Enemies

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.

Well, I could come back with Annatar, point out that the Elves were accused of considering themselves morally superior to other races & being 'embalmers', that Hobbits were not beautiful, but plain looking & Frodo's statement that if Aragorn really had been a servant of the enemy he would have 'looked fairer & felt fouler'.

I'm not sure about this - it seems highly morally questionable - the Woses were hunted & killed because they were ugly, secretive & wary?

No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.

This seems like Rohirrim propaganda. How else could they have 'chosen' to live considering they had been dispossessed & driven into the wilds?

[Raynor]

the Woses were hunted & killed because they were ugly, secretive & wary?

I guess I will have to restate my opinion several times in this thread. The exact cause of the attacks is not known. Tolkien states that the drugs weren't recognised as humans. These are, more or less, the facts. What I added to them was presenting various circumstances that could have misled any judgement of their race by an uninformed observer. When Merry hears them talking, he thought it was drums he was hearing; their laughter is a gurgling noise; their looks are unpleasant (I accept your points on fairness). Other, more "civilised" features is the use of poisonous arrows and the transfer of magic to objects. These times of deceit and fear, with the enemy always working to spread lies (isn't that Melkor's most powerful weapon?); people of the same race have been turned against each other from the beginning - even more against other races, or races displaying questionable features or behaviours. People of good moral standing have been constantly deceived. What I am saying is that we have much too little information and way too many signs of evil interference to assign moral blame.

This seems like Rohirrim propaganda.

Concerning events of the First Age??

[Lalwendë]

*smashes head against wall*

Originally Posted by Raynor

Before I comment on the difference between cognitive and moral abilities, let me get this straight: do you actually mean this??

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Wit their low nativity rate and with many of their women unwed, I find that hard to believe. Their life style, of living in tents, caves and shelters, isn't indicative of that either.

I'm talking about the Rohirrim.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would say this would be an attack on his own premise for this world. Here, beauty is associated with goodness. Varda is not just a good valar; her beauty is too great to be declared in words; Ungoliant is not just evil, she is a hideous spider. Luthien isn't just the only one who can, arguably, single-handedly out-wit and out-power Melkor, she is the most beautiful of Eru's children. Melkor and Sauron, as they become more evil, they become more hideous. The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case.

Sorry. Not that clear cut I'm afraid. There are far too many examples of when characters misjudge by appearances, so Tolkien clearly did not equate beauty with goodness and he clearly did ask us to examine our own prejudices.

In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books. I'm not sure why you are trying to gather up evidence which excuses characters from and condones their indulging in racist and prejudiced behaviour? Are you Michael Moorcock by any chance?

[Raynor]

You're alright, you can leave the 'comment', as I don't really go in for being patronised, especially not early in the mornning.

I was and am genuinely puzzled by your idea. I apologise if my comment was out of line. So, I am curious, where do you draw the line between human and non-human?

In fact if Tolkien did not do this then he was a racist, propounding racist values and none of us should be reading his books.

I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

[Rhod the Red]

"The elves are not the most gifted, and the closer to the valar in values and behaviour; they are the fair folk. Orcs are not just some of the cruelest beings, they are just plain ugly. The drugs challenge all this; and the fact that they are secretive and wary, and apparently use transfer of power to objects (Tolkien admits that one can consider this a miniature of the transfer of Sauron's power to the one ring or Barad-dur) really does not help their case."

Thankfully we don't have to face such terrible flaws in our world, lesser ones currently call attention, But the arrangements Tolkien has is both consistant with the real world and sophisticated enough for the storylines to be very interesting.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Concerning events of the First Age??

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, it wouldn't be the first time old beliefs were used to justify questionable practices.

That is a possibility; although I find this depiction as consistent with the little information we gather about the drugs in LotR. Moreover, I don't see the Rohirrim as influential as to distort the lore of the past ages in other cultures as well.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not saying, or believing, that racism is ok, not here, not there. I was arguing about making mistakes in extraordinary times, in a world where deceit and division was one of the highest objectives of a present mythological evil. As Tolkien stated in the letters, everyone is subject to error in Ea, even the valar.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of justifying racism, but this does open up a wider question, in that fiction is not reportage, & when a writer introduces these kind of situations into his work he must have a reason even if he doesn't have an agenda.

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable. Now Tolkien is very clear about good & evil within M-e - he makes moral judgements regarding the behaviour of Morgoth, Sauron, the Ringwraiths, Orcs & other servants of evil - he condemns their behaviour out of hand.

So, when we are presented with the Rohirrim's behaviour as regards both the Woses & the Dunlendings we require him to present just as clearly his position on that. Therefore, he must either state that it is wrong or that it is fine - it cannot merely be 'understandable in the circumstances'.

Personally, I feel he does make clear his position - which is that the behaviour of the Rohirrim is wrong - he may not say it in so many words, but in the way he presents Ghan & the Woses in LotR & in the words of Gamling, he shows up the Rohirrim (or at least their leaders) as a people who were ignorant & cruel at times, & who saw the two races who inhabited their land as 'sub human'. Now, I could see Eomer & Erkenbrand hunting the Woses to their deaths, but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords. His words to Eomer regarding the Dunlendings would be completely unnecessary if Tolkien believed that the Dunlendings were 'subhuman'. In fact Tolkien's own tale 'The Faithful Stone' confirms that he didn't see the Woses in the way the Rohirrim did.

The great danger is that we take a simplistic 'good' guys vs 'bad' guys approach, & decide, well, the Rohirrim were 'good' & therefore they had no faults & thus were not capable of 'racism', or at least of 'cultural supremicism'. Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.

So, could it be they believed that they were servants of the enemy? I doubt it. Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them. In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'. And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.

I don;t see any way around this - Eomer typifies an attitude - because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them. If he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Dunlendings it is hardly surprising he will not acknowledge the humanity of the Woses. Yet this is clearly a choice he makes.

But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.

Of course we see the same kind of 'racism' displayed by the Numenoreans in regard to the inhabitants of Endor, & this 'attitude' of cultural supremicism runs right down the ages of Arda, with races claiming the moral high ground & using, abusing & often killing those of a 'lower' race.

As I stated, I think Tolkien meant to depict this kind of behaviour as racist & as morally wrong. I don't think we can deny it is there.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows. Clearly then, while they may hunt them like animals, they must realise they are not animals.

Recently it's been observed that some chimpanzees have used crude spears for hunting, yet many people (with the exception of Richard Dawkins) would consider this species 'animal.' However, like chimpanzees, even if the Woses were 'animals,' why, exactly were they hunted? I'm guessing not for food, as no one is observed salivating at the sight of Ghân-buri-Ghân, nor for territory, as the Drúadan Forest did not seem the type of place that the Rohirrim preferred. Maybe the Gondorians hunted them while traversing the Woses' lands early in the Third Age (and before), as they were a nuisance, but not sure why the Rohirrim did unless it were for sport, which to me is more orc-like than not.

The statues of the Púkel-men, lining the road to Dunharrow, show that at one time men knew more about these mysterious creatures than in latter days.

Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.

[Raynor]

When Tolkien presents us with members of one culture hunting down & killing another, judging the other culture as 'beasts', he is either saying this kind of behaviour is wrong, or he is saying it is acceptable.

Orome and his host were hunting down fell beasts, as his fight against evil and I know no incrimination of him. So this sets a precendent of a way to combat evil.

The Eldar hunted the petty dwarves, seeing them as dangerous beasts, which attack them. I am not aware that their actions, as long as they didn't know about the dwarves (which happened later) are incriminated anywhere. Do you think the Eldar did a wrong thing?

but not Gamling, because Gamling knows more than his Lords.

Then again, one should ask if Gamling really recognised the voices of the dunlendings when they were making their war cries, most likely together with the orcs, or if he simply presumed they were there, knowing of their alliance. My impression is that the later happened. .

Their treatment of the Woses cannot be put down to their seeing them as 'animals' - which they clearly are not - animals do not beat drums, nor use bows & arrows.

This presumes they knew that; we have no such evidence. We have zero evidence of what happened then. I don't see what relevant conclusion we can draw, besides noting a tragedy.

Clearly the Woses do not behave like Orcs, or look like them.

How many other races use poisoned darts? Chris doesn't rule out their likeliness; after mentioning the idea of orcs being related to humans, he quotes the description of Ghan: "Hh is described as having a scanty beard that "straggled on his lumpy chin like dry moss," and dark eyes that showed nothing"; previously, it was stated that their eyes are red when angry. I don't have a description of orcs handy, but perhaps it would help if someone could present it.

In fact, in order to hunt anything (animal or human) effectively the hunter needs a thoroughgoing knowledge of his 'prey'.

I think you are describing an ideal "hunt". Again, we really don't know the context of the attacks.

And from Ghan's words its plain that we are not talking here about the odd isolated incident but a systematic policy of hunting down & killing the Woses.

If you are intent on speculating on a passing refference, then just as well there may have been no casualty. There is zero evidence either way. Can't we accept that? This is leading nowhere.

because however 'wild' the Dunlendings may look they could not be mistaken for 'animals' - yet Eomer states clearly that 'animals' is how he sees them.

He doesn't "see" them actually. He hears war cries, most likely mingled with the orcs's. He doesn't know there are any Men there; he simply makes remark on what he hears.

But, as I stated, by the end of the story he has come to acknowledge the Woses as 'human' beings.

Where is it stated that Eomer viewed them otherwise anytime??

Note that there's no discounting the works of Saruman and Sauron, which may have flamed the estrangement of these peoples.

This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This is one thing that the critics of the rohirrim don't seem to want to take into account. Also, I would go further than saying they simply flamed the enstrangement.

Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).

[davem]

Scene: Edoras before the departure for Helm's Deep. Eowyn takes her brother aside for a final heart to heart....

Eowyn: You know, that's the thing I don't really understand about you, Eomer.
You're a professional soldier, and yet, sometimes you sound as though
you bally well haven't enjoyed soldiering at all.

Eomer: Well, you see, sis, I did like it, back in the old days when the
prerequisite of a Rohirric campaign was that the enemy should under
no circumstances carry bows -- even spears made us think twice. The
kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with
dry grass.

Eowyn: Now, come off it, brother -- what about Druadan Forest, for heaven's sake?

Eomer: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Druadan warriors
armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle,
instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

Not exactly sure what you mean (as I'm just entering this discussion), but just because a Wizard or other prattles on in your ear, it doesn't mean that you have to listen. I only note the involvement of Saruman/Sauron as there is historical precedent (i.e. Freca, if I have that right).

Lies have been used to corrupt maiar, to kindle strife among the noldor, and to bring about the fall of Men. It is even mentioned in the Silmarillion that Melkor dispersed his might through lies too - that must account for something, seeing that he falls from being the most powerful vala to less than a maia ("Sauron was 'greater', effectively, in the Second Age than Morgoth at the end of the First" ~ Myths Transformed). Melkor sow deceit of "old and ever anew", which bears fruit as long as Arda lasts.

[Lalwendë]

Getting back to the point and using the examples I've found (I will have a deeper look into RotK as soon as I can), something emerges. In the Barrack Room Ballad we hear the voice of the ordinary soldier, the one who actually gets out there and does the fighting in the modern world. He gives his respect for the opposing warrior as a fighter, now although we don't really see this from the leaders in LotR, we do see it from the foot soldiers. As shown by Gamling's deeper understanding of the Dunlendings. He recognises them as a people unlike his leader Eomer, he knows their language and what they say in direct contrast to Eomer's blatant and blinded prejudice.

Actually this recalls Tolkien's own role in war as a signals officer. He would have known and understood different methods of communication and language in contrast to his superiors who would not; his role would have been very much like Gamling's, to interpret and ultimately to correct his superiors.

Also from seeing the responses of Sam and Frodo, another two very low ranking individuals without leadership responsibilities, we see that it could indeed be the more 'humble' involved in this war who do show respect to their enemies. That's in contrast to Eomer's derogatory comments and the disrespectful killing games of Legolas and Gimli. I suspect that if we dig down and look at the words and actions of some of the 'foot soldiers' we might see some different responses. Just like it's a couple of Hobbits who 'save' Middle-earth, not Gandalf or some high-falutin' Elf, it's the ordinary soldiers who view the enemies as people whereas their leaders see them merely as smelly, animalistic obstacles.

It seems as the story develops we see changes happening, the Rohirrim for example moving forwards from their prejudiced ways into learning to accept other races, even enemy ones, which would eventually lead in to the more modern way of viewing an enemy as not merely something almost inorganic to be slaughtered but as a fellow human who deserves respect even in the fury of war. Rather like the move Tolkien saw from the sheer brutality exercised by Nazi leaders against their enemies to the standard of respect for POWs hoped for under the Geneva Convention.

[Raynor]

He recognises them as a people unlike his leader Eomer

Do you have any idea how a dunlendish war cry sounds? Do you have any proof that a dunlendish war cry is significantly different from that of an orc war cry (or that the difference would be perceptible from any distance)? Do you have any evidence that Eomer was aware of all these? Because if you don't know these, your presumption is unwarranted, and I will point this to you everytime you state this as anything else than a personal opinion.

Even if dunlendish cries are different from orc cries, you would still be making two errors of reasoning:

- fallacy of division: Eomer described how that group in the night sounded; to say that what he thought of the group is what he also thought of part of the group, without evidence of this, is erroneous reasoning.

