Numenoreans were the ancestors of the Black Numenoreans and the people of Gondor and Arnor.
Importance of white representation in fiction
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
Numenoreans were the ancestors of the Black Numenoreans and the people of Gondor and Arnor.
Let's just get "the notes" out of the way. I've said this before, many times over the years on this forum, on TrekBBS, on multiple Dune forums (two of which I used to co-admin and one of which was the official forum for the novels - dunenovels.com, which is defunct now but which was admin'd by Frank Herbert's grandson, Byron Merritt), and on social media including MySpace and YouTube, that I no longer believe anything KJA/BH say about The Holy Notes That Frank Left.
I have no doubt that he had notes. Most series authors have notes, because it's impossible to keep all the storyline ideas, character biographies, plot points, background information, maps, etc. in your head - unless you're someone like Marion Zimmer Bradley, who didn't give a damn if she directly contradicted herself from one Darkover book to the next, and just shrugged when told of frustrated fans going bonkers trying to flange up a coherent map of the Seven Domains or the lineage of certain families or even the timeline in a specific subseries of novels.
I keep extensive notes for my fanfic, and am embarrassed to say that I've contradicted myself and have backtracked on ideas and characterizations and decided to switch some plot points around so they'll fit better. It's taken me nearly three years to figure out which spellings of the name "Stefan/Stephan" I want to use for two of the characters (it's not realistic for people of that time period not to double up on names, so I'm trying to have different spellings or nicknames for them). Consistency matters, because if you don't do your best to be consistent, you'll frustrate your readers, and some of them will call you an idiot, leave, and while they never come back, they will leave negative reviews in print and via word of mouth. Therefore, I have a lot of editing to do later on, some of which will involve deleting entire characters and changing the events around to include the replacement characters.
So I don't doubt Frank Herbert had notes. But whether they were as extensive or as skimpy as KJA has said (the story keeps changing), whether they were in print form or on floppy disks (the story keeps changing), where they were found (the story keeps changing)... only those two know, because THE STORY KEEPS CHANGING. So fans have challenged them to produce the notes so they can be studied. Many other authors' first/early drafts and notes have been donated to some university or literary trust over the years so they can be preserved and studied, so why not Frank Herbert's?
The obvious answer is because if they were, the jig would be up. Everyone would know that they hadn't based their "presinterquels" (word I coined to take in prequels, sequels, and interquels) on the notes, but rather had just made <crap> up. Some fans wouldn't care, but their integrity would be shot to smithereens as far as their insistence that they were carrying on as FH would have wanted. I doubt the notes will ever be published or at least donated, and at some point they will probably be declared "lost" - oops!
Before I reply to the rest of your post, I will say this: If there are any KJA/BH novels you haven't read that were published years ago (not counting Mentats or Navigators of Dune since I haven't read those myself) or the newest trilogy that isn't completely out yet, read at your own risk. I'm not going to fret about using spoiler tags for books that have been out for long enough that it's reasonable to expect them to have been read by anyone engaging in this level of discussion about them.
I am absolutely dreading what this pack of idiots will do with that "Sisterhood of Dune" series, mainly because it's based on KJA/BH's crap, and close-to-mainly because neither of them have the first clue about the Bene Gesserit, period.
I mentioned the word "interquel." An interquel is a story or novel that's inserted between two or more previously published works and is meant to expand the story, provide new insights, add more detail... Paul of Dune and Winds of Dune are interquels that KJA/BH decided to insert, claiming them to be "direct" sequels to Dune.
Sorry, no. Dune Messiah is the direct sequel to Dune. Paul of Dune is a smear job intended to spit on Frank Herbert's entire legacy, as it claims that everything in Dune is nothing more than a propaganda piece written by Princess Irulan at Paul's orders and none of it really happened. Only the events of the Houses trilogy (Atreides/Harkonnen/Corrino) are the real story - according to KJA/BH's version. These ridiculous books have Paul running away to join the circus, being friends with Bronso of Ix (there was absolutely nothing in Dune Messiah to indicate any personal relationship between these characters), and there's a bit about Duncan Idaho that was KJA thumbing his nose at me and everyone else who pointed out that he'd made a mess of Duncan's personal history with the Atreides in the Houses trilogy.
