Subtle Racism in Lotro

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

There have also been quotes from Tolkien where he explicitly condemns racist regimes like Nazi Germany and South Africa.

Tolkien clearly denounces Apartheid, which, in 1959, would probably put him in the progressive vanguard, especially for some one born in South Africa.

Just as a side-note: even in these quotes you've demonstrated the anti-white "racism" of many in society today.

You hasten to point out the flaws of Apartheid South Africa but why not make a passing mention of the continuing racism shown in that country against the remaining white people? Some two to three thousand white inhabitants have been killed in South Africa since Apartheid ended, all murdered by the native black folk simply because they were white. This is setting aside the highly racist songs that they chant down their together, songs which the 'wonderful' Nelson Mandela has been recorded singing along to.

This virtually never gets a mention in the controlled media however - you can find a few short reports on YouTube - but imagine this was happening in a European country against an ethnic minority? It would be world news and the UN would probably be conjuring up ways to end the regime as soon as it could.

[Fledermaus]

I guess I need specific examples of the game's use of the terms "swarthy" or "half-breed." For instance, if Harry Goatleaf (or almost any of the Bree-landers) describes a Bounder from the South as being swarthy, well, that's just Harry Goatleaf - he comes across as ignorant and somewhat self-interested in the book, and I wouldn't ascribe any racism to Turbine for it, intended or otherwise. If, on the other hand, Gandalf or Strider were to say "Beware so-and-so; they are swarthy and not to be trusted," then obviously there's an issue.

There is clearly going to be tension between Tolkien's use of certain words and our understanding of them - and so the question becomes, should we (or Turbine) "update" Tolkien's writings to bring it more in-line with today's expectations? For instance, if a hobbit in game describes "those Bucklanders" as "queer folk," should we be concerned about the implicit homophobia?

My own answer to this question is no, if the original context is reasonably preserved. Word ownership works for literary (or derivative) uses just as well as it does for self-identity movements that take words meant as insults and uses them as rallying cries.


I've only ever seen the phrase "Dark Continent" used romantically (in a literary sense, not a love-story sense). I've never seen it used perjoratively. Again, do you have any specific examples?

1) Examples of swarthy/half-breed. On this particularly issue, I think the game is actually "worse" than the book. Just flipping through the books, it looks like Tolkien uses the adjective "swarthy" a lot (not sure about half-breed), in many different contexts. It does not completely overlap with the larger white = good, black = evil issue.

My experience in the game (at least in Breeland), is that the swarthy = evil trope is really brought to the fore. And there is actually a quest in the Lone-lands called "Thieving Half-Breeds". (Would Elrond be called the "elegant half-breed" or the "really smart half-breed"? No, only the dark-skinned mixed race beings are put down in this way). I will keep my eye out though for other uses of "swarthy" in game. Is there a database of quest text that can be searched?

2) Use of Queer. There would be implicit homophobia if gay relationships existed in the game world, but only among the evil races, who were then described as "queer folk" because of allowing them i.e. gay union = evil people, similar to swarthy/half-breed = evil.

3) Dark Continent. Bringing up the "romantic" origin of the word is interesting. What are the romantic tropes involved with this expression? Usually a white explorer off among the terrifying dark natives rescuing a helpless virgin. This is the "Eurocentric bias" in the expression.

An NPR broadcaster had to apologize for using the expression a few years ago. In this case though, it seems the context has shifted so much that it is no longer understood as Eurocentric bias (see above), but actual racism.

[mychemguy200]

2) Use of Queer. There would be implicit homophobia if gay relationships existed in the game world, but only among the evil races, who were then described as "queer folk" because of allowing them i.e. gay union = evil people, similar to swarthy/half-breed = evil.

Come again?

"Queer folk" is an expression used by Hobbits of the inner-Shire to describe Men, Elves, Dwarves (at times), and the hobbits of Buckland, none of which, may I point out, are evil. Never have I heard of an orc referred to as queer.

Typically, they're just evil.

Furthermore, the original definition of the word "queer" is:

1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different;
2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady:

It can also be used as a verb synonymous with the phrase "to spoil".

The "definition" that connects queer with homosexuality is not even a definition. It is slang.

