Hobbit Casting Agent Fired For Dismissing Non-White Hobbits

[Kair]

Was it racist to cast Indians in Slum Dog Millionaire? Why did they not put an African or European in the main role? Forcing ethnicities into roles that were created for another ethnicity is racist, it is called positive discrimination.

See my "apples and oranges" post above your post.

I saw your post before I posted. Writing of a northern race does not demand one to define them as fair-skinned. Why are we arguing the ethnic diversity of a fictional race?

Because, as fictionalized by the writer, it does appear that he made that race to be diverse in skin color (fair to brown). Therefore, an actor with skin color that falls within that range would not be ipso facto excluded from being cast in that role and to exclude them on the basis of an entirely appropriate skin color suggests an ill motive (particularly, as noted by the poster above, where the exclusion on the basis of skin color is divided along gender lines for no apparent reason). Now, if the writer had made Hobbits to be solely fair skinned and blond haired, then your rhetorical question would bear relevance and make sense. But, because Hobbits aren't of a type (i.e., some are of brown skin) that would ipso facto exclude the actor who auditioned for the role of a Hobbit (i.e., being of brown skin herself), your rhetorical question is, as best as I can tell, irrelevant and nonsensical.

Perhaps your rhetorical question wasn't intended to be rhetorical and, instead, was intended to just randomly throw some thought out there for whatever value doing so may have. If so, fine. I guess you can't really go wrong in so doing. But if was intended to somehow disprove the possibility of ill-motivated exclusion, then for that purpose it has no value that I can see.

Well fine, if Tolkien wrote it so.

 

[Serioli]

Goddamit, next you'll be telling me that an entirely made up alien species like the Vulcans follows human evolution with respect to melanin production/deposition....

 

[JDKJ]

Goddamit, next you'll be telling me that an entirely made up alien species like the Vulcans follows human evolution with respect to melanin production/deposition....

Is that why they're always casting black people as Vulcans? I have always wondered what was up with that. I'd just figured that it had something to do with them being the only ones willing to sign up for having a shit-blob glued to their foreheads.

 

[JDKJ]

It has never "always been contested" that Africa is the birthplace of Mankind and, to the extent it is contested, the proponents of the theory that China is the birthplace of Mankind are a recent and small minority among the scientific community.

The overwhelming consensus among biologists and paleontologists is that Mankind's evolution originated from sites in East Africa, where the oldest hominid fossils have been found. Subsequent research employing mitochondrial DNA analysis has strengthened this theory. Recently, however, prominent paleontologists have begun to challenge East Africa's position as the evolutionary birthplace of Mankind, most notably due to recent research in connection with the unearthing of the Liujiang hominid of China, but that group of scientists remain in the minority.

Does the possibility that your evolutionary ancestry can be traced back to Africa bother you? In the same way the possibility of a brown-skinned Hobbit apparently bothers some individuals? Is that why you grasp at the straw which the alternative theory of China presents? How do you feel about the theory of continental drift and the possibility that the African continent was at one time the center of all land masses?

Oh and had to sneak in the hint of Africa ancestry would bother me, I worry not about events 300 years ago my ancestors had nothing to with let alone where my first up right walking cousin came from few hundred thousand years ago. That does not mean I don't care about history and the past, I just refuse to feel bad about something done before i was born and have some fake guilt on me to baby someone because they are different than me or some silliness. It's called equality. I treat people fairly well and normally don't judge people unless they are making a ass of themselves to someone else before they get to me. I care about the now, the only thing I'll do about the past is not repeat it, but sure as hell will never bow down before someone not wronged and pretend I owe them because of a event my ancestors had nothing to do with. Using the past to make a buck now or get special treatment is the very definition of racist to me.

And the Hobbits. Why should non brown skinned hobbits bother someone? If there is no Africa in Middle earth, Forgotten realms, or what ever world that is not earth why should we demand a normal earth equality? If they say the main pigment of people is green and orange in a make believe land why must people in the real world worry about it? Make something made up in a world not this one, be some odd reflection of a false sense of rejection here? What next Peta being mad the Hobbits kill a jackalope and roast it? Reminds me of idiots whining about canned unicorn.