- false dillemma: the fact in itself that a person recognises that another group (most likely) intentionally makes savage sounds doesn't exclude that the person in question doesn't have racial attitude towards that group - unless there is additional evidence, of which I know none. This in itself is not a qualifier.

the Rohirrim for example moving forwards from their prejudiced ways into learning to accept other races,

Without proper evidence, we can't say that the rohirrim were more prejudiced against the woses (if that is what you are reffering to) than another group of people would have been in their place. This is an "argument from ignorace", a fallacy.

which would eventually lead in to the more modern way of viewing an enemy as not merely something almost inorganic to be slaughtered but as a fellow human who deserves respect even in the fury of war

Is there any evidence of events at the time of LotR when the enemies should have been given more respect, or when there was unnecessary harm done?

the disrespectful killing games of Legolas and Gimli.

But is heroic lore that proclaims the values of champions, in relation to how many enemies they stopped (I am being polite here), wrong? Aren't the noldor celebrated in the songs of their people for how many enemies they defeated (and I presume the same is true for the dwarves)?
Are the words of Gimli and Legolas any worse than the words of Aragorn who says "depart, or not one of you will be spared; not one will be left alive to take back tidings to the North"?
Is it wrong to equate value in battle with how many enemies you defeat? And if not, is it wrong to declare value in battle?

Just like it's a couple of Hobbits who 'save' Middle-earth, not Gandalf or some high-falutin' Elf, it's the ordinary soldiers who view the enemies as people whereas their leaders see them merely as smelly, animalistic obstacles.

I presume you are reffering to orcs. Do these hobbits view, behave towards, or describe the orcs in a more favorable light than Gandalf or the elves?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Do you have any idea how a dunlendish war cry sounds? Do you have any proof that a dunlendish war cry is significantly different from that of an orc war cry (or that the difference would be perceptible from any distance)?

Well, clearly they are distinguishable from a distance because Gamling recognises them from the same distance away as Eomer:

"But these creatures of Isengard, these half-orcs and goblin-men that the foul craft of Saruman has bred, they will not quail at the sun," said Gamling. 'And neither will the wild men of the hills. Do you not hear their voices?"

"I hear them," said Eomer; 'but they are only the scream of birds and the bellowing of beasts to my ears."

Originally Posted by Raynor

Even if dunlendish cries are different from orc cries, you would still be making two errors of reasoning:

Again, they must be different from Orc cries because Gamling distinguishes between them.

- fallacy of division: Eomer described how that group in the night sounded; to say that what he thought of the group is what he also thought of part of the group, without evidence of this, is erroneous reasoning.

So Eomer was commenting on the enemy's skill in making farmyard noises, & his comment was not meant perjoratively?

- false dillemma: the fact in itself that a person recognises that another group (most likely) intentionally makes savage sounds doesn't exclude that the person in question doesn't have racial attitude towards that group - unless there is additional evidence, of which I know none. This in itself is not a qualifier.

I don't think we're dealing with 'racism' in the modern (specifically the post Nazi) sense, but an attitude - Both Woses & Dunlendings are 'savages', not fully human, & therefore to kill either is not the same as killing a human being in the eyes of the Rohirrim. The Dunlendings sound like 'animals', the Woses both look & sound like 'animals', hence neither merits being treated like humans. Clearly there has never been any attempt at raprochement in the 500 years since the Rohirrim took over Calenardhon, & the Dunlendings, having been dispossessed of their lands, have been left to try & survive for the whole of that time.

Of course, the Rohirrim are a very narrow minded bunch - Fangorn may be on the borders of their land, & Lorien not too far distant, yet they are as dismissive of the idea of 'walking trees' as any Hobbit, reject Galadriel & the Elves as 'net weavers & sorcerers' & Hobbits as figures out old stories. Basically, whe confronted with anything 'out of the ordinary' their response seems to have been to disbelieve it if they could & to attempt to destroy it if they couldn't.

And it seems they themselves were hardly viewed as ideals of virtue - the suspicion that they were in league with the enemy must have come from somewhere & had some justification. The Rohirrin were an illiterate people, handy in a fight, but hardly the most intelligent, compassionate or enlightened group in M-e.

As Faramir states:

"For so we reckon Men in our lore, calling them the High, or Men of the West, which were Numenoreans; and the Middle Peoples, Men of the Twilight, such as are the Rohirrim and their kin that dwell still far in the North; and the Wild, the Men of Darkness. 'Yet now, if the Rohirrim are grown in some ways more like to us, enhanced in arts and gentleness, we too have become more like to them, and can scarce claim any longer the title High. We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts.

The Gondorians are falling from their 'high' status to the 'middling' status of their nothern neighbours, but the Rohirrim are becoming more enhanced in arts & gentleness - which statement clearly implies that they were not always so, but also makes clear that the influence of Rohan on the Gondorians is to make them esteem war & valour above other things - things that had a higher value in the past.
[

[Raynor]

Well, clearly they are distinguishable from a distance because Gamling recognises them from the same distance away as Eomer:

Good point. I have looked over the HoME VIII version of the story; there, the unpleasantness of the dunlendish language is even more apparent. Aragorn notes that "once it was accounted good to hear", while Gamling says that "now it is used in deadly hate". I for one believe that there is plenty of evidence that Eomer's description was accurate.

his comment was not meant perjoratively?

No, I don't think so.

The Dunlendings sound like 'animals'...hence neither merits being treated like humans.

In what instance were the dunlendings not treated like humans? I mean, other than the passing comment on war cries that we are nitpicking for over 2 pages. Also, it wasn't the fact that the dunlendings sounded like animals that started the wars, but because they insulted and threatened the rohirrim king, invaded Rohan when it was also attacked from the East, enslaved and slain its people. To say that it was an "attitude" at play, is to discount history.

Clearly there has never been any attempt at raprochement in the 500 years since the Rohirrim took over Calenardhon

I disagree; the actual feud started when Freca came to Helm's council. At that time, he was allowed to have wide lands and his own stronghold. Even though he paid no heed to the king, he was still called to his councils. This happened ~250 years after the rohirrim came to Calenardhon. It was about that time Freca insulted Helm and threatened him, even though it was apparent he was his subject.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I for one believe that there is plenty of evidence that Eomer's description was accurate.

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'

Also, it wasn't the fact that the dunlendings sounded like animals that started the wars, but because they insulted and threatened the rohirrim king, invaded Rohan when it was also attacked from the East, enslaved and slain its people. To say that it was an "attitude" at play, is to discount history.

If you break in & occupy my house & force me to live in my garden shed & I smash the windows, am I smashing your windows or my own? I don't see how the Dunlendings can be accused of 'invading' what was technically their own land.

I disagree; the actual feud started when Freca came to Helm's council. At that time, he was allowed to have wide lands and his own stronghold. Even though he paid no heed to the king, he was still called to his councils. This happened ~250 years after the rohirrim came to Calenardhon. It was about that time Freca insulted Helm and threatened him, even though it was apparent he was his subject.

And Gamling has another version:

Not in half a thousand years have they forgotten their grievance that the lords of Gondor gave the Mark to Eorl the Young and made alliance with him.

The feud had its origins in the fact that the Dunlendings were dispossessed of their own lands. If I was Freca, finding myself being 'given back' something that was taken from me by the representative of the very person who stole it from me I'd be pretty narked.

[Raynor]

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'

And if that is how it genuinely sounded to him, what is the problem? Can you somehow disprove that he exagerated the unpleasant effect it had on his ears?

If you break in & occupy my house & force me to live in my garden shed

This completely contradicts the description of Freca's situation:

He grew rich and powerful, having wide lands on either side of the Adorn. [It flows into Isen from the west of Ered Nimrais.] Near its source he made himself a stronghold and paid little heed to the king.

There is no evidence that the rohirrim dislodged anyone, or that they hindered the people living there. In 2510 the people of Calenardhon already dwindled, due to the attacks of the balchoth; their weakness was obvious when the orcs and the wild men attacked Calenardhon and overran it. The rohirrim proved themselves worthy in battle and helpful to the king. Given Gondor's situation - attacked by corsairs in the south and the fierce people who were under "wholly under the shadow of Dol Guldur" in the north, the rohirrim were the best choice to ensure peace and prosperity in that land; the original people weren't able (or willing?) to fight that evil. It is apparent that the dunlendings had prosperity and were allowed even to govern themselves, as late as 2754 - until they decided that good was not good enough.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

And if that is how it genuinely sounded to him, what is the problem? Can you somehow disprove that he exagerated the unpleasant effect it had on his ears?
This completely contradicts the description of Freca's situation:
There is no evidence that the rohirrim dislodged anyone, or that they hindered the people living there. In 2510 the people of Calenardhon already dwindled, due to the attacks of the balchoth; their weakness was obvious when the orcs and the wild men attacked Calenardhon and overran it. The rohirrim proved themselves worthy in battle and helpful to the king. Given Gondor's situation - attacked by corsairs in the south and the fierce people who were under "wholly under the shadow of Dol Guldur" in the north, the rohirrim were the best choice to ensure peace and prosperity in that land; the original people weren't able (or willing?) to fight that evil. It is apparent that the dunlendings had prosperity and were allowed even to govern themselves, as late as 2754 - until they decided that good was not good enough.

Seems they were both strong (& therefore a threat) - Freca is 'powerful' - & at the same time his people had dwindled & their 'weakness' was obvious. Then we have Freca with a stronghold of his own & at the same time we're told that his people had 'always' lived a nomadic existence in the wilds even back into the First Age.

