable non-anti-diversity good reason for PJ to depict his Dwarves the way he did. And it's this same reasoning that some people expect to be applied back to future adaptations of Tolkien's work.

    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.
    Have you taken a moment to address these people and ask whether they'd be okay with watching any movies with black actors in it? That might help you understand whether or not they are actually racist. Instead of, you know, merely assuming it based on their arguments.

    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.
    They are in the book though. There are Easterlings and Southron and Haradrim. And they don't all have to be depicted as being evil or Sauron aligned.

    Like I said, what RoP is doing is explicitly avoiding the fact that black people already exist in the fiction, and choosing to insert them into races/ethnic cultures that were not described having black people amongst them. And that single point of change is something that not everyone has to agree with, and should not be assumed to be 'racist' or 'anti-diversity' for merely having the opinion of.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-16 at 07:12 PM.

  16. #2836
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I think the only ones here saying that are those pretending to be virtuous because nobody else is saying that.
    yes which is why I said people want to say it but don’t want to face the back lash, no one is literally saying it but it’s obvious that it’s the subtext.

    And by that logic, then European mythology, authors and artists must also be racist for not painting black Elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.
    yes many European authors were racist to a degree due to the times they lived in even if they weren’t actively trying to be So.

    Others were just ignorant given the flow of information and lack of personal experience.

    That is simply hilariously shallow and inept in this day of all black TV shows, movies, plays and so forth. It isn't ground breaking or special in the least.
    just like black people didn't need to use the white water fountains because they had there own?

    Trying to hold to “separate but equal” is still very much so racist.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  17. #2837
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    yes which is why I said people want to say it but don’t want to face the back lash, no one is literally saying it but it’s obvious that it’s the subtext.

    yes many European authors were racist to a degree due to the times they lived in even if they weren’t actively trying to be So.

    Others were just ignorant given the flow of information and lack of personal experience.

    just like black people didn't need to use the white water fountains because they had there own?

    Trying to hold to “separate but equal” is still very much so racist.
    There you go again making absurd straw men to pretend something is racist when it isn't.
    So all white mythology, tv show, movie or story from Europe is racist. LOL.
    Monty Python is Racist. Benny Hill is racist. Dr Who is racist. blah blah blah.......
    Which means Europe needs more immigration because there are too many all white towns, companies, pubs, neighborhoods. Can't have that huh?

  18. #2838
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    There you go again making absurd straw men to pretend something is racist when it isn't.
    So all white mythology, tv show, movie or story from Europe is racist. LOL.
    Monty Python is Racist. Benny Hill is racist. Dr Who is racist. blah blah blah.......
    Which means Europe needs more immigration because there are too many all white towns, companies, pubs, neighborhoods. Can't have that huh?
    You say I'm making strawmen and then do it your self.

    But no not every thing from Europe is racist. alot of is but alot of it is also just ignorant, or lacking in opportunity, it's a case by case thing in determining which is which.

    But yes if benny hill Dr who or Monty python had a "negro's not need apply" policy they were in fact racist.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  19. #2839
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    You say I'm making strawmen and then do it your self.

    But no not every thing from Europe is racist. alot of is but alot of it is also just ignorant, or lacking in opportunity, it's a case by case thing in determining which is which.

    But yes if benny hill Dr who or Monty python had a "negro's not need apply" policy they were in fact racist.
    Would you consider the Peter Jackson movies merely lacking opportunity or being ignorant in its choice to depict various races of Middle Earth as being all-white? That it isn't a deliberate choice, but as an unfortunate consequence of the times?

    And how would you regard the subsequent all-white casting in the Hobbit movies, which were made between 2012-2014?

  20. #2840
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Would you consider the Peter Jackson movies merely lacking opportunity or being ignorant in its choice to depict various races of Middle Earth as being all-white? That it isn't a deliberate choice, but as an unfortunate consequence of the times?

    And how would you regard the subsequent all-white casting in the Hobbit movies, which were made between 2012-2014?
    Id probably go with a mix of both.

    Id assume that none white prospects were slim to none, and depending on rather he kept track of the other movie adaptation's he might have never even thought to give characters darker shades such as we saw in the 1978 movie with Aragorn being notably darker arguably native American toned.

    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •