Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

For me it's about verisimilitude, elves comes from a time of only starlight and they live very long lives, some of the elves alive in middle earth existed before the sun. For them to have melanin with such slow evolution and being born under starlight makes no sense.

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?

Dwarves live underground, also not known for having a lot of sunshine, so it makes no sense for them to have a lot of melanin.

Same as elves. They seem to have a variety of melanin related mutations that give them a wide range of hair colors.

The mutation that gave people light skin was selectively advantageous for vitamin D synthesis in climates with less sun. Since dwarves spend so much of their lives underground, they clearly don’t need the sun for such human physiological necessities so melanin (a lot or a little) is completely irrelevant.

If they’re not just going to have skin so pale it’s almost translucent (like many animals that never get sunlight) the any skin tone works for them.

Hobbits are not very common in the world, they live far north, not quite far enough for permanent ice, but pretty close, this is likely partially based on Great Britain, hobbits are not fond of adventure, and because you travel on foot, most won't have gone very far outside of the shire, they are cut off from the events of the world, living their own slow lives. It makes no sense for hobbits to have different skin colors from each other, they could've all been black, brown yellow like me or white.

Harfoots (the most common hobbit type) are described as browner in color than other hobbits. With no baseline that means that means they really could fall anywhere on the spectrum of human skin tone that is at least “darker than white”.

So yeah, maybe you should amend what you think of as “verisimilitude”.

- - - Updated - - -

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?

Variety. Some call it the spice of life.

[Veggie50]

Loving how theres a deep dive going on about the deeper meaning of green eggs and ham

[Gumble]

Well, here's something I never thought I'd hear said XD

He hasn't made anything good recently, but back in the 90s and early 2000s having him in a movie was gold for audiences. Everyone my age can still sing the entire Fresh Prince theme at the drop of a hat. He was quite the draw.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving how theres a deep dive going on about the deeper meaning of green eggs and ham

It is quite amusing. Though the amount of people strawmanning each other back and forth makes me feel like Dorothy any time I click on one of these threads.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Reminds me of Starship Troopers and how monumentally different that movie is from the book its based on. Is this adaptation also fine, in hindsight? Perhaps Rings of Power may also be. We can only wait and see.

Using Starship Troopers as a metric for adaptations is quite the take, given how it was essentially a provocative parody of the original Heinlein work. Not to mention the assumed whitewashing of not only the main protagonist but of the entire cast.

But yeah perhaps in a similar vein, it'll become a future reference for the quirks of adaptations made in its era, maybe this time without turning the male black protagonist into a comic relief after throwing in the toilet all its potential...

In retrospect, I guess modern "adaptations" mirror those such as Starship Troopers, with key points being contemporary political messages be them dressed directly or in parody, and/or using or requiring forceful shifts in color palette to be marketable enough to their respective eras.

[Sialina]

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?



Same as elves. They seem to have a variety of melanin related mutations that give them a wide range of hair colors.

The mutation that gave people light skin was selectively advantageous for vitamin D synthesis in climates with less sun. Since dwarves spend so much of their lives underground, they clearly don’t need the sun for such human physiological necessities so melanin (a lot or a little) is completely irrelevant.

If they’re not just going to have skin so pale it’s almost translucent (like many animals that never get sunlight) the any skin tone works for them.



Harfoots (the most common hobbit type) are described as browner in color than other hobbits. With no baseline that means that means they really could fall anywhere on the spectrum of human skin tone that is at least “darker than white”.

So yeah, maybe you should amend what you think of as “verisimilitude”.

- - - Updated - - -



Variety. Some call it the spice of life.

Variety? We have Elves dwarves and gods, I would argue by bringing them closer to humans we are taking variety out, not adding it in.

The elves were created by Illuvatar and the Valar in the song of creation, the elves closer to the flame of creation often had traits like darker hair and dark eyes, they were all fair though. A notable example here would be Fëanor, but there are plenty of others.

Dwarves were also created before the sun existed, under ground by Aulë, he created them in his own image but he was not mighty enough to
give them life. When Illuvatar saw his creations he got angry, but eventually helped him give them life. These were the 7 fathers of the dwarves.
The dwarves awoke a century after the elves, during the first age before the sun and the moon, under the starlight. They too were created, but you
have to remember, just because something was created doesn't mean it can later break the laws of logic.
If I create a room for you that contains blue paint and red paint, you can make all shades of red blue and purple, but you won't be making green or yellow.

As for harefoots, sure, but Hobbits are not supposed to be out and about during the second age. What is wrong with having easterlings instead? the people
that are actually supposed to have darker skin?

[Dhrizzle]

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only thing you hear about when your knowledge of the show comes exclusively from outrage merchants who make a living selling dipshits on the horrors of the Nefarious Woke Agenda™.

Meanwhile, back in reality, one of the first things that comes up in the RoP news section is the guy who plays Elendil talking about his character:

Opening up about the adventures that await his character, he says, "In the beginning of the series, Elendil is a sea captain, a very capable mariner. He is a widower trying to bring up his three adult children. All of us are suffering from great grief and there is a great turbulence in the family. What you find is that Numenor has been polarised between people with a nationalist view, the people who want to live forever – the kingsmen, and those who are loyal to the elves. That polarization is represented between the family and Elendil finds himself being drawn toward the seat of power. He has a battle going on between his head and his heart. His heart is elvish and loyal, but his head is practical and trying to chart a beautiful route for his family in the new world and new city."

The character Elendil, previously played by Peter McKenzie, makes a brief appearance in Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' where he is at the forefront of the Battle of the Last Alliance. The books too have only a few mentions about the character. Sharing how the makers and showrunners pieced together his character, Owen says, "For Elendil, Tolkien left these flag poles and signposts along the way so you have an idea of who he is, but don’t really know him and that’s what’s really exciting."

He goes on to add, "What is gorgeous about playing this character, is that we know from what Tolkien has written, that we have to get him to the last alliance of Elves and men which is him, Gil-Galad, Elron and Galadriel fighting together against Sauron. I am so looking forward to how JD and Patrick are writing this reluctant hero – a man who doesn’t want to lead, who has his head down and is suffering the loss of his wife. This is about how he has to take responsibility. The Tolkienian theme is fate and recognising what your fate is. What we see in this first season is perhaps Elendil understanding how he thought his fate was one thing but he is being told it is another."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/93492185.cms

You know, typical actor interview shit. But I did deceptively cut off the beginning of the article where they briefly talk about his role in a Bollywood film. Which I'm sure means that everything else he says thereafter is 100% about "diversity and inclusion."

Yeah but they gave the character a beard which means it is all Woke bullshit that wants to spit on Tolkien's grave.
/s

[Triceron]

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?

Many of these races are based on real life cultures that did had different hair and eye colors but not vastly different skin colors.

[eschatological]

If Frodo were reacting in shock to pink haired men from the south instead of them being dark skinned, I would say that the narrative is changed quite a bit. To the reader, it would be more confusing or amusing, depending on how seriously this is meant to be depicted. I'm not sure why you even use this as an example.

Why is it changed, except for pre-existing racist notions of what it means to be black in real life?

When I read those passages, my interpretation was two-fold: 1) That Tolkein, the author, was being a bit xenophobic himself, putting darker skinned (viewed as lesser) humans on the side of Sauron, and 2) that the Hobbits were more shocked that any human would join Sauron when humans had free will (and orcs were considered corrupted to evil). The former reason alone is reason to change how humans are represented (in that it should be less white people vs. dark people) in the story, the latter reason isn't changed by changing the skin tone.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If Black skinned Dwarves were a normal thing and not worth even mentioning, then Bilbo would still have made note of their presence and existence and Frodo and crew wouldn't have been so surprised to see other humanoids with such complexions.


Now, whether you feel this part of the narrative has 'aged well' or not, and whether you feel like it's worth considering for modern audiences, that's a completely separate topic. I'm merely answering your question here, in that it DOES have impact on the narrative, because specifically we have a scene where the Hobbits openly react in shock in first time becoming aware that any human(oid) with dark skin tones could even exist. And the significance of this in the overall narrative is that Frodo's shock is meant to be relayed to the reader, because he is the POV narrator that we follow the journey of. It is his experiences that we experience the world of Middle Earth through the lens of. And if Frodo is shocked to see a dark skinned man for the first time, so are we in the context of the overall narrative.

Frodo being shocked really doesn’t mean all that much when it comes to dwarf skin tones given that even in real life you can have people be shocked that A member of X race has Y hair type/eye colour even if they have seen it on some one else before. It could very well just mean that Frodo has never seen a black human so even through black members of the other races exist he’s still surprised that it applies to humans as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?

Easy answer is to cast the best actor they have trying out for the role given that there race or gender doesn’t actually take any thing away from the performance.