Aparently like they were 'weak' & useless when it was necessary for the Rohirrim to take over Calenardhon & strong & powerful whenever they defied the Rohirrim.

And let's not forget that the Gondorians only 'owned' Calenardhon because they took it.

[Raynor]

his people had dwindled & their 'weakness' was obvious

Hm, where is it stated that at the time of Freca they dwindled or weakened?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Hm, where is it stated that at the time of Freca they dwindled or weakened?

In an earlier post I noted:

Originally Posted by me

I think all this could actually be put down to [b]their being a dispossessed folk who had been driven to live in the wilds]/b]. Effectively, they are refugees. I certainly can't see the Rohirrim allowing them decent land to live on. You seem to be blaming them for a situation that was forced on them by the incoming Rohirrim.

& you responded:

Originally Posted by Raynor

No, because they were apparently living like this, "content", ever since they were co-habitating with the folk of Haleth. It seems this is their 'natural' way of life.

So it seems you are arguing that

a) the Dunlendings chose to live in the wilds, scratching an existence, were weak & unable to defend themselves or their land (& you note that this situation holds right back into the First Age),

& b) that at the time of Freca (ie post the occupation of Calenardhon by the Rohirrim) they had not dwindled or become weak & presumably therefore posed a threat to the Rohirrim.

I'm merely pointing out that logically they can't have been a weak, helpless minority living in the wilds right back into the First Age, & also have been a powerful settled (Freca has a fortress) in the Third Age.

Hence, as I stated, they seem to be 'weak' & not much use when it is necessary for the Rohirrim to take over Calenardhon, but whenever their presence becomes a 'nuissance' they suddenly become a 'serious threat' which must be removed by all means possible.

Anyway, as this part of the discussion seems to be going around in circles, I'd like to widen it a bit.

Do we see different attitudes to 'the enemy' among different races?

Also, I was thinking about the attitude of Hobbits to the Big Folk. It seems that in the Shire Men are seen almost, but not quite, as enemies. They are at the very least seen as a potential threat. Even the term 'Big Folk' seems to be used perjoratively, & they are percieved as enough of a threat post the War of the Ring that they have to be banned from entering the Shire (further Hammond & Scull give a note from Tolkien about the possible fate of Hobbits - they dwindled & diminished & were possibly hunted almost to the point of extinction by Men), yet in Bree Hobbits & Men live happily together.

Of course the Shire Hobbits seem suspicious of any other race (& of anyone like Bilbo or Frodo who has anything to do with them), & one wonders how much it would take ffor them to declare Elves & Dwarves persona non grata. Elves & Dwarves perceive each other as enemies for most of their history, & I'm not sure either group would praise the courage of the other.

We seem to have a lot of alienation among all races - its not simply suspicion of the stranger in most cases, but almost as if they are actively looking for a justification to class another group as an 'enemy'. And if we add to this the fact that once a group is declared to be 'enemy' they are shown no respect at all by the majority of their opponents we can speculate that Fighting the Long Defeat is an attitude that may have become so entrenched in common thought that they are actually looking for a fight in many cases.

The history of Arda seems to be a history of suspicion, of classifying the 'other' as enemy, & attempting to wipe him out.....

[Raynor]

I'm merely pointing out that logically they can't have been a weak, helpless minority living in the wilds right back into the First Age, & also have been a powerful settled (Freca has a fortress) in the Third Age.

Well, I don't see a problem in that. But the problem I do see is that I was reffering to the woses there, and you are using that statement in refference to the dunlendings. Am I correct in my guess that you are confusing woses with dunlendings?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, I don't see a problem in that. But the problem I do see is that I was reffering to the woses there, and you are using that statement in refference to the dunlendings. Am I correct in my guess that you are confusing woses with dunlendings?

I think things may have got confused - which can happen when one is taking part in a three handed conversation. I was focussing on the Dunlendings, Lal was focussing on the Woses, & I think you were fighting a battle on two sides.

That said, I don't see that the Dunlendings were a 'civilised' culture - it seems to me that they were living a very basic existence, & Eomer's confounding them (or even just their war cries) with animals does not speak to their being an enemy on the cultural or technological level of the Rohirrim. Hence it would seem that either they were originally a 'higher culture' which had descended into barbarism, or they never attained the level of civilisation even of the Rohirrim .

I think that what we know of the Dunlendigs & their history leads towards the latter assumption.

[davem]

I think things may have got confused - which can happen when one is taking part in a three handed conversation. I was focussing on the Dunlendings, Lal was focussing on the Woses, & I think you were fighting a battle on two sides.

