The West's Cultural Narcissism: An Examination of Tolkien's Orcs

This is pure propaganda talk, and it's an unnerving experience hearing (or reading) it raw.

To paint the enemy as irredeemable, remorseless, unthinking scum, to portray them as both dangerous and paradoxically clumsy and ineffective is a popular tactic among governments to push support for military action. We recoil in horror when we see instances of this in fascist and communist propaganda, but when the Free World does it is not only kosher but also a moral obligation. I look forward to reading people wantonly calling Iraqis monsters and Iranians otherworldly freaks next time the US wants to do a spot of democracy-restoring in that part of the world. I can't wait to see the Chinese portrayed as hordes of pigtailed dwarves when tensions over Taiwan eventually boil over.

You are right. To win a war, to bring it to a brutal conclusion you must hate, hate, hate the enemy so no one has the rational clarity to bring up problematic criticisms; a hyper stirring up of emotions is clearly the right way to combat any misgivings that Our War is not a fight of pure good pitted against pure evil.

Hate is not necessary, it clouds judgement - especially for us far removed from the frontine, that is reserved for those actually under enemy fire.

Most hate you see is from Ukrainians and those in Eastern Europe that spent their childhood under Russian occupation. (it is also there that the Russians = Orcs theme originated iirc)

For the rest of us it is perfectly possible to arrive at the conclusion that use of war-time propaganda techniques is appropriate under the circumstances, by a rational thought process as shown above, emotions play no real part here.
 
Last edited:
"Russia is a dictator-like / dictator-actual police state where people are thrown in prison for saying the wrong thing", and by the same people, "look at these opinion polls from Russia supporting the war, these are obviously trustworthy and evidence that Russians are Bad People™".

Like, how do you even square that? But square that some folks do. Regularly. Repeatedly.
1) Russia being a country where one can be jailed for holding a piece of white paper is in no way mutually exclusive with its public supporting (or at least trying hard to ignore) the war.
2) Opinion polls from Russia are indeed worthless as evidence (although if they are government-held they can give some insight based on what questions are asked (or not)). However, observing how Russians behave (both in Russia and abroad) is evidence enough.
3) Like with most things, 80/20 rule applies towards "Russians" as well. Should go without saying, really.
 
Just what the blazes has all that to do with my statement?
To me, your posts - eg comparing anti-Rashism and anti-Semitism - demonstrate that you are struggling with separating facts from fiction. I was speculating that this is so due to your unfamiliarity with the facts. It could be reasonable reaction from someone with prior knowledge of anti-Semitism but less so of Russia.
 
This is pure propaganda talk, and it's an unnerving experience hearing (or reading) it raw.

To paint the enemy as irredeemable, remorseless, unthinking scum, to portray them as both dangerous and paradoxically clumsy and ineffective is a popular tactic among governments to push support for military action. We recoil in horror when we see instances of this in fascist and communist propaganda, but when the Free World does it is not only kosher but also a moral obligation. I look forward to reading people wantonly calling Iraqis monsters and Iranians otherworldly freaks next time the US wants to do a spot of democracy-restoring in that part of the world. I can't wait to see the Chinese portrayed as hordes of pigtailed dwarves when tensions over Taiwan eventually boil over.

You are right. To win a war, to bring it to a brutal conclusion you must hate, hate, hate the enemy so no one has the rational clarity to bring up problematic criticisms; a hyper stirring up of emotions is clearly the right way to combat any misgivings that Our War is not a fight of pure good pitted against pure evil.
Do you think invasions for conquest are less bad than calling invaders evil?
 
1) Russia being a country where one can be jailed for holding a piece of white paper is in no way mutually exclusive with its public supporting (or at least trying hard to ignore) the war.
2) Opinion polls from Russia are indeed worthless as evidence (although if they are government-held they can give some insight based on what questions are asked (or not)). However, observing how Russians behave (both in Russia and abroad) is evidence enough.
3) Like with most things, 80/20 rule applies towards "Russians" as well. Should go without saying, really.
  1. I never said it was.
  2. I'm glad we agree that opinion polls are worthless as evidence. Any observations, however, are ultimately anecdotal without statistical evidence to back it up.
  3. The problem with statistics is anybody can twist pretty much anything to serve their own purposes. I'd like to know exactly how you're applying the Pareto principle here, though, because you've left it pretty open-ended.

Do you think invasions for conquest are less bad than calling invaders evil?
Would you like some straw to stuff that mannequin with? :D

People noting the existing of racism are not saying "this is worse than the invasion". If you'd actually read the posts in question, you'd know this was already answered. Hint: they literally described it as "violent imperialism" (on Russia's behalf).
 