Even now, I often use the word queer to describe something strange. Am I homophobic? I would not call myself that.

The idea of a homosexual relationship between orcs was never even considered by Tolkien and to say that when he described orcs as queer (which he never did, if I recall correctly) he meant to offend the gay community is slander. The same case can be made for Turbine.

[Evebel]

As is every literary and legendary treatment of evil, from every civilized society, Eastern or Western, "civilized" or "backward", modern or archaic.

The night, darkness, and the color black have all been associated with menace, evil, and death in early Jewish writing (a middle-eastern tribal people), early Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and other Mesopotamian cultures, Egyptian literature and myth, Sub-Saharan African tribal traditions, Chinese and Japanese cultural traditions, all European cultures, American Indian traditions, transplanted Carribean Negro cultures, and on, and on, and on....

It's a visceral, instinctual shared human condition. So is xenophobia. Your statement is historically and culturally ignorant.

You know the saying, "Opinions are like rear ends...everyone has one, and no one wants to see yours?"

It's not true. I'm always genuinely interested in your opinion.

[HumphreyMilkweed]

Wait...how did we get from "Tolkien is a racist" to "there are gay orcs in LOTR?" This is indeed a queer conversation.

[BillyBeard]

Wait...how did we get from "Tolkien is a racist" to "there are gay orcs in LOTR?" This is indeed a queer conversation.

The power of trolling is mighty indeed

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

Wait...how did we get from "Tolkien is a racist" to "there are gay orcs in LOTR?" This is indeed a queer conversation.

Another bandwagon has entered the discussion and wants a slice of the PC pie.

It's a prime example of people seeing what they want to see and many people these days like to be offended by something. It gives them a sense of moral superiority and sometimes victimhood when they then defend themselves, or others, against the phantom attack they have distorted into existence.

"This friend was named Sador, a house man in the service of Húrin; he was lame, and of small account. He had been a woodman, and by ill-luck or the mishandling of his axe he had hewn his right foot, and the footless leg had shrunken; and Túrin called him Labadal, which is "Hopafoot," though the name did not displease Sador, for it was given in pity and not in scorn. " UT

I believe this passage is a masked attack on disabled people, it certainly seems that Tolkien believes this guy with a non-functioning leg is of less worth than a fully-abled person. So lets add disability discrimination to our growing list of gripes with the lore.

[Bauglin]

1) Examples of swarthy/half-breed. On this particularly issue, I think the game is actually "worse" than the book. Just flipping through the books, it looks like Tolkien uses the adjective "swarthy" a lot (not sure about half-breed), in many different contexts. It does not completely overlap with the larger white = good, black = evil issue.

Lack of specific in-game examples of the use "swarthy" is noted. It never registered for me, so I have absolutely no idea what the context is in the game. And thus, I can't decide if you have a point. Context really is everything.

But after thinking about it, there's another issue here - how, exactly, would you portray the provinciality of the Shirefolk or Bree-landers, specifically their distrust of outsiders, in a way that couldn't be construed in some way, shape, or form as racism? How would you portray the disgust that free peoples have towards Saruman's half-orcs without coming out against real-life mixed-race people?

I'd argue that, ultimately, you can't, without tripping over yourself with euphemisms or completely rewriting the original. And as I said in my previous post, I'd rather see the original context preserved rather than see it twisted to fit some modern political agenda.

2) Use of Queer. There would be implicit homophobia if gay relationships existed in the game world, but only among the evil races, who were then described as "queer folk" because of allowing them i.e. gay union = evil people, similar to swarthy/half-breed = evil.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't fly. You can't be offended by one "hate" word, yet not be offended by another. If you're out to find offense, at least be consistent.

3) Dark Continent. Bringing up the "romantic" origin of the word is interesting. What are the romantic tropes involved with this expression? Usually a white explorer off among the terrifying dark natives rescuing a helpless virgin. This is the "Eurocentric bias" in the expression.

Sure, it's Eurocentric - so what? Every story or description is going to be some kind of "-centric." Why is it suddenly a bad thing if you stick "Euro" in front of that suffix?

And again, I didn't mean "romantic" in the "guy meets girl" sense either, but in the sense of describing something unknown to the author or his audience. Africa was, after all, the last great terrestrial frontier, and it was anyone's guess as to what might be found (yes, by Europeans - again, so what?) in the still-unexplored regions.

As for your example, it shows exactly what happens when people go looking for the offense, instead of looking at the context. In fact, one line in the article captures my point exactly: "As much as I believe in racial sensitivity, I draw the line at torturing the language or censoring our use of it to accommodate the hypersensitivities of the ignorant."

Another bandwagon has entered the discussion and wants a slice of the PC pie.

Since I'm the one who brought up the word "queer" and its use in the books, I'm guessing you're referring to me. If so, you might have missed my point - I mentioned the word, not to show offense, but to show that it's way too easy to find offense if you deliberately ignore the context.

Other than this possible misattribution, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[criosdaidh22]

This is post isn't intended to be inflammatory, or concern trolling. It is just food for thought for the mature Lotro community.

These are some examples I noticed of insults that the bestowal text from quest-givers directs towards the enemy.

In Bree-land, the southern invaders are called "swarthy", as in swarthy southerners. This is intended as an insult. Swarthy means dark-skinned.

Also in Bree-land, the term "half-breed" is used as an insult against Sharkey's half-orc followers. Half-breed is a very old insult against mixed race people. The same term is not used, to my knowledge, to describe the half-elf characters in the game, only the dark "swarthy" skinned ones.

Goblins and other evil non-human characters (e.g. the tribal enemies in Lossoth) are shown as having camps full of animal totems. This appears to be a signifier for "primitiveness". To my knowledge, none of the cultures player characters come from have totems. Especially in North America, having totemic people = primitive = evil is very problematic given the treatment of aboriginals.

I suspect most of these tropes come from the original books themselves, which, to be fair, were written from the 1930's-1950's. Other stereotypes from that era have been updated for a modern game. For example, female characters can do anything male characters can, though this was very rare in the books. Perhaps outdated racial stereotypes should be removed too.

I don't know why you associate primitive with evil. The orcs/etc aren't very developed as a "race" so naturally they live like cavemen or something.

I'm pretty sure the "half breed" insult is because it's orc and human offspring. I'd say that's a little different than bumping uglies with an elf. If that's racist, then so be it lol.

You're making alot of stretches to make these things into racism even within the game, much less taking them into a real world context.

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

Since I'm the one who brought up the word "queer" and its use in the books, I'm guessing you're referring to me. If so, you might have missed my point - I mentioned the word, not to show offense, but to show that it's way too easy to find offense if you deliberately ignore the context.

Other than this possible misattribution, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Aye, I probably did given my annoying habit of reading peoples posts when they're quoted by someone else, rather than look directly at the original.

Sure, it's Eurocentric - so what? Every story or description is going to be some kind of "-centric." Why is it suddenly a bad thing if you stick "Euro" in front of that suffix?

Because that is racist. Were it 'Asian-centric' or 'African-centric' it would be a wonderful work of literature celebrating the cultural heritage of that people. If it is 'Euro-centric' then it's masking some hidden white supremacy and would be a totally biased work promoting eeeevil imperialism.

[scaliper]

Arighty...Jes' piling on, I suppose, with a few points I'd like to get out there:

Firstly, I like the assertion that Tolkien was a product of his times, in that it gives good chance to point out that connotations of words change over time. Just look at the points made concerning "queer." Further, Tolkien, being a philologist, liked to use even older meanings, giving his works a more historical flair and leading to much confusion from amateur grammar-snots trying to point out a "typo" in the passage about Shelob that runs "his cat he calls her, but she owns him not." So just the idea that "swarthy" might, at an extreme stretch, be equivalent to "<expletive deleted>" today(not saying that it is) does not mean that it had such a connotation at the time of writing.

Secondly, and this has already been touched on, concerning the use of black to denote evil...the color black, and its associate, red, have long been used to illustrate evil, violence, and fear. Death is often depicted in black robes, evil standards in popular culture are often a mix of black and red, the evil knight is always "the black knight," et cetera et cetera ad nauseam. To me, at least, the logic seems to be more along the lines of:
"black, representing a lack of light, also represents the unknown. Humans fear the unknown. It is perfectly fitting that death should be represented by the color black, as it is both a thing greatly feared by humans and completely unknown. --three years later-- Death is considered evil, often being viewed as the extreme thereof. Death is represented by black. Death being the extreme of evil, evil could also logically be represented by black(follow similar train of thought for red/blood)."
Than:
"Durrr black people are evil, thefore evil is black."

Or is every child who says "I'm afraid of the dark" actually saying that they feel an impulse to curl up in the fetal position every time a non-caucasian looks at them?

Anyway, assuming my reasoning is more or less correct(I hope it is), it makes perfect sense for evil beings to be associated with black in a work that is fundamentally linguistic and cultural in origin.

As well, I will agree that to deny the existence of racism in Tolkien's writings is silly. However, this does not in any way imply racism on the part of Tolkien. Firstly, Tolkien was writing about societies in the far distant past. The idea that such societies are all above prejudices is utterly ridiculous, and indeed a "lovey-dovey, politically correct" Middle Earth could not be at all cohesive. Secondly...these people are at war. You expect people to dislike those that they are mowing down and being mowed down by in the battlefield. The day your general populace starts saying about your enemies, "they're ordinary people, just like us," is the day you start losing popular support, generally considered a Very Bad Thing(TM).

As a final thought...Beleg, I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but...Well, to be honest, saying just generally that "the left" is over-pushing political correctness is a lot like saying that white people are racists. Knowing a lot of people within the former group(and being one myself), I can honestly say that, in my experience, the percentage of people in favor of the unnecessary-euphamism binge is somewhere between five and fifteen percent, leaning towards the lower end. Few bad apples and all that.

[Fledermaus]

For the record, here is the quest text (Bree-land, Level 15) that first got me thinking about this issue.

Brigands and Half-Orcs

Grimbriar was right to send us here, but we figured more support would arrive once he realized that we could not submit reports. Your news of what is happening in the north makes it clear that the brigands are moving in with the caravans they let through.

'Those unlucky enough not to have the coin to pay for passage are treated without civility, their lives forfeit, and their goods claimed by these vile creatures. Your information confirms what we have feared. The swarthy fellows among their numbers are half-orcs, foul beasts!

'The time has come to strike back for every life these beasts have claimed. Strike out into the ruins and scourge this enemy clean. I will see you paid handsomely.'

The important sentence here is "The swarthy fellows among their numbers are half-orcs, foul beasts".

The player is being explicitly told to seek out dark skin people, that this dark skin is a sign of their evil nature (they are "foul" and "vile"), and because of their mixed race dark-skinned blood they are subhuman ("beasts").

Many arguments have been made about the historical context of the black/white scheme in the books. But in a 21st century game, it remains problematic to tell a player "go kill the dark guy".

(By the way, here is an interesting article on the subject from the Guardian newspaper. I think it overstates the case, but it does put its finger on the fundamental problem. In the books, race = destiny. This was the way people thought at the time, and some may still in Europe. In North America, however, it is a no go area).

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

As a final thought...Beleg, I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but...Well, to be honest, saying just generally that "the left" is over-pushing political correctness is a lot like saying that white people are racists. Knowing a lot of people within the former group(and being one myself), I can honestly say that, in my experience, the percentage of people in favor of the unnecessary-euphamism binge is somewhere between five and fifteen percent, leaning towards the lower end. Few bad apples and all that.

The point remains that by definiton it is only the left-wing (along with the fake right-wingers like the so-called 'Conservative' party) that is advocating and implementing political correctness. No one on the right wants anything to do with it. I'm not saying the left-wing is a fully coordinated uniform concordant machine either.

The important sentence here is "The swarthy fellows among their numbers are half-orcs, foul beasts".

The player is being explicitly told to seek out dark skin people, that this dark skin is a sign of their evil nature (they are "foul" and "vile"), and because of their mixed race dark-skinned blood they are subhuman ("beasts").

No, it isn't saying that. It's saying that they are foul beasts because they are half orcs. Orcs are by their very nature evil beings 'begotten of sin'. They are swarthy because of this orc contribution i.e. their skin colour is merely a by-product of their evil nature, not the reason for it. It isn't saying 'These people are swarthy, therefore evil'. It's saying 'These people are swarthy which means they are half-orcs, and thus are evil'.