How do I feel about the old super continent? I think it's valid. Should Africa always be made more important because its in the center? Who cares if the first human came from there, it's about today, what they contribute to the world now.

A real problem of ramming down pointless facts like this just boils down to a waste of time. If they are not described as such in a fantasy world, why must it be forced on the story made into a movie to make a amazingly small pretend victims group happy? If Tolkien estate says go for it, do it tastefully...[/quote]

"Why should non brown skinned hobbits bother someone?"

That's a real good question and one for which the answer to I have absolutely no idea. But, if you scroll back and find the post of the poster who said that if the Hobbits aren't white, they're not gonna go see the movie, then you can ask them what's up with that. If you do and they answer, lemme me know. I'm interested in knowing what's the answer.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

So, what? Does this mean that in the interest of equal opportunity employment they aren't gonna cast some Jewish guy as Gollum? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Gollum's Jewish.

Ahem, that's Golem you're thinking of. Golem is Jewish, Gollum is named after his own vocal sounds.

Ahem, there's a library full of scholarly research that suggests Tolkien's Gollum was inspired by the Golem of Jewish folklore.

See, for example, http://www.taylor.edu/dotAsset/57599.pdf

Haven't read the rest of your PDF, as I stopped reading right after it claimed the Judaism took the idea of the golem from the bible. Um, no, Judaism came first, otherwise Christ wouldn't have been Jewish now would he. Judaism has a rich enough heritage without having to steal from a younger religion. That pretty much destroyed any credibility that PDF had.

Edit: Just noticed that both post I replied to were yours. Coincidence, not some kind of personal grudge I assure you.

Are you aware that the first five books of the Christian Bible (the so-called Pentateuch) reappear almost word-for-word in the Torah (the Jewish equivalent of the Christian Bible)? In fact, the names of the first five books of the Torah translate from the Hebrew into English as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is precisely what they're called in the English Christian Bible. In fact, Leviticus (which is mostly a set of laws) is named after the Tribe of Levi who, among the so-called Twelve Tribes of Israel, are known as "the law-givers."

Bible or Torah. If you're about talking the first five books of the New Testament or the Torah, ain't no difference.

I am aware of that, but the wording in the pdf implies that Jewish folklore was influenced by the bible when it was clearly influenced by the Torah. That's like me directly copying The Lord out the Rings for the first part of my book and then claiming that Games Workshop's Orks are inspired by my book. To steal an idea and then attempt to take credit for it instead of the original source is pretty low.

In regards to your other post, absolutely, the harfoots clearly do have darker skin, I was merely playing with the wording as your original comment could have been incorrectly taken to mean that all Hobbits were dark skinned.

Again though, Torah or New Testament Bible. What's the difference? To say something was influenced by the one is probably to just as well say it was influenced by the other. Doesn't a rose, regardless of what you call it, still smell just the same?

That makes no sense at all. The Torah came first, it's historical fact. It doesn't matter that they're the same, the new testament is a copy of the Torah, not the other way around. There's this crazy little thing called chronology that is often a good indication of what came first. There is no way that the Torah is influenced by the New Testament, and to claim that Jewish folklore is influenced by the bible is high preposterous and entirely based on Christian arrogance or delusion (by all means have your faith, just don't try to take credit for an idea that clearly came from elsewhere). The golem as a concept would have existed long before the bible did.

Takes a pretty sharp knife to split a thin hair, don't it?

What utter nonsense. Your pdf gave one religion credit for a concept that is known to be from an older source. The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off. Pull that shit nowadays and there's not a court that wouldn't call it plagiarism. That's not splitting hairs, that's pointing out that your pdf got it substantially wrong. If you can't see that then I'm not going to argue with you any further. You are wrong here, it's not a matter of opinion.

"The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off."

"Utter nonsense." Thanks. That was the expression I was looking for but couldn't recall.