[Triceron]

Why is it changed, except for pre-existing racist notions of what it means to be black in real life?

What do you mean 'what it means to be black on real life'? There's no real life commentary being made in regards to Middle Earth.

When I read those passages, my interpretation was two-fold: 1) That Tolkein, the author, was being a bit xenophobic himself, putting darker skinned (viewed as lesser) humans on the side of Sauron, and 2) that the Hobbits were more shocked that any human would join Sauron when humans had free will (and orcs were considered corrupted to evil). The former reason alone is reason to change how humans are represented (in that it should be less white people vs. dark people) in the story, the latter reason isn't changed by changing the skin tone.

That's a fair interpretation.

Yet the point still stands that black skinned people do exist, and described to be exotic and rare in the Hobbit's knowledge of the world as they know it. Considering their familiarity with the Dwarves indirectly through Bilbo, if there existed Black Dwarves known to them then such would be described existing, as such a rarity wouldn't be missed out as a mere overlooked detail.

The fact that Black skinned Dwarves aren't mentioned through the Hobbit's narrative while dark skin in other depictions are made in great detail implies that Black skinned Dwarves would not have been a common sight. To the reader's knowledge, it was never a sight at all. That is not to say they couldn't exist, but they would not have appeared in the Battle of five armies or in any other known depictions where dwarf skin colors are concerned. If that is the way the author established the Dwarf race and their known culture, then that is the world as we know it (through the narrative of the Hobbit's POV).

The change to add black skinned Dwarves would be a change to what we know of the Hobbit's own account of the world at large. And it's through their lens that we see and bear witness to the world of Middle Earth. It would be no different than adding pink hair where there was none. It would be a change because the Hobbits have never encountered people with pink hair, and we could not merely assume their reactions would be the same as something 'equally shocking'. They've never seen cars or cellphones either, and it doesn't mean we can freely swap those in places where they had genuine reactions of awe over what they consider to be magical artifacts.

My point isn't to say Rings of Power couldn't or shouldn't make these changes. I'm well aware of what's happening and I fully support it. My point is there is no reason to regard Rings of Power as a depiction of Tolkien's established world as he describes it to be. Black Dwarves are a creative liberty. This is not a bad thing, but it is something we sgould fully acknowledge as being new, being different, and ultimately not as a part of Tolkien's original work. Because merely saying 'what's the difference' is ignoring the fact that there is a difference.

Many of the arguments being presented here are in the vein of 'the difference is not very significant'. I argue that if there is a difference at all, then the value of its significance will be in the eye of the beholder, and is not an argument that can be used for or against the change. We should acknowledge the change, and we should respect that there are going to be people who have different views concerning the change. That is the ultimate point I present.

The more we pretend that the change is insignificant, the more we are alienating the fact that there is any change at all. And I don't think that's fair at all. Even with the Peter Jackson movies, as great as they are, they are full of inconsistencies to the books. There are plenty of differences. Do we need to justify the changes by asking 'what's the difference?'. No, we can both acknowledge that there are differences and that the creative liberties are welcomed as a part of an adaptation that has become recognized as its own masterpiece. It is not Tolkien's depiction of Middle Earth, and we don't have to make arguments that would assume it to be one.

Elves being present at Helms Deep is a BIG change to the narrative of the books. If someone asks 'What's the difference' then I will tell them in detail. If they are implying that the changes are not significant, then I will explain why narratively it is. But overall, it doesn't mean 'm against the change. I think it's cool that they did add Elves to Helms Deep. I simply do not agree with anyone who believes that the change is insignificant or non-existent. IMO, there is no excuse to downplay the change for the sake of defending its existence. It only gets in the way of recognizing the strength of the work on its own merit. Changes can be embraced and appreciated, and there's no reason to pretend they aren't changes for the sake of justifying their existence.

That is why I find some of these arguments in favour of Black Dwarves to be so baffling, because it involves more revisionist history than simply embracing and celebrating an adaptation for making use of its creative liberties.

[eschatological]

The people of Harad are only exotic and rare to isolationist Hobbits.

Part of the theme of LOTR was about that tendancy of Britons to not be part of greater Europe, which was rife with foreign influences from the Middle East and North Africa.

The "exotic and rare" label is more a criticism of Hobbitish insularity than anything else.

[Adamas102]

Variety? We have Elves dwarves and gods, I would argue by bringing them closer to humans we are taking variety out, not adding it in.

