PDA

View Full Version : Tolkien as Nazi war monger?


Mrs. Maggott
12-17-2002, 12:33 PM
I chose this site to present the following op ed piece because it will become very busy in the next few weeks and I hoped to have as many forum members see it as possible. Also, the author is basing much of his column on Tolkien in general and TTT the film in particular.

Let's Not Forget Where the Ringworld Ends,
by James P. Pinkerton (12/17/02)

Let me write a nation's songs, so goes the saying, and I care not for its laws. That is, culture trumps politics.

And so, on the eve of the second installment of the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, one might learn more about the future direction of America by watching that film than by watching the fate of Al Gore or Trent Lott.

The first "Lord" movie - a tale of good vs. evil coincidentally released just after 9/11 - crystallized the modd of the country. We were grimly resolved to settle accounts with the evildowers. The film was a huge hit in the United States, selling more than $300 million worth of theatre tickets and another 20 million VHS and DVD units.

And now comes "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers." From the eerie edginess of the title to the mystical militarism of the story line, the movie is three hours of encouragement to the combat-bound. At the beginning of the climactic battle scene, a good king declares, in resonant cadences, "If this is to be our end, then I would hope to make an end that is to be worthy of remembrance." To which a heroic warrior responds, "Your men will follow you to whatever end."

Indeed to enter into the Ringworld and its realm of elves and orcs, is to be reintroduced to what "Rings" creator J. R. R. Tolkien called "that noble northern spirit" - that is, Nordic lore. Yup, we're blasting back to the past, to paganism, to the blood-and-fire bombast of Richard Wagner operas, to a rejection of Judeo-Christianity in favor of a different vision, a vision of violent gods with names such as Wotan and Thor.

The historically minded will remember that the Nazis loved all this mythology. The whole of the Third Reich was awash in runes, lightening bolts and valkyries riding. Yet Hitler discredited these sagas when he went off to his own Gotterdammerung in 1945.

But now the Norsemen, minus the swastikas, are making a cultural comeback. The "sword and sorcery" genre - seen in games and movies such as "Dungeons and Dragons," "Conan the Barbarian" and "Harry Potter" - dominates much of the youthful imagination. For years, the Marine Corps sponsered a commercial featuring a warrior fighting a fire-spouting monster, then becoming a uniformed Marine. The spot was 50-percent medieval advanture, 50-percent video game - and 100-percent cool.

And why not? Who wants to live in ordinary boring times? Who, especially the young, wants to miss the call of trumpets, the heroism and hoopla of what in World War I was called "The Big Parade"? What youthful heart fails to beat faster after hearing Henry V's oration - "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" - on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt, in 1415, as imagined by Shakespeare? Never mind that the real Agincourt was just another bloody battle between dynasties that solved nothing. The Bard's words have such poetic potency that they become the title of a best-seller and then an HBO miniseries lionizing American soldiers in World War II.

But amid all the energy and adrenaline, amid all the presidential war speeches and cable-news war specials, the question still remains: Does a celebration of martial magic and mysticism provide the basis for rational policies aimed at preserving peace as opposed to perpetuating war? Can we have a culturen that imbibes the drama of Vikings and Valhalla and a politics that embraces such dull virtues as security and multilateralism?

Right now, of course, most Americans don't care. They are cheering the rise of armed and armored values and thrilling to the collective soul-feeling that comes from uniting behind firemen martyrs and Hellfire missiles.

And now, as a booster, the next "Rings." The forces of the evildoing Saruman get clobbered in the film, just as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have been wasted a trillion times in video games. It's all fun for the moment, but countries must think soberly for the longer haul. National leaders are supposed to do more than give belligerent speeches; they should have learned lessons from history, full as it is with cautionary tales of overreach, however righteous. And all Americans might recall that the basic irrationalism exalted in "Rings" once led other peoples into the abyss.

The above column is written by James P. Pinkerton and appears in our local newspaper, Newsday. Mr. Pinkerton's e-mail address is pinkerto@ix.netcom.com but I would urge my fellow forum members if you do decide to contact Mr. Pinkerton to do so armed only with facts and in a way that J. R. R. T. would have approved. Simply "getting mad" is only going to validate in his own mind that Tolkien's works either attract belligerent and/or mindless people or that they inspire that kind of attitude in his admirers.