Regardless we've already established the works have a 'Euro-centric' bias. The question is whether that is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for a European to write a book that has a mild 'Euro-centric' bias? In my opinion only the politically correct would say as much. But they probably wouldn't say the same from 'Asian-centric' or 'African-centric' bias.

[f.i.t.c.]

Will someone please close this thread for it blatant political motives and continual attempts to offend both everyone who is a fan of the works of Tolkien and anyone who is or of European origin.

Politics is quite rightly banned from these forums and the OP continues to ignore everything anyone else has said on this thread to promote his own political agenda and obvious dislike of the works of Tolkien.

[Reniannen]

Many arguments have been made about the historical context of the black/white scheme in the books. But in a 21st century game, it remains problematic to tell a player "go kill the dark guy".

But half-orcs ARE "dark guys". Should we completely avoid killing them then?

[Radhruin_EU]

The important sentence here is "The swarthy fellows among their numbers are half-orcs, foul beasts".

The player is being explicitly told to seek out dark skin people, that this dark skin is a sign of their evil nature (they are "foul" and "vile"), and because of their mixed race dark-skinned blood they are subhuman ("beasts").

They were sub-human not because of their appearance but because they'd been deliberately debased: they were the result of a hideous evil perpetrated by Saruman as he followed in Sauron's footsteps, his blending of the races of Men (a term which includes all mortal humanity in the books, note, whatever their ethnicity) and Orcs. The Orcs' darkness was of the mythological black = night/death kind, a common metaphor. (It's believed to have its origins in how corpses turn black as they rot, and it's not limited to European culture).

Many arguments have been made about the historical context of the black/white scheme in the books. But in a 21st century game, it remains problematic to tell a player "go kill the dark guy".

Only if you insist on misapplying modern sensibilities, looking for something that isn't there.

(By the way, here is an interesting article on the subject from the Guardian newspaper. I think it overstates the case, but it does put its finger on the fundamental problem. In the books, race = destiny. This was the way people thought at the time, and some may still in Europe. In North America, however, it is a no go area).

Nope. Race isn't shown to equal destiny, being one of a special few does; in particular, the true King is shown to be so by divine right. The Numenoreans, a chosen people if ever there was one, went off the rails in such spectacular style that they declared war on heaven (in all but name) and were destroyed for their presumption, while the Faithful among them were permitted to survive the Downfall. There's a religious subtext there, rather than a racial one: the people who live righteously will be spared, while those who stray will perish.

The author of that article didn't know the material - he was just skating around on the surface, seeing what he wanted to see, making facile remarks.

[Bauglin]

The important sentence here is "The swarthy fellows among their numbers are half-orcs, foul beasts".

In one sense, you do have a point - the word "swarthy" is only ever used to describe characters who have an evil bent (and not just in Tolkien either), and so there is a literary association between "swarthy" and "evil." (Though, I will point out that good guys with dark skin exist; they're just not called "swarthy.")

But in another sense, the quote you provided comes from a Bree-lander, who has little or no frame of reference with which to describe half-orcs. "Swarthy" may be a disparaging term, but it's also one of very few descriptors we'd expect a townsman to have.

He could have said "squint-eyed" instead - a term Tolkien uses to refer to one particular Southerner who, in Frodo's mind, looked "more than half an orc." Would that have been better in your mind? Somehow I don't think so, if you're consistent...

Again, how would a Bree-lander describe a half-orc (or even any other foreigner), in a way that avoids all possible overtones of racism? How much would that change the tone of the original work? And can a derivative work "correct" the original and still stay true to it?

(By the way, here is an interesting article on the subject from the Guardian newspaper. I think it overstates the case, but it does put its finger on the fundamental problem. In the books, race = destiny. This was the way people thought at the time, and some may still in Europe. In North America, however, it is a no go area).

You're right - it overstates the case. Putting aside the fact that the evil people in question were led by an angelic being who carries the moniker "the White," it's missing a key part of the nature of Tolkien's world. The "free peoples" are caught in a conflict between good and evil - and the source of evil is irredeemable and unremitting. Orcs and half-orcs were "created" by spirits willingly bearing the mantle of evil, and I doubt that any who could resist the will of their "creators" would be suffered to live.