If you stopped blabbering for a second and gave some thought to the fact that the point at which Judaism and Christianity meaningfully diverge is the point at which Judaism rejects the Christian notion of Jesus Christ as Savior and further consider the fact that the Torah and the Bible are both presented in chronological fashion (which explains why the Torah, while reflecting large parts of the Bible's Old Testament, doesn't so reflect the New Testament), you may realize -- but I'm not feeling overly optimistic about the prospects -- that to claim that one temporally preceded the other and to pit rights of authorship of one against the other and to cast accusations of plagiarism by the Bible of the Torah is to do very little more than to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of Judaism, Christianity, the Torah, and the Bible.

If you're still not intellectually taking yourself where you need to go, then consider the more simple fact that the various religions of both Judaism and Christianity are often collectively referred to as "Judeo-Christian" religions (reflective of the common roots of both) -- although, truth be told, I'm still not overly optimistic of you taking yourself where you need to go.

Or, on the remote chance that third time will be the charm, if, as you claim, the Bible is plagiarized from the Torah, then go ahead and identify the rightfu
l author of the Torah and the plagiarizing author of the Bible. You cannot reasonably claim a completed case of theft unless there's an owner of the stolen property and a thief that stole the property. Maybe your sure to be futile attempt to identify those authors will be the route that takes you where you need to go. Maybe.

Yeah, 'ripping off' was wrong, but focusing on that one thing doesn't hide the fact that you are ignoring basic logic.

Well, seeing as you know as well as I do that attempting to find exact authors and publication dates for either book is a fools errand, I shan't waste my time. It also doesn't matter at what point the religions meaningfully diverged. The basic principal here is that Judaism is historically known to be the significantly older of the two religions. Regardless of the Judeo-christian banner, they are very much separate religions, even though Christianity did indeed evolve from Judaism in a sense. By simple logic, any concepts shared(those explicit enough to be part of shared writings anyway) between the two faiths must logilly be credited to the source, ie the older faith. The pdf ignoring this fact is what made it reek of religious arrogance and made it lose all dibility to me. If it had credited the golem to 'judeo-christian writings' then by all means it would be fine, but it doesn't. It specifically claims that Jewish folklore got the idea of the golem from the bible. That's ludicrous. Even if both holy books contained identical content the statement would still be grossly incorrect.

Perhaps you're too close to this topic to see it rationally, I don't know, but either way I'm done with this.

 

[Horben]

Well... it's ugly, but in Tolkein's universe unless you were an Easterling, an orc or a member of another monstrous race... then you were Caucasian. The Easterlings themselves resembled Arabs.

 

[McNinja]

watch. All of the hobbits will be white anyway.

 

[murphy7801]

I would surprised if tolkien even saw anyone who wasn't Caucasian in his life time if understood his life being a oxford elite for most of his adult life.

 

[nondescript]

But the Tooks aren't the only clan that I imagine the movie will have to to represent. It may well have to represent the Harfoot Hobbits. And Harfoot Hobbits are brown-skinned.

Sure, and for any other hobbits, I don't see a problem. Just Bilbo, since it would be hard to explain how he was white in LotR and not in Hobbit.

 

[veloper]

The entertainment industry has that freedom.

You don't cast a white guy in your film as a black musician either.

It's a sure bet there won't be any black hobbits even after this. All misplaced PR at the expense of a pawn obviously instructed to do what they blamed him for.

 

[JDKJ]

So, what? Does this mean that in the interest of equal opportunity employment they aren't gonna cast some Jewish guy as Gollum? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Gollum's Jewish.

Ahem, that's Golem you're thinking of. Golem is Jewish, Gollum is named after his own vocal sounds.

Ahem, there's a library full of scholarly research that suggests Tolkien's Gollum was inspired by the Golem of Jewish folklore.

See, for example, http://www.taylor.edu/dotAsset/57599.pdf

Haven't read the rest of your PDF, as I stopped reading right after it claimed the Judaism took the idea of the golem from the bible. Um, no, Judaism came first, otherwise Christ wouldn't have been Jewish now would he. Judaism has a rich enough heritage without having to steal from a younger religion. That pretty much destroyed any credibility that PDF had.