You’re the one that tried injecting humanity and “verisimilitude” into these beings by trying to explain their features using human evolution. And how does more variety make something more human? Have you seen the variety in birds? Fish?

The elves were created by Illuvatar and the Valar in the song of creation, the elves closer to the flame of creation often had traits like darker hair and dark eyes, they were all fair though.

So what? You said it makes no sense for them to have melanin and now you’re trying to explain away their melanin with magic which by definition makes no logical sense. If the magic of their creation can increase the melanin content of their hair then I see no reason why it can’t do the exact same for their skin.

The character in question is also specifically a silvan elf. Peter Jackson already set a precedent for silvan elves to have further melanin related mutations (giving them red hair) so I’m perfectly fine with varying skin tones being another feature of silvan elves specifically (if that’s what they’re going with in the show).

Dwarves were also created before the sun existed, under ground by Aulë, he created them in his own image but he was not mighty enough to
give them life. When Illuvatar saw his creations he got angry, but eventually helped him give them life. These were the 7 fathers of the dwarves.
The dwarves awoke a century after the elves, during the first age before the sun and the moon, under the starlight. They too were created, but you have to remember, just because something was created doesn't mean it can later break the laws of logic.

The sun doesn’t matter. You’re saying it’s ok for them to have been created with melanin in their skin and a variety in the melanin content of their hair, but additional melanin in their skin makes no sense. It’s a completely arbitrary distinction you’re making just to exclude dark skin.

Also, using magic to create something by definition is breaking the laws of logic and the natural world. Since dwarves are magical beings and their skin color is never specified, there’s absolutely no logical reason to assume they’d all be pale.

As for harefoots, sure, but Hobbits are not supposed to be out and about during the second age. What is wrong with having easterlings instead? the people that are actually supposed to have darker skin?

No one said there was anything wrong with doing a story about Easterlings, but it also isn’t necessary. Hobbits (like elves and dwarves) are a familiar staple of Middle-earth and without knowing what the story being told in the show will be there’s no assumption that necessarily deviates from the idea that hobbits were around that whole time but weren’t “discovered” as a different peoples till the 3rd Age.

[bledgor]

You know all those interviews and commentaries are for shareholders and PR people as well as talk that are conducted by those that interview them anyway. They are not meant for us. Just listen to them everything they say sounds like corporate speak. Maybe start looking at the show not what goes on behind it, if you start judging the show based on PR then man you are gonna hate it

They certainly aren't ONLY for shareholders and PR people, and considering everything they are saying is being displayed in the trailers, yes it is certainly enough to worry. I am not judging by the interviews, I am judging the show based on the trailers that show them butchering the lore/Tolkien horribly, and when I then get shown interviews with the cast reinforcing all the bad things they present in the trailers it is just confirmation they honestly don't care about the lore/Tolkien, but only about their messages they are using Tolkien as a vehicle for. Like honestly the amount of things the trailers get right is countable on 1 hand, while the things they get wrong you need a page to write. Story should never come second fiddle.

[Adamas102]

Many of these races are based on real life cultures that did had different hair and eye colors but not vastly different skin colors.

Tolkien made it exceptionally clear time and time again that the Middle-earth he created was purely imaginative, and though set on Earth for its sense of familiarity it does not correspond to Europe in terms of geography, culture, or any time period known to us. He also noted that any sort of allegorical connections were purely on the part of the reader and not his intent.

When you really go through it, there really is very little in terms of the descriptions of peoples and cultures as a whole. Tolkien couldn’t even really answer the question of how people in Middle-earth dressed, something that would have been very easy to do if they were meant to mirror real life historical peoples. Tolkien admitted that his skill was more in descriptions of scenery (as well as languages and genealogical lists). He also specified that this Northwest section of Middle-earth was “not a purely ‘Nordic’ area in any sense” meaning that there should definitely be more skin tone variety than “white Northern European”.

[Triceron]

Tolkien made it exceptionally clear time and time again that the Middle-earth he created was purely imaginative, and though set on Earth for its sense of familiarity it does not correspond to Europe in terms of geography, culture, or any time period known to us. He also noted that any sort of allegorical connections were purely on the part of the reader and not his intent.

When you really go through it, there really is very little in terms of the descriptions of peoples and cultures as a whole. Tolkien couldn’t even really answer the question of how people in Middle-earth dressed, something that would have been very easy to do if they were meant to mirror real life historical peoples. Tolkien admitted that his skill was more in descriptions of scenery (as well as languages and genealogical lists). He also specified that this Northwest section of Middle-earth was “not a purely ‘Nordic’ area in any sense” meaning that there should definitely be more skin tone variety than “white Northern European”.