I haven't read if this TV show, called Sisterhood of Dune, is intended to be based on the novel by that name, which was the first of the Great Schools novels. KJA/BH have this nonsensical notion that the Bene Gesserit didn't exist before the Butlerian Jihad. The Encyclopedia plainly states that it did, as Jehane Butler was part of the Bene Gesserit breeding program to achieve the Kwisatz Haderach. Sisterhood of Dune is partly set on Rossak, one of the few worlds of the Imperium where women rule... but the women are known as sorceresses, witches, and incidentally, they say that Rossak is the homeworld of Norma F. Cenva, who was the first human to use spice to fold space and mutate into a Navigator (or at least something resembling a Navigator; future Navigators didn't turn out like she did). According to the Dune Encyclopedia, she was born on Ix, and while she did suffer seizures akin to epilepsy from her attempts to use spice to navigate a ship, she didn't become anything like the KJA/BH version.
Sisterhood of Dune also suffers from "small universe syndrome." What are the odds that the first Bene Gesserit would be the daughter of Vorian Atreides (in turn descended from a human who turned himself into a cymek)?
If this is the crap they're making into a TV series, GMAFB. It's obvious that KJA/BH believe the Bene Gesserit are more sorceress/witch than highly-trained women who are skilled in the subtleties of how to manipulate their bodies' chemistry and muscles, how to read the nuances of other people's reactions and body language, how to manipulate and persuade others to believe what they want them to believe or do what they want them to do... the Bene Gesserit are adepts at unarmed combat and psychology. They are not giggling, cackling witches, as portrayed in whichever novel it was in which Baron Harkonnen was persuaded to have sex with Jessica's mother.
Since KJA/BH are involved in the production and Villeneuve has demonstrated his own lack of respect for the source material, I have no doubt at all that this project will be based on KJA/BH's books and to hell with anything that FH wrote. The bare-bones of the setting will be there, but the marvelously-realized and subtly-nuanced Bene Gesserit will be shown as cartoonishly as they were depicted in the nuDune books. Anyone expecting a properly prepared and seasoned gourmet feast for the mind that uses the best ingredients and techniques had best realize that they're going to get flash-frozen and reheated McNuDune instead.
I don't understand why it would be any indicator of the ancestral ethnicity of House Corrino. Liet-Kynes is a government employee, not a member of the Corrino family. He's not even slightly royal or even aristocratic.
House Corrino and House Atreides are related (cousins) so that means Leto had some legitimate, albeit distant, claim to the throne. A tidier solution, had the Bene Gesserit permitted it, would have been to ignore the age discrepancy between Leto and Irulan and let Duke Leto become Emperor through marriage. This is what Irulan surmises her father might have wished for anyway, though he'd have wanted Irulan to be older.
Irulan is described as blonde, both by FH and the Encyclopedia, and both actresses who have played her (Virginia Madsen and Julie Cox) were varying shades of blonde. The only other members of the Corrino family (other than Irulan and Shaddam) we've seen on film are Wensicia, who was played (in a spectacular bit of miscasting) by Susan Sarandon, and Farad'n, Wensicia's son. None of the actors playing the Corrinos were black.
Weird? If you marry a black person and have kids with them, your sibling/sibling-in-law's kids may have black cousins. It might seem weird to outsiders, but that's their problem. I remember my grandmother telling me how shocked she was to meet my mother's family for the first time, since my mom's mother, my mother herself, and all her siblings had red hair. My grandmother (the one who raised me) said she'd "never seen so many redheads in one place in my life." That said, the cousins I know are blond - two related by blood and two adopted - and one cousin I never met (aunt's daughter roughly my age; given up for adoption). I have no idea what my aunt's daughter looked like. So all my cousins I knew on that side of the family were similar to me in hair/skin color. One of the adopted cousins, however, is something like a foot and a half taller than me. That was a bit of a shock when I saw him for the first time in close to 12 years.
Relating this to families in general... it wouldn't make sense to me if one side was all one way and the other was all a different way. Genetics should mean there'd be some variation, unless you have Bene Gesserit manipulation purely for shallow external reasons and I can't see why they would even care about that.
"Basically Greek-ish"?
The Atreides are supposed to be descended from Greek royalty, but at least when you get closer to the time of Paul, it seems like the family embraces some Spanish traditions (like bullfighting; even though bull dancing was something mentioned in stories about ancient Greece, it's not the same as the Spanish traditions).Well, if Tom Cruise is involved (I realize you're just tossing out unlikely names), I definitely won't watch it.