That said, I don't see that the Dunlendings were a 'civilised' culture - it seems to me that they were living a very basic existence, & Eomer's confounding them (or even just their war cries) with animals does not speak to their being an enemy on the cultural or technological level of the Rohirrim. Hence it would seem that either they were originally a 'higher culture' which had descended into barbarism, or they never attained the level of civilisation even of the Rohirrim .

I think that what we know of the Dunlendigs & their history leads towards the latter assumption.

And, again, I'm not sure this is going anywhere. I think there is an interesting debate to be had on the wider question of the way enemies are depicted & percieved in M-e, but the focus here has become too narrow & is not shedding much light on the original topic, so perhaps we both need to leave this particular issue where it is & look at the wider question?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, the Rohirrim are a very narrow minded bunch - Fangorn may be on the borders of their land, & Lorien not too far distant, yet they are as dismissive of the idea of 'walking trees' as any Hobbit, reject Galadriel & the Elves as 'net weavers & sorcerers' & Hobbits as figures out old stories. Basically, whe confronted with anything 'out of the ordinary' their response seems to have been to disbelieve it if they could & to attempt to destroy it if they couldn't.

Even Aragorn is forced into having to show Eomer who he is; of course at this point he is all apologies. Tolkien was again developing the character through reported speech instead of interior monologue.

Originally Posted by davem

And it seems they themselves were hardly viewed as ideals of virtue - the suspicion that they were in league with the enemy must have come from somewhere & had some justification. The Rohirrin were an illiterate people, handy in a fight, but hardly the most intelligent, compassionate or enlightened group in M-e.

Yet the intelligence of Gamling shows they could change, as they do by the end of the story; they are very much like the pre-Literary Saxons in this respect, moving from being mere mercenaries into being an established culture. I've wondered about Faramir's words before now, and now I can see what he meant, that the Rohirrim were not as developed in their attitudes as the Gondorians were. Of course the Gondorians' ancestors were the Numenoreans who allegedly have shared Numenor with a few of the Woses (fate unknown) so they have the knowledge of these people. There's something sad in what Faramir says, that the Gondorians in a way are in danger of descending to the level of some of the unenlightened Rohirrim.

I'm beginning to wonder if the escape of Merry and Pippin was not just necessary from a plot point of view in that they eventually meet with Treebeard, but that they also had a lucky escape as they also risked being hunted down by Eomer's men!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

perhaps we both need to leave this particular issue where it is & look at the wider question?

I agree; unless someone brings something new to that part of discussion, I believe we all said what could have been said.

Originally Posted by davem

Also, I was thinking about the attitude of Hobbits to the Big Folk. It seems that in the Shire Men are seen almost, but not quite, as enemies. They are at the very least seen as a potential threat. Even the term 'Big Folk' seems to be used perjoratively, & they are percieved as enough of a threat post the War of the Ring that they have to be banned from entering the Shire

The apparent deterioration of this relation was noted in HoME XII:

Originally Posted by The Atani and their languages, Late Writings

With Men of normal stature they recognized their close kinship, whereas Dwarves or Elves, whether friendly or hostile, were aliens, with whom their relations were uneasy and clouded by fear. Bilbo's statement that the cohabitation of Big Folk and Little Folk in one settlement at Bree was peculiar and nowhere else to be found was probably true in his time (the end of the Third Age); but it would seem that actually Hobbits had liked to live with or near to Big Folk of friendly kind, who with their greater strength protected them from many dangers and enemies and other hostile Men, and received in exchange many services.

[davem]

With Men of normal stature they recognized their close kinship, whereas Dwarves or Elves, whether friendly or hostile, were aliens, with whom their relations were uneasy and clouded by fear. Bilbo's statement that the cohabitation of Big Folk and Little Folk in one settlement at Bree was peculiar and nowhere else to be found was probably true in his time (the end of the Third Age); but it would seem that actually Hobbits had liked to live with or near to Big Folk of friendly kind, who with their greater strength protected them from many dangers and enemies and other hostile Men, and received in exchange many services.

Tolkien's speculation on the final fate of the Hobbits is interesting.

The much later dwindling of Hobbits must be due to a change in their state & way of life; they became a fugitive & secret people, driven as Men, the Big Folk, became more & more numerous, usurping the more fertile & habitable lands, to refuge in forest or wilderness: a wandering & poor folk, forgetful of their arts & living a precarious life absorbed in the search for food & fearful of being seen; for cruel Men would shoot them for sport as if they were animals. In fact they relapsed into the state of 'pygmies'. The other stunted race, the Druedain, never rose much above that state.(quoted in Hammond Scull LotR Readers Companion)

The Hobbits 'relapse' into the state of pygmies - a state which the Druedain never 'rose much above'.