Sure, though none of what you said actually changes what I said.

Middle Earth is purely fictional. Doesn't mean he didn't base certain things on real life peoples and cultures. Sure Tolkien left things blank. Doesn't mean it's anyone's job to fill them in.

Any blanks left unfilled are meant to be left unfilled. If there is any mandate to fill in the blanks, then we can all agree that we're diving into speculation and creative liberties beyond what we know of from the narrative (and related works).

At no point do creative liberties get retroactively applied as being part of Tolkien's original vision. If he did not clarify, then it remains unclarified, simple as that.

If he did not clarify the skintone of the Dwarves, it does not give leeway to make the Dwarves blue on the basis of a technicality. There are certain rules to the world and that Tolkien outlined himself which his world operates in. If there is no mention of Blue skinned Dwarves, then there should be no assumption or argument that they should exist because 'this is a work of fiction'. Anything beyond the original narrative is speculation or a creative liberty. There is no wiggle room to retroactively insert what does not exist in the original narrative for the sake of defending creatively liberal adaptations of the mythos.

[Sialina]

You’re the one that tried injecting humanity and “verisimilitude” into these beings by trying to explain their features using human evolution. And how does more variety make something more human? Have you seen the variety in birds? Fish?



So what? You said it makes no sense for them to have melanin and now you’re trying to explain away their melanin with magic which by definition makes no logical sense. If the magic of their creation can increase the melanin content of their hair then I see no reason why it can’t do the exact same for their skin.

The character in question is also specifically a silvan elf. Peter Jackson already set a precedent for silvan elves to have further melanin related mutations (giving them red hair) so I’m perfectly fine with varying skin tones being another feature of silvan elves specifically (if that’s what they’re going with in the show).



The sun doesn’t matter. You’re saying it’s ok for them to have been created with melanin in their skin and a variety in the melanin content of their hair, but additional melanin in their skin makes no sense. It’s a completely arbitrary distinction you’re making just to exclude dark skin.

Also, using magic to create something by definition is breaking the laws of logic and the natural world. Since dwarves are magical beings and their skin color is never specified, there’s absolutely no logical reason to assume they’d all be pale.



No one said there was anything wrong with doing a story about Easterlings, but it also isn’t necessary. Hobbits (like elves and dwarves) are a familiar staple of Middle-earth and without knowing what the story being told in the show will be there’s no assumption that necessarily deviates from the idea that hobbits were around that whole time but weren’t “discovered” as a different peoples till the 3rd Age.

You were the one who said we needed variety, explain why the variety that is supported by the fantasy is somehow inferior to your tokenism?

Second paragraph you are misunderstanding on purpose. Elves are very clearly described as fair skinned, but with a variety of haircolor.

The important part to reply to in your post though, of course it is necessary for a fantasy work to obey the laws of logic, it's internal logic, this is what makes a good story. You buy the initial premise once, then it can be used in different ways but the moment it breaks it's own rules, immersion is lost. Superhero movies operate in the same way. You can't build an Arc reactor in a cave, no matter how smart you are, but the story asks us to pretend together that Tony stark can, and we then experience the rest of the story with that shared deviation from reality.
Just because we accepted the arc reactor doesn't mean we would suddenly accept Ironman being able to use his mind to instant kill enemies for example.
Lord of the rings asks us to partake in the fantasy that Elves dwarves and men were all created by a pantheon of gods,
Elves are ancient, they are from the old world, the world that is being left behind, dwarves are unchangeable like the stone they were created from, but humans, humans represent change. Both good and bad, humans are short lived, easily led astray, but also adaptable and heroic, they represent the new age, the future.

So why invent token characters when you have established ones? you have it all back asswards.
Also why are you so happy about tokenism? Do you jump up and down and cheer loudly every time you see a white character in a Chinese movie? Or do you simply not care?

Also, I suggest you go see the world, if you travel around you will notice that most places, even now with easily avalible flights, trains, car travel, maps, GPS, food and water along the way, most places you find will be mono ethnical.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't mix, I'm married to someone not from my race, so no need to throw racism cards around. It simply means, the further back in technology we go, the more mono ethnical it makes sense for cities to be to not shatter the illusion of the fantasy. It's perfectly fine to have a huge mix of people in a port city, less so a city inlands, doesn't matter if it's Asian people, white people, African people or alien races.