So - why wouldn't orcs and half-orcs be evil? Why would we expect them to be redeemable, so long as a spirit of malice and power walks Middle-Earth?

Not to mention the phrase "evil is as evil does," which, for all the high-minded talk above, is the only metric available to Watcher Brittleleaf...

[Boraxxe]

This thread really needs to go into the blender.
Talk about the pot calling the ganja green.....

[Fledermaus]

In one sense, you do have a point - the word "swarthy" is only ever used to describe characters who have an evil bent (and not just in Tolkien either), and so there is a literary association between "swarthy" and "evil." (Though, I will point out that good guys with dark skin exist; they're just not called "swarthy.")

The dark skin = evil trope goes all the way back to Shakespeare. In the early tragedy Titus Andronicus, the villain is Aaron the Moor whose black skin is explicitly linked to his evil nature (he's also an atheist, among other things). By the time Shakespeare writes Othello, however, the link is more ambivalent, and to a certain degree the convention is stood on its head.

But in another sense, the quote you provided comes from a Bree-lander, who has little or no frame of reference with which to describe half-orcs. "Swarthy" may be a disparaging term, but it's also one of very few descriptors we'd expect a townsman to have.

He could have said "squint-eyed" instead - a term Tolkien uses to refer to one particular Southerner who, in Frodo's mind, looked "more than half an orc." Would that have been better in your mind? Somehow I don't think so, if you're consistent...

Again, how would a Bree-lander describe a half-orc (or even any other foreigner), in a way that avoids all possible overtones of racism? How much would that change the tone of the original work? And can a derivative work "correct" the original and still stay true to it?

This is an interesting problem in literature. How to represent the prejudices of a character without writing something that is actually racially discriminatory.

To be clear, this is the not the Huckleberry Finn problem. Twain used the "n-word" in order to challenge what it meant and change his readers' beliefs, in the overall context of his book. "Swarthy" in the case of the provincial townsman, however, is only being used as shorthand for "stranger". Tolkien is not making a larger effort to challenge dark skin = evil as Twain did, and even Shakespeare in Othello.

Since this is the case, it can be changed easily. Just use the word "stranger" or "evil-looking stranger" or "beast-faced stranger" etc. etc. the possibilities are endless. Just don't use the "swarthy" shorthand, even if it means departing from the conventions of the book. MMO's are more like public restaurants than private books, they should serve everyone equally.

As for "squint-eyed", this appears to describe a suspicious facial expression, not an inherent characteristic like skin-colour. "Slant-eyed", as the Guardian article indicates, would be a problem. Other words like "shifty" or "crafty" or "secretive" would be fine too, as they describe behaviour, not racial characteristics.

In the end, in any story about a conflict, there are going to be different sides and ways to identify the sides, even if it is only blue shirts and red shirts. The issue is how the difference is presented, especially when we are dealing with the conflict between good and evil.

[Lestache]

Is this the appropriate thread to mention that there seems to be an NPC in Bree who says, "Dark times, they are a'comin'," only when a dark-skinned character walks by?

[Radhruin_EU]

The dark skin = evil trope goes all the way back to Shakespeare. In the early tragedy Titus Andronicus, the villain is Aaron the Moor whose black skin is explicitly linked to his evil nature (he's also an atheist, among other things). By the time Shakespeare writes Othello, however, the link is more ambivalent, and to a certain degree the convention is stood on its head.

We're not discussing Shakespeare; we're talking about a constructed mythology that's inspired by concepts taken from 'real' mythology. In Norse myth there were the Ljosalfar, what we'd think of as Elves, bright and beautiful to look upon and generally beneficent, and then there were the Dokkalfar, who were 'blacker than pitch' and in every other way their opposite, including being malevolent. That's that black/darkness/night/death/evil thing I mentioned.

Tolkien includes narrative that makes it clear that the dark-skinned Men weren't evil in themselves: a great many were being actively misled or coerced into taking Sauron's side, with their leaders and their more fanatical followers having become cruel and evil under his influence. Sauron was an 'equal opportunity' employer, he'd twist anyone he could into serving his purposes. The Men of the White Mountains, who took to worshipping him during the Dark Years? White. The Men of Angmar and Rhudaur? White. The Black Numenoreans? White. The King's Men in Numenor? White. Those Easterlings who were based on Slavic peoples? White.