It seems to me that this whole idea of 'cruel men hunting members of the 'pygmy races' for sport as if they were animals refers back to what we are told of the hunting of the Woses by the Rohirrim. In fact what Tolkien states here about the Hobbits being dispossessed of their land, forced to try & survive in the wilds & being hunted for sport could be applied directly to the Woses. The Hobbits, in short, are driven back to the stone age by incoming Men.

It seems the Hobbits' survival was dependent on Men's protection (one could say the same about the Woses) & that if their ultimate fate was as Tolkien here speculates (of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that he wrote the above on a day when he was a bit depressed) the 'Big Folk of friendly kind' who defended them against 'hostile men' seem either themselves to have disappeared, or forgotten about them.

What we seem to have in Tolkien's statement about the fate of the Hobbits is another warning about the danger of judging by appearances. The Woses were hunted because they looked ugly & inhuman - & it seems that the Hobbits, once driven to the point of having to struggle to survive in the wilds, found themselves in the same position - they would have looked like 'animals' & they would have been hunted.

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about how we aways draw parallels with WWI but Tolkien was actually writing LotR during WWII, a very different kind of conflict, one on a global scale and one which brought unimaginable horrors. The ways people reacted to these horrors were not always with 'respect' for the enemy, due to some of the things which the enemy did which were beyond the pale. Many Jewish people say they simply cannot forgive what happened during WWII, it's just not going to happen. In LotR we don't see the enemy forces doing the kinds of things which were done during WWII, but these enemies are painted in that kind of light at times, as though they have gone beyond the pale.

What brought me to thinking about this was my dad was telling me the story of a friend of his who was involved in the liberation of Belsen. He was very young, and a bulldozer driver, so you can imagine which task eventually fell to him. But when they first arrived at the camp, apparently it could be smelled from miles away due to the mounds of thousands of corpses left lying around, sometimes in the same bunks as the living. What had been highly disciplined units broke down pretty quickly in the face of this unimaginable horror - the officers simply could not exercise the same discipline over men who were facing such scenes.

The Nazis running the place were still there and were brutally treated by the Allies; some of them kicked to death by Allied soldiers, most of them made to bury disease ridden corpses with their bare hands so that many of them died themselves from typhus; this was done as 'punishment' to deliberately demean and harm the camp staff as there were so many bodies they simply had to be bulldozed into the burial pits. Then the Allies went into the neighbouring villages and forced the local people at gunpoint to march into Belsen and see for themselves the corpses and dying people; they were forced from their homes and all their possessions taken away - the Allied soldiers helped themselves to what they wanted and moved the prisoners from the camp into the houses. The ordinary locals were given no help and made to march out of the area, homeless and with only what they were wearing.

That struck me as very brutal. These people may indeed have known what was happening up the road, but could not say anything as they were also living in fear of a brutal regime. Why then were they punished? The answer is that this was a reaction to something so extreme the Allies could not comprehend how someone could not say or do anything about this horror on their doorstep. That when confronted with an extreme, discipline goes out of the window.

We aren't told what Sauron's forces do, but we must imagine it was something as equally brutal to provoke our heroes to treat the Orcs without respect. We know they are not mere robots or monsters, as Tolkien shows us Orcs chatting about retirement, just as Men might, but like the Nazis, they have been brainwashed and subject to fear which has resulted in brutality in war being 'normal' for them.

So there it is, I think the enemy of LotR stems from a very different era to the enemy of Kipling's day. These enemies are not the ordinary soldiers of WWI but the products of a brutal regime, moulded to be cogs in the machine of killing and the violent, unhinged reactions of our heroes might just be the inevitable human response of soldiers in the face of unimaginably brutalised and hence brutal enemies.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But he didn't say 'I hear some very angry people' - he said 'I hear animals'

This got me to thinking of a piece by Edgar Allan Poe, which surely you're all familiar with, found here.

Originally Posted by Dupin in 'The Murders in the Rue Morgue'

"That was the evidence itself," said Dupin, "but it was not the peculiarity of the evidence. You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet there was something to be observed. The witnesses, as you remark, agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous. But in regard to the shrill voice, the peculiarity is not that they disagreed --but that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that of a foreigner. Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own countrymen. Each likens it --not to the voice of an individual of any nation with whose language he is conversant --but the converse.

Did Eomer, when describing the voices of the Dunlanders, have no better reference? The voices did not sound like those from Mundburg, were not speaking 'Common,' and did not sound orcish. How else would one so young and of so little worldy experience have described a new and strange tongue?

Add to this the fact that these Dunlanders were, at the moment, attacking, and that Eomer may have been somewhat tired from the events of recent days. One could then conclude that Eomer wasn't making any statement on race, but how the sounds sounded at that moment to his ears.