Nonetheless, I thought that this is something all forum members should read and be aware that whether it is Tolkien or Mr. Jackson's version thereof, the politically correct are going to respond much as has Mr. Pinkerton in his column.

T'Vog
12-17-2002, 05:07 PM
Fascinating, since in the '60's the book was perceived as anti-war by the hippie movement. :rolleyes:

It's obvious that someone is simply taking after the yahoos that tried to petition for the movie's name to be changed. And secondly, I really don't approve of what we're doing, and that is what I think the whole series is about. The Fellowship could have just used the Ring to overpower Sauron's forces. Instead, they are trying to destroy it.

The Orcs are an invading force -- they are not sitting underground and roaring every once in a while. The Men are defending themselves.

I would say the biggest worry is actually those FPS games he mentioned, like that one about Desert Storm. There's definite propaganda or at least bad ethics all for a profit in those games.

Rúmil
12-17-2002, 06:24 PM
You shouldn't waste time on people with a narrow mind who bash Lotr without having read it, and definitely without having understood it — it is quite beyond their comprehension. There is another thread here with a link to a site that says Lotr is ungodly and anti-Christian because a member of a well known rock-group (Imagine! a ROCK MUSICIAN! how devilish can you get!!) has read it and... because the author was a Roman Catholic :rolleyes: ......

To all the people who says Lotr is Nazi, show Letters #29 and #30. If they continue to say it is Nazi, shove a dirty sock in their gob.

To all people who say it promotes war and destruction, show Faramir's quote War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of Númenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise. (book IV chapter 4)

And to anywone who has not been moved so deeply at his first reeding of Lotr that he can still think anything objectionnable can be drawn from it, always show kindly pity.

Eledhwen
12-18-2002, 06:24 PM
A guy who can draw such outrageous conclusions because Tolkien and the Nazis both acknowledged the same mythology should remember that Satan quoted The Bible in the temptation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4). Anything can be misused.

Mrs. Maggott
12-18-2002, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Eledhwen
A guy who can draw such outrageous conclusions because Tolkien and the Nazis both acknowledged the same mythology should remember that Satan quoted The Bible in the temptation of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4). Anything can be misused.
Well and truly said! ;)

DGoeij
12-18-2002, 09:30 PM
I don't know what the fellow based his article on, but appearantly Norse culture is bad because Hitler picked his swastika out of it, the movie is bad because at sep 11th, just before the first movie, a terrorist attack took place and a year after, a country in the real world is willing to go to war and this movie has only and purposefully been released to support the unjust warmongers and because of that, we're not supposed to like it. (Personally, I have better and more sensible arguments to not like this movie, I've read the book).
Somehow he's linking a 50 year old story, of which the actual filming began about 5 years ago, which he somehow doesn't grab (if he ever tried to read it) to todays, real world politics. :confused:

And maybe you should add a 'article ends here' at the end of it, because quite abruptly your own comment begins.;)

Mrs. Maggott
12-18-2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by DGoeij
I don't know what the fellow based his article on, but appearantly Norse culture is bad because Hitler picked his swastika out of it, the movie is bad because at sep 11th, just before the first movie, a terrorist attack took place and a year after, a country in the real world is willing to go to war and this movie has only and purposefully been released to support the unjust warmongers and because of that, we're not supposed to like it. (Personally, I have better and more sensible arguments to not like this movie, I've read the book).
Somehow he's linking a 50 year old story, of which the actual filming began about 5 years ago, which he somehow doesn't grab (if he ever tried to read it) to todays, real world politics. :confused:

And maybe you should add a 'article ends here' at the end of it, because quite abruptly your own comment begins.;)
Sorry about the abrupt addition of my own comments. I had to leave the house and was trying to get the whole column in before I left, so I just kept typing! Next time I'll put *** or something to let you know where one thing ends and another begins (hopefully, there won't BE a "next time"!).

As for the swastika, that is a Hindu symbol of, I believe good luck or is used to ward off demons or some such. The only difference is, in the Hindu religion, it is upright. Hitler "tilted" it. In fact, I believe that symbol may even predate the Hindus; it appears to be very ancient.