Edit: Just noticed that both post I replied to were yours. Coincidence, not some kind of personal grudge I assure you.

Are you aware that the first five books of the Christian Bible (the so-called Pentateuch) reappear almost word-for-word in the Torah (the Jewish equivalent of the Christian Bible)? In fact, the names of the first five books of the Torah translate from the Hebrew into English as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is precisely what they're called in the English Christian Bible. In fact, Leviticus (which is mostly a set of laws) is named after the Tribe of Levi who, among the so-called Twelve Tribes of Israel, are known as "the law-givers."

Bible or Torah. If you're about talking the first five books of the New Testament or the Torah, ain't no difference.

I am aware of that, but the wording in the pdf implies that Jewish folklore was influenced by the bible when it was clearly influenced by the Torah. That's like me directly copying The Lord out the Rings for the first part of my book and then claiming that Games Workshop's Orks are inspired by my book. To steal an idea and then attempt to take credit for it instead of the original source is pretty low.

In regards to your other post, absolutely, the harfoots clearly do have darker skin, I was merely playing with the wording as your original comment could have been incorrectly taken to mean that all Hobbits were dark skinned.

Again though, Torah or New Testament Bible. What's the difference? To say something was influenced by the one is probably to just as well say it was influenced by the other. Doesn't a rose, regardless of what you call it, still smell just the same?

That makes no sense at all. The Torah came first, it's historical fact. It doesn't matter that they're the same, the new testament is a copy of the Torah, not the other way around. There's this crazy little thing called chronology that is often a good indication of what came first. There is no way that the Torah is influenced by the New Testament, and to claim that Jewish folklore is influenced by the bible is high preposterous and entirely based on Christian arrogance or delusion (by all means have your faith, just don't try to take credit for an idea that clearly came from elsewhere). The golem as a concept would have existed long before the bible did.

Takes a pretty sharp knife to split a thin hair, don't it?

What utter nonsense. Your pdf gave one religion credit for a concept that is known to be from an older source. The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off. Pull that shit nowadays and there's not a court that wouldn't call it plagiarism. That's not splitting hairs, that's pointing out that your pdf got it substantially wrong. If you can't see that then I'm not going to argue with you any further. You are wrong here, it's not a matter of opinion.

"The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off."

"Utter nonsense." Thanks. That was the expression I was looking for but couldn't recall.

If you stopped blabbering for a second and gave some thought to the fact that the point at which Judaism and Christianity meaningfully diverge is the point at which Judaism rejects the Christian notion of Jesus Christ as Savior and further consider the fact that the Torah and the Bible are both presented in chronological fashion (which explains why the Torah, while reflecting large parts of the Bible's Old Testament, doesn't so reflect the New Testament), you may realize -- but I'm not feeling overly optimistic about the prospects -- that to claim that one temporally preceded the other and to pit rights of authorship of one against the other and to cast accusations of plagiarism by the Bible of the Torah is to do very little more than to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of Judaism, Christianity, the Torah, and the Bible.

If you're still not intellectually taking yourself where you need to go, then consider the more simple fact that the various religions of both Judaism and Christianity are often collectively referred to as "Judeo-Christian" religions (reflective of the common roots of both) -- although, truth be told, I'm still not overly optimistic of you taking yourself where you need to go.

Or, on the remote chance that third time will be the charm, if, as you claim, the Bible is plagiarized from the Torah, then go ahead and identify the rightfu
l author of the Torah and the plagiarizing author of the Bible. You cannot reasonably claim a completed case of theft unless there's an owner of the stolen property and a thief that stole the property. Maybe your sure to be futile attempt to identify those authors will be the route that takes you where you need to go. Maybe.

Yeah, 'ripping off' was wrong, but focusing on that one thing doesn't hide the fact that you are ignoring basic logic.