A strawman, no, but a false dilemma, yes.

One need not hate evil-doers to fight against their evil; and even were hatred deemed necessary, one need not dehumanize to hate.

Dehumanizing the enemy is vile whatever feeble excuses one summons for it, and it paves a highway directly into crimes against humanity, no matter how righteous your cause start out as.
 
"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace."
 
  1. I never said it was.
  2. I'm glad we agree that opinion polls are worthless as evidence. Any observations, however, are ultimately anecdotal without statistical evidence to back it up.
  3. The problem with statistics is anybody can twist pretty much anything to serve their own purposes. I'd like to know exactly how you're applying the Pareto principle here, though, because you've left it pretty open-ended.


Would you like some straw to stuff that mannequin with? :D

People noting the existing of racism are not saying "this is worse than the invasion". If you'd actually read the posts in question, you'd know this was already answered. Hint: they literally described it as "violent imperialism" (on Russia's behalf).
Why aren't you arguing against the nonsense that is hallucination that calling a spade a spade leads to all these other things that aren't calling a spade a spade?
 
Calling any human being an orc is, fundamentally, NOT calling a spade a spade.

It's dehumanization.
 
Calling any human being an orc is, fundamentally, NOT calling a spade a spade.

It's dehumanization.

I'm ok with calling people orcs on an individual basis, even on a collective basis e.g. "nazis are orcs" or even as Hygro said "the Russian war apparatus are orcs" but saying someone is an Orc based on their ethnicity or nationality is plainly wrong, period.
 
Eh. I'm less opposed to that one, and even less so to describing them as orcish, but as a general rule of thumb, denying someone their humanity is a line I prefer not to cross. To me, no good can come of that.

Besides which, I find that dehumanization can often serve to hide the true horror of people like that - which is precisely the fact that people who share our humanity can slip so far so easily. So could we.
 
The claim by that author that we've been writing about orcs since the 15th century is some fast skating across thin ice: while technically true that there are scarce and isolated references to orkes and orcs around that time period, they were so rare that the word was altogether absent from the OED until Tolkien brought it back in vogue (he did not create it, but borrowed and modernized it from old English, where it was used, though what exactly it described no one knows for sure).

I get wanting to distance himself from Tolkien (and particularly any trademark claim from the Estate, though you'd think the existence of Warhammer, Warcraft and half a dozen others might serve as a hint that Orc isn't actually under trademark, but still.
 
"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace."
May have borrowed the sentiment from Thomas Hardy

The Man He Killed​

BY THOMAS HARDY
"Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have sat us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

"But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.

"I shot him dead because —
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although

"He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like — just as I —
Was out of work — had sold his traps —
No other reason why.

"Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat if met where any bar is,
Or help to half-a-crown."
 
he did not create it, but borrowed and modernized it from old English, where it was used, though what exactly it described no one knows for sure
I think in his translation of Beowulf Heaney translated it as 'demon-corpses', though Heaney also made some contentious translations decisions to try and keep Anglo-Saxon poetic meter and alliteration*.

*One of his best adaptions of this was "From Mist-Shrouded Moors / God-Cursed Grendel came greedily loping"
 
I've seen demon-corpses (and the suggestions that they may be some sort of zombies or undeads), evil spirits and a few other similar ones.

None of which particularly suggest the orcs of Tolkien, though the fact that in Beowulf they are mentioned in the same sentence as the Elves does.
 
Dehumanizing the enemy is vile whatever feeble excuses one summons for it, and it paves a highway directly into crimes against humanity, no matter how righteous your cause start out as.
This, however, always makes it easier to dehumanize.

B: "What do you think is the reason Russia invaded Ukraine?"

A: "Well, it's because they are consisting of Russian who got lead by another corrupted megaloman Dictator so these are somewhat expected. They've lived for hundreds of years under the subjugation of their own government, and that has molded their minds to be dull and willing to follow and accept whatever their government proposes. They are like zombies, sometimes like orcs; at best, they are like wasps with Putin as their queen. I've always disliked Russians, and most of the Russian people I know are considerably backward. All of this simply confirms my suspicions about them."

When this perspective is accepted, we can further dehumanize them, portraying them as a swarm of rats. This allows us to discriminate against them further without causing a public uproar.
 
Hum, you're either saying exactly the same thing I am while making it sound like you disagree, or I completely fail to understand you.
 
Top Bottom