Rowling is being disingenuous, to put it politely. You don't describe Hermione in the books and approve the casting of Emma Watson, and then claim that there's no problem in making Hermione black. It's like Rowling pulled Dumbledore out of the air when she was asked if Sirius Black is gay (lots of Wolfstar stories were inspired by that brief hug between Sirius and Remus in Prisoner of Azkaban, and of all the main and secondary adult characters, Sirius was never given any love interest at all). She didn't want to say that Sirius was gay, but she coyly stated that "Dumbledore is".
Well, I don't care about Dumbledore's sex life, thankyouverymuch. As for Sirius Black, there are some excellent stories either way, whether his love interest is Remus Lupin or Marlene McKinnon, Amelia Bones, or some other female character. There's even a subgenre of HP stories in which Hermione travels back in time to the 1970s and becomes romantically involved with either Remus or Sirius (depending on which character the author likes better).
What's really odd to me is the number of fanfic authors who insist on making James Potter and his mother Indian (from India, not native North American). There is NOTHING in the novels that even hints of this, and it's pretty obvious from casting Daniel Radcliffe and whoever it was who played both teenage and adult James Potter that they're not Indian.
Smoking existed in medieval times, although not in Europe. It's something that was brought over from North America (tobacco). There's a scene in The Borgias (the Showtime production starring Jeremy Irons and Francois Arnaud), in which Juan Borgia introduces his father, Rodrigo Borgia, to cigars. Rodrigo is puzzled and thinks his son has given him a box of turds. Juan explains what they are and shows Rodrigo how to smoke them. Rodrigo discovers that he enjoys this and says, "We... are... smoking." So technically it was around in the Renaissance, not long after Columbus reached North America.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
So, Gondorians were white too. But the actual evidence is few descriptions and cultural allusion.
Same for Haradrim and Rhunnic people. Same standard of evidence. So yeah, there was a racial divide. It wasn't the reason for conflict, but regardless of reason it would result in mistrust between races. That's what always happens, nothing contrived about that. For example, the fact that conflict between Japan and USA wasn't caused by racial or ethnic differences but was purely political struggle for power....but that didn't stop Americans from distrusting Japanese so much that they sent over hundred thousand into interment camps, most of them being actual American citizens.
Which would make Gandalf's job a lot harder if he was black.
Thankyou for admitting you don't actually have a lot of investment in the various tribes of humans that make up the resulting factions in Middle-Earth. It saves us a great deal of time. Your assumptions on the racial characteristics of enemies are your own. I recommend looking up the houses of Men, though you might need to go further than the Lord of the Rings to do so.
And please remember, the original point was about Gandalf. Remember when I talked about moving goalposts? Yeah. The three of us were talking about a person who was more than happy to prove he was a wizard when it suited him. If somebody wanted to mistake him for an enemy (heck, Wormtongue had Theoden half-gone and Gandalf was still able to get through), that's an assumption that could immediately be corrected.
I fully agree Rowling is being disingenuous - just like she was when she talked about Dumbledore being so. I was just commenting on explicit vs. implicit, and the control an author can have over that (even if their own motivations are pretty shallow).
Yeah, sorry, I was assuming a lot of LotR context there and I appreciate you're not familiar with the setting. A lot of the Shire in general, for example, with tweed jackets and jars of preserves, cutlery, and so on, suggests almost a pre-industrial, late-modern kind of setting (in the Shire specifically). Gondor is a lot more militaristic, almost like the echoes of a ruling empire (enforced by the line of kings being near-nonexistent and the region being ruled permanently in a king's place by a succession of Stewards). But medieval rings too early for me, personally.
Yeah, it's not like Saruman went to Rhun with the Blue Wizards.
You are once against transplanting real-world associations onto Tolkien's work. Good "reasoning" there
Last edited:
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
This IS about Gandalf. You're just making me elaborate on the reasons behind my statements, and then accuse me of moving goalposts. This is what you keep doing.
You are once against transplanting real-world associations onto Tolkien's work. Good "reasoning" there
You're taking the quote out of context, again being disingenuous.
Right. Gandalf isn't a random human from Rhun or wherever. He's a wizard. Nobody's going to arrest him and keep him arrested (or out of a place, as you originally claimed) just because of his skin tone. Which was your claim originally.