The half-Orcs weren't entirely human, they were the result of interbreeding between debased Men and Orcs, with Orcs being essentially demonic in nature, having a supernatural origin. So what if such ugly, half-monstrous aberrations were described in negative terms? That has no bearing on people at all. What Orcs resemble, more than anything, is how 'The Enemy' often appears in propaganda: ugly and bestial, sub-human, cruel, barbarous and murderous. There are posters from the two World Wars which portrayed German soldiers in that manner; it's not about race, it's about making the other side out to be inhuman, monsters who need to be destroyed. Those propaganda images and the descriptions of the Orcs both play on ancient fears of monsters, fiends in manlike shape.

This is an interesting problem in literature. How to represent the prejudices of a character without writing something that is actually racially discriminatory.

'Swarthy' isn't racially discriminatory as such. It's not a term applied to any race in particular. Frankly, the kind of bowdlerization you're espousing is absurd.

[Bauglin]

Since this is the case, it can be changed easily. Just use the word "stranger" or "evil-looking stranger" or "beast-faced stranger" etc. etc. the possibilities are endless. Just don't use the "swarthy" shorthand, even if it means departing from the conventions of the book.

So getting back to the quest text and your original point, the order to "kill strangers" is more acceptable to you than "kill dark people?"

[Fledermaus]

So getting back to the quest text and your original point, the order to "kill strangers" is more acceptable to you than "kill dark people?"

I don't think anyone is actually saying "kill strangers". I believe the issue discussed was using "swarthy" to mean evil/suspicious stranger in the case of a provincial townsman. The killing part had to do with "swarthy" half-orcs, "foul beasts" who had to be hunted down.

I think I get your point though, and I would say, this is a game about military conflict during a war. When you enter the game, you agree your fictional avatar will be killing other fictional people. Some of those people might be identified as dangerous strangers you might be forced to kill in the context of the overall story.

If, however, your character was sent out to kill random strangers in the streets of Bree, that would be a moral problem. Some MMO's might have this behaviour, but it is not something I would want to play. As always, since this is a game about the conflict of good vs evil, the stakes are higher.

[Bauglin]

I'm not sure that you do get my point. Don't worry, this will be my last post on the topic, but I just wanted to say this. You're quite willing to take the term "swarthy," used in context to refer to a particular group of people with a known history of evil deeds, and generalize that into a statement about equating dark skin with evil (even if unwitting). However, you're not willing to do the same with other terms like "stranger" or "squint-eyed," instead explaining those away or at least acknowledging that they aren't applicable in the larger context.

This is where, in my mind, political correctness, post-modernism, and other similar approaches often overstep their usefulness; i.e., by taking specific themes that make sense in their specific contexts to make claims about the greater scheme that just aren't supported. (And more often than not, the reporter ironically ends up displaying his own biases in the process.)

Granted, there can be a blurry line between "story" and "racism," but so long as there's doubt, and so long as the question resides in one or a few isolated examples, I personally will give the benefit of the doubt and come down on the side of "story."

[HumphreyMilkweed]

Just to be clear here, this is the definition of racism:

Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

Notice that defining someone as "dark-skinned" in any context is not included in that definition.

I live in a country where saying "you people" has been construed into racial slur, where people of certain races can get benefits, grants, and job opportunities based on "minority" status even in areas where they are NOT the minority, where a white person angry with a black person in an argument is ALWAYS considered to have racial motivation behind the argument, where it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a black person to use racial slurs against white folks, where every negative aspect of the "black community" is attributed to racism, where every white person is considered inherently evil by virtue of the color of their skin, AND YOU ARE EXPLICITLY REMINDED OF THIS EVERY SINGLE DAY BY TELEVISION, MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPERS, IDLE CONVERSATION, AND RIDICULOUS ACCUSATIONS LIKE THE ONE HURLED OUT BY THE OP.

If you want to learn what REAL racism is, come to my country and I'll show you what it's all about.