Well, seeing as you know as well as I do that attempting to find exact authors and publication dates for either book is a fools errand, I shan't waste my time. It also doesn't matter at what point the religions meaningfully diverged. The basic principal here is that Judaism is historically known to be the significantly older of the two religions. Regardless of the Judeo-christian banner, they are very much separate religions, even though Christianity did indeed evolve from Judaism in a sense. By simple logic, any concepts shared(those explicit enough to be part of shared writings anyway) between the two faiths must logilly be credited to the source, ie the older faith. The pdf ignoring this fact is what made it reek of religious arrogance and made it lose all dibility to me. If it had credited the golem to 'judeo-christian writings' then by all means it would be fine, but it doesn't. It specifically claims that Jewish folklore got the idea of the golem from the bible. That's ludicrous. Even if both holy books contained identical content the statement would still be grossly incorrect.

Perhaps you're too close to this topic to see it rationally, I don't know, but either way I'm done with this.

If you scroll back, you'll see where I agree with another poster who points out that the overall quality of the paper's scholarship is piss-poor. It is something that any student who has moved beyond the first semester of college should not submit to their professor and expect a passing grade. I only used it to generally support the proposition that there is a wealth of scholarship out there suggesting that Tolkien's inspiration for his Gollum character may lie in the Jewish folklore of Golem.

And if "too close to the topic" is meant to suggest that my own religious convictions blind me, I'll have you know that I worship at the Church of the Almighty Dollar Bill and Holy Hairy Beaver, where neither the Bible nor the Torah is employed.

But, either way, I'm sure we can both agree that casting Jason Alexander in the role of Gollum is, for all the obvious reasons, an excellent choice. He's short, balding, squinty-eyed, and, in keeping with Tolkien's vision, Jewish. It don't get much better than that.

 

[Spookimitsu]

STOP RUINING GOOD BOOKS
Hobbits are not black, deal with it.
Fucking hell why's everything racist these days. Next up, Harlem Globe Trotters sued for not hiring jews

ummm I dont think that was the case. The woman who raised the issue was reported as being pakistani? How all of this got turned around to a black person vs. white person thing is at the same time mildly amusing as it is [more than only slightly] retarded, but only due to misinterpretations of some posters.

I guess then the thread hijack was successful?

 

[Jackle_666]

Where does it say that Hobbits all have to be white? People who believe in slavishly sticking to source material are idiots. It's entertainment. I had to endure a massive argument with a guy who said that there being a black person as a member of Royalty in King Arthur (Saturday night family entertainment show for the BBC). Who cares? It's an entertainment show for kids not the bloody discovery channel.

 

[JDKJ]

STOP RUINING GOOD BOOKS
Hobbits are not black, deal with it.
Fucking hell why's everything racist these days. Next up, Harlem Globe Trotters sued for not hiring jews

ummm I dont think that was the case. The woman who raised the issue was reported as being pakistani? How all of this got turned around to a black person vs. white person thing is at the same time mildly amusing as it is [more than only slightly] retarded, but only due to misinterpretations of some posters.

I guess then the thread hijack was successful?

That it became a black vs. white issue when it isn't may be informative more than anything else. It certainly makes me ask myself, "Why?"

And, as an aside, the Harlem Globetrotters aren't from Harlem, they're from Chicago, and were originally founded and owned by a Jew, name of Abe Saperstein.

 

[The Wooster]

Hobbits, based off middle Yorkshire like areas of England with a touch of Scots (The Tooks), Medieval Europe setting. Now I don't know about you but I wouldn't imagine very many black or Asian hobbits walking around particularly as they rarely leave the Shire and therefore not able to evolve into being the Asian/black versions like we humans have.

I used to live in Yorkshire, and I can tell you for a fact that the people aren't about 3"6 with large, leathery feet covered in hair. They don't have pointed ears, either.

And you won't meet a single person who lives in a hole, either. You will meet a few people of Caribbean, African or Asian descent, however.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Yorkshire, or Middle Earth, but you can't draw any connections between the two.

I've been to Yorkshire. It's more like Mordor than the