(also, again, you keep ignoring or sidelining the fact that skin tone makes very little relevance to who or what was considered an enemy)
How is it out of context? You said Gandalf being black would make his job difficult. Why? Saruman went to Rhun and worked there against Sauron's influence just fine.
If I'm taking your quotes out of context, what are you doing by quoting a grand total of three sentences of mine?
Snowygerry
Deity
Iirc the wizards were physical manifestions of the Maiar
So I imagine they could be any colour as the situation demands no ?
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
No. You're now blatantly lying. I wrote, and kept writing, that he wouldn't be TRUSTED. He could use his abilities to command fear, to break out prison...but trust is not earned that way. And he needed the trust to fulfill his role.
I'm not. On parallel with this I'm leading a conversation about how there is a racial difference between Gondorians, Haradrim and Rhunnic people, and that long war would result in distrust along these racial lines. Which is nothing groundbreaking or contrived. That always happens in war where's a racial or ethnic difference, regardless of reason for war. It's in this thread,
I keep elaborating on why for several posts now. You're obviously unwilling to read them. Oh, and ask the blue wizards how the whole affair in the east turned out. Oh wait...they're most likely dead and Rhun is firmly in Sauron's camp.
If I'm taking your quotes out of context, what are you doing by quoting a grand total of three sentences of mine?
They're not worth answering to. You're running in circles with baseless accusations.
So it's okay for you to ignore parts of my posts because they're not worth answering to . . . but it's wrong when other people hold a similar impression of your posts? This is funny
Their current status is unknown, and you're continuing to speculate in such a fashion that affirms your pre-existing biases. You're inserting your own narrative, as you have been doing from the start.
Accusing people of lying is tough talk. Your exact words were:
And now you're claiming it's solely about trust. Getting an audience with leadership doesn't require some kind of magical trust bond. You're the one assuming that (as usual).
Which, once again is based entirely on your self-insert that black people specifically wouldn't be trusted in Middle-Earth due to their apparent overlap with specific skin tones found in people the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor have fought with. Despite white-skinned folk being amongst the enemies of Rohan and Gondor (and Arnor) for years. Despite the fact that Gandalf is centuries old. Plenty of time to establish trust. What you're crafting here, this contrived scenario where everything has to play out a specific way because that's how it makes sense to you, is a specific scenario of your devising. It is not the only scenario.
But sure, throw a tantrum and call people names because you can't handle disagreement on the Internet. That works.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,496
So it's okay for you to ignore parts of my posts because they're not worth answering to . . . but it's wrong when other people hold a similar impression of your posts? This is funny
Did I ever complain about parts of my posts being ignored? Rewind a bit and see that I did not. Again, you lie about what I wrote.
Their current status is presumed dead, their mission a failure. First part is written explicitly in books (I'd need to check for the quote), the second is implicit as Rhun is firmly allied to Sauron.
I've claimed that it's about trust, but never solely about trust, since the beginning. You're fishing out one quote that doesn't spell it out explicitly and keep revolving around it, disregarding the rest of conversation and the context of the quote.
See, I don't give a crap about fake smiles and fake politeness that seem to be common in the western metropolitan culture. If someone lies, I have no problem saying it. And you're lying about what I wrote.
Oh, and getting an audience with a ruler was never a straightforward thing. It requires either a lot of trust and respect to allow one barge in uninvited without getting shot or run through like Gandalf did, or going through lengthy administrative hoops to convince the army of underlings headed by chamberlain or similar staff position that you're worthy of attention. Despite the appearance in movies, rulers are and always were very busy people. They didn't sit in their chair and eat tomatoes all day until someone barged in uninvited.
And again, you're accusing me of thing you're doing. You haven't put any solid arguments, just throwing a tantrum that I'm self-inserting here. Disregarding the entirety of human history showing that it's in human nature that war breeds mistrust, especially along racial or ethnic lines. You're self-inserting that despite all that, his role wouldn't have been more difficult if he wasn't white. That's your wishful thinking. But the humanity never worked that way, despite what any of us might wish. And claiming otherwise IS an insert of what the western metropolitan culture claims to be. But that's just facade.