One of the big problems is that anyone who presents something "white" (Caucasian) and especially recognizeably Caucasian (blonde, blue eyed) as worthy of admiration is immediately considered a racist. It doesn't matter if you are not saying that this person/culture/etc. is better than another, but it is enough that you find things within that culture that are admirable and you must be a card-carrying member of the KKK! You may hold up any other race, creed or culture for admiration, but whites - and especially white men - are somehow beyond the pale (no pun intended). For all of the cries of our cultural elite for "diversity", their meaning of that word is suspiciously narrow and definitely not "inclusive".

DGoeij
12-20-2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Sorry about the abrupt addition of my own comments. I had to leave the house and was trying to get the whole column in before I left, so I just kept typing! Next time I'll put *** or something to let you know where one thing ends and another begins (hopefully, there won't BE a "next time"!).

As for the swastika, that is a Hindu symbol of, I believe good luck or is used to ward off demons or some such. The only difference is, in the Hindu religion, it is upright. Hitler "tilted" it. In fact, I believe that symbol may even predate the Hindus; it appears to be very ancient.


No hard feelings, I just felt the need to tell you, to avoid any confusion.

Actually, the swastika, or more preferrably, the cross with the right angels at the end of it's arms, is seen all around the world. In Scandinavian cultures (If I remember correctly) it represented strength, and sometimes the sun, like it did in Hindu culture. The same symbol has been seen in South-American cultures, but I forgot what it represented there. And it's very ancient indeed.
The fact that the Nazi's abused these cultures and the whole Arien race bs, doesn't make me look bad towards blond, blue eyed people. I tend to listen and look for body language to find out about a person, not to the colour of their eyes.:rolleyes:

Gloer
12-21-2002, 12:13 PM
The movie The Two Towers perfect for anyone who wants to motivate people to back war regardless of what is really meant and shown in the movie and the story it tells.

Example of how people can perceive with a different emphasis changeing the message altogether:

Ronald Reagan effectively turned around the very sarcastic criticism of America of the famous hit song: "Born in The U.S.A."
Springsteen siang about depression, war, unemployment, all the hit of hard capitalism and poverty and then tied it to being born in U.S.A.
Reagan took just that and made it - istead of sarcasm - being proud statement of patriotism despite of all little nuissance. And voilá: The song in fact is about patriotism that is set above all negative criticism of the system! And this is actually already in the song. Springsteen is proud to be born in the USA, but he didn't mean to make patriotism all dominant over faults he poited out.

So if one wants to justify war, there is a justified war in LOTR. Even Tolkien justifies defence and war. He is not a pacifist in the absolute idealist way of the philosofer Bertrand Russell.

The question is weather open war is upon you or not?

Mrs. Maggott
12-21-2002, 01:29 PM
It does not take two to make a war.

In a letter I wrote in response to Mr. Pinkerton's article (I don't know if it will be published, but if it is I will supply a copy here), I responded to his warning that we should look to history and asked him to do so by remembering two names: Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. Chamberlain's slogan was "peace in our time" and he capitulated time and again to Adolf Hitler, giving him everything he asked for in the hopes that it would be "enough". Well, of course, with such tyrants, nothing but abject surrender is "enough". Mr. Chamberlain's appeasement did not "buy" peace, but simply encouraged Hitler to want more and more and more. Instead of putting an end to Hitler at a time and place in which the effort to do so would have been fairly localized and limited, the English and French permitted the Nazis to grow more and more powerful until it required a World War (and American involvement) to defeat them.

You cannot "buy" peace from those who are determined to wage war. You can only make yourself so strong (as both Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan understood) that such people will think twice before they attack you. Weakness, appeasement and vacillation in the face of aggression invite WAR, not peace. And that is the lesson that history repeatedly teaches us.

rs691919
03-28-2004, 06:10 PM
Mrs. M, did your response ever get published? I would love to see it if you still have it.

Incidentally, the swastika was in origin an Aryan symbol that they brought with them on their invasion path into India. By Aryans, I mean of course the true Aryan tribes as distinct with this German notion that they are Aryan (which they are not). The Aryans developed the Vedas, which are the basis of Hinduism (which is not really religion but rather a philosophy or guide to living).