[Triceron]

The people of Harad are only exotic and rare to isolationist Hobbits.

Part of the theme of LOTR was about that tendancy of Britons to not be part of greater Europe, which was rife with foreign influences from the Middle East and North Africa.

The "exotic and rare" label is more a criticism of Hobbitish insularity than anything else.

That's fair, but that is also the lens we see the world of Middle Earth through.

Willing Black Dwarves to exist where there were none known to the Hobbits or to us when we know they have been in contact with a wide range and variety of Dwarves will inevitably render the narrator unreliable in retrospect. I don't think that is how Tolkien's work is meant to be interpreted, even if it is seen through the eyes of the insular Hobbits.

If we're talking about a completely separate derivative works that doesn't care to adhere to Tolkien's particular vision, then all the power to it for taking its creative liberties.

[Adamas102]

You were the one who said we needed variety, explain why the variety that is supported by the fantasy is somehow inferior to your tokenism?

Second paragraph you are misunderstanding on purpose. Elves are very clearly described as fair skinned, but with a variety of haircolor.

The important part to reply to in your post though, of course it is necessary for a fantasy work to obey the laws of logic, it's internal logic, this is what makes a good story. You buy the initial premise once, then it can be used in different ways but the moment it breaks it's own rules, immersion is lost.
Lord of the rings asks us to partake in the fantasy that Elves dwarves and men were all created by a pantheon of gods,
Elves are ancient, they are from the old world, the world that is being left behind, dwarves are unchangeable like the stone they were created from, but humans, humans represent change. Both good and bad, humans are short lived, easily led astray, but also adaptable and heroic, they represent the new age, the future.

So why invent token characters when you have established ones? you have it all back asswards.
Also why are you so happy about tokenism? Do you jump up and down and cheer loudly every time you see a white character in a Chinese movie? Or do you simply not care?

Also, I suggest you go see the world, if you travel around you will notice that most places, even now with easily avalible flights, trains, car travel, maps, GPS, food and water along the way, most places you find will be mono ethnical.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't mix, I'm married to someone not from my race, so no need to throw racism cards around. It simply means, the further back in technology we go, the more mono ethnical it makes sense for cities to be to not shatter the illusion of the fantasy. It's perfectly fine to have a huge mix of people in a port city, less so a city inlands, doesn't matter if it's Asian people, white people, African people or alien races.

First of all, you apparently have no idea what "tokenism" means (having diverse characters that are central to the plot is exactly the opposite of tokenism). Secondly, I didn't say variety was needed, I gave a reason for why changes in adaptations sometimes exist. Thirdly, "I have a black friend" or "my wife is X" doesn't mean you can't be racist, and at the very least what you're espousing here is extremely ignorant.

The most egregious assumption you're making from the get go is that skin color and ethnicity are the same thing. Skin color, like hair color, is merely a variation in melanin production (a substance that everyone has), while ethnicity is a product of history and social aspects that are shared by groups in proximity. It is only human history that gives so much weight to skin color, but at its core it is no different than variation in hair or eye color. Modern humans lived on the European continent for tens of thousands of years before the genetic mutation for light skin developed and spread. Their but ethnicity didn't change overnight.

You've already accepted that hair and eye color can vary in these fantasy races, but are hung up on applying that to skin color even though they both are products of the same natural mechanisms. This is purely based on your real world interpretation of what skin color means to the peoples of earth. Once you're able to distance what is essentially just a minor genetic variation from the ideas of real world peoples, history, and ethnicity, it's easy to accept that a species that exhibits all variations of human skin tone can still be a single race/ethnicity. That means that just as a dwarf with black hair and a dwarf with red hair are simply dwarves, the same would apply to a dwarf with light skin and a dwarf with dark skin.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Dwarves live underground, also not known for having a lot of sunshine, so it makes no sense for them to have a lot of melanin.

If you want to get into this...than they should also be extremely sensitive to sunlight and probably near blind.

- - - Updated - - -

I really do not want to get into the other part of that discussion, but hard disagree on this. Creating your rules and then changing them randomly at some point just makes for very bad storytelling and world building - You can see that on WoW, where the story never was great, but after they abandoned all continuity and adapt on the fly, it really has gone to shit.

Well, we could probably go farther with this topic...but it doesn't mattter in this case...because there is no "rule" that says Dwarves have to be white.

[Orby]

If you want to get into this...than they should also be extremely sensitive to sunlight and probably near blind.

Basically anthropomorphic moles :P