You accused me of selectively-quoting you. You didn't care about my reasons, you simply accused me of it. I'm saying you're doing the same thing, but it's okay when you do it, apparently
And? You're still reading into the unspoken in a way that conforms to your biases. Also, again, they're not depicted as East Asian like you claimed them to be lol. Nor is Saruman, who also went with them originally. Your entire premise of "Gandalf is black and therefore this would breed distrust" purely based on the similarity of skin tone is you transplanting real-world bias into Middle-Earth. Middle-Earth has its own reasons for bias. Skin tone is significantly-varied (you still haven't looked up the House of Beor, huh) that would cause distrust based on it to be an arguably unwise decision to default to.
And? So are you, to more posters than just me. Practise what you preach, and maybe you'll get different replies. I see someone whining about how a black Gandalf breeds "distrust" just because they're black and it's my initial thought is "lol".
I'm fine with being polite, personally. You can say someone is misquoting you while still being polite. You're just going straight to insults because you can't comprehend the basic notion that your opinion isn't fact. You proposed a theory. That a black Gandalf wouldn't be trusted by Gondor. This wasn't your first theory, but let's go with it. You have basically refused to accept any other possible theories, and you've dealt with criticism of your theory incredible badly. This isn't me lying, this is me just describing your behaviour.
Here's a quote from the book, from a guard of Edoras: "Never have we seen other riders so strange". This was after Gandalf quizzed them on why they spoke Riddermark as supposed the Common Tongue. They already looked different. The guard also straight-up asked them if they were a spy from Saruman. There is literally no difference in Gandalf being black, because there was already mistrust (and the biggest enemies Rohan had in terms of geography were the Wildmen, who were, well, white).
I can write what I want, it doesn't matter if you don't read it. Of course you're not going to think my (or AZ's, or anyone's) arguments are solid, because you're convinced your opinion is fact. You do it again by talking about "disregarding the entirety of human history". Tolkien wasn't writing human history. He wrote an entire mythology. He invented realistic languages. Humans were in it. But so were orcs, ents, hobbits, elves, dwarves, dragons, and so on. You're trying to take our history, and mapping it 1:1 without any changes into Middle-Earth. That's on you. The fact that Middle-Earth is loosely based on Europe doesn't mean everything translates exactly as-is.
You're "just self-inserting, that despite all that, his role would be more difficult if he wasn't white". Sure, it's not impossible. It's possible to write a version of Middle-Earth where Gandalf is black and finds his tasks more difficult. But likewise, it's possible to write a verison where he's black and it isn't. Because the writing doesn't clarify it either way. Because the writing that we have places no emphasis on skin tones in pretty much any interaction in the entire Lord of the Rings. There's more emphasis on the colour of someone's hair than there is skin tone. Grima was (explictly) white (or pale, as per the text). Saruman was (implicitly) white. If skin tone drove distrust, logically you'd expect that to manifest based on these signifiers alone. But it doesn't. It's your belief that Gandalf being black would result in a different outcome. It's not factual. People aren't engaged in "wishful thinking" just because they disagree with your belief.
It's not my problem that you can't engage critically with other peoples' arguments. That's a you thing. And based on current evidence, you're not going to realise the problem anytime soon.
Akka
Moody old mage.
But then it does stick out, that's my point, again. You're falling back on rationalizations "it's implied that he's white, but I can contrive that he's not", we already covered this ground.
I find all of them unpalatable, and for the same core reason that it's about using the work rather than serving it. I'd say that I even find the last one the worst, because at least the others are for basic greed, while the last is about political propaganda, and I can stomach better (not well, but better) selfishness than manipulation. And because money is, as sad as it is, the reason why movies are made in the first place, so there is at least some legitimacy about financial gains.
I know, that's the point of this rhetorical device (it's even called plainly "démonstration par l'absurde" in french, which is kind explicit). It's made to illustrate if a reasoning works well when pushed and show why it doesn't work, not to be an exact parallel. I even bothered to make a disclaimer at the end of the post.
The samurai armor example was to show how something can be jarring by clashing with the tone of the setting if it's let ignored even without the contradiction being explicit. This one is a downright parallel.
Also, let's be honest : the reason of this debate about Gandalf being black IS about inserting "diversity", it's not like there was a strong undercurrent in LotR that Gandalf should actually be black. The only reason supporting this IS about "representation". It's textbook inserting outside-the-work politics. That's pretty much the very definition of "forced diversity".
See above. I'm arguing to not insert politics in an adaptation, others are talking about racism and representation that should supercede faithfulness to the original. By their very definitions, one is apolitical and the others aren't.
The whole debate is because some people either :
1) Can't imagine that someone could honestly just care about the work and not want to see out-of-work politics modifying it.
and/or
2) Consider acceptable to make politically-motivated changes in a work.
Last edited:
Senethro
Overlord
One has politics you like, one doesn't, and you're claiming that you're the one guy who can tell what is "political".
Its fine to not like stuff. Its not fine to act as a gatekeeper while pretending not to.
It sticks out to you. Because of how the setting comes across to you personally. How is it contrived for someone else to view it differently?
I am assuming a negative connotation of contrived here, mind you. By definition it doesn't have to be, but that's all I see it being used as. If you don't mean it as a negative, then I'm sorry for misinterpreting.
How is depicting the cultural diversity of society on the big screen political propaganda? Also, if we assume that we're trying to hire a good fit for the role, in modern society that's increasingly going to be someone who isn't necessarily white. Modern society is multicultural in a lot of respects (in Western countries), which means applicants looking to be cast in a role are going to be similarly diverse.
I think that's the core difference - that you see such a thing as propaganda. I don't agree, and I don't expect you to agree with me, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Just because something can be used badly, doesn't mean it is by default.
I read and accept the disclaimer - it's not wasted effort. I'm arguing that given the individual differences in having a threshold for the suspension of disbelief, Gandalf being blue would pass that for both of us, and presumably more people besides. Gandalf being black obviously doesn't for me.
The question is - who gets to decide that threshold? You? Me? Or is it just up to whoever gets the chance to make the adaptation?
Tolkien has many references to different types of armour throughout his work, making it more explicit than implicit. There's a lot of ringmail, for example.
That said, if there was a good reason why a wildly-different style of armour could exist (note: I'm not saying there is), I'd obviously not be fussed. You would be. I keep saying this, but I don't seem to get an answer: what makes either of us right, or the other wrong? I don't think either of us are, I think both are valid interpretations of the text given the leeway presented.
There's not a strong undercurrent any way of what ethnicity he should be. That's a lot of my core point in this regard. You're inferring it from the setting, whereas I come from the point of view that black skin can also be inferred from the setting, as rare as people could argue it to be. Gandalf being able to take any form he wants obviously factors into my views on this.
That said, representation isn't the same thing as forced diversity (insofar as the latter is generally a culturally-conservative talking point). It gets messy, trying to define the two terms because they end up generally-politicised, but if I were to try and define them, I'd say the former (like I mentioned above) is leaning into a modern day audience seeing themselves on the screen. Basic wish fulfillment, and something most people enjoy from time to time. Forced diversity is more along the lines of "tokenism", where something is trying to look good by paying lip service to diversity or representation. That's how I see the two terms, at least.
This comes back to my stance that politics pervades things by default. Not changing something that was written seventy years ago is a conscious decision that will reflect the beliefs - cultural, political, you name it - of the person making the adaptation. How they choose to change it, likewise. Adaptations don't exist in a vacuum. For example, we don't actually know how Middle-Earth looks, but it was loosely-inspired by various parts of Europe. Why then, was it filmed in New Zealand?
Well, apart from money, it's because this was deemed the best way to get some of the scenes shot in a faithful manner. Even if it wasn't therefore necessarily representative of any period of European history in the past 1,000 years.
I can understand that you view such a thing as apolitical, but that's the second core difference here. That's where I disagree with you, and the cause of the divide between the lack of understanding between your claim that adaptations inserting politics are bad, vs. my claim that politics are inherent to both the medium and therefore any adaptation.
Last edited:
I thought we were supposed to be showing fidelity to the author, not projecting our own political views onto his work. Can't recall a single case of animosity between humans based on skin colour in LotR or the Simarillion. Middle Earth isn't the real world. Perhaps when evil is physically manifest in your world and has armies of orcs and trolls skin colour isn't quite the obsession for people of Middle Earth that it is for some people in our world.
This was an interesting article, I don’t know how accurate it is. It points to skin color actually being a prerequisite to getting a job.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/hollywoods-new-rules
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/hollywoods-new-rules
Doesn't seem to be that accurate, going off available statistics:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/2021-hollywood-diversity-report
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/2021-hollywood-diversity-report
aelf
Ashen One
What did you see that conflicted with your data? And again I don’t know if the link I posted was accurate?
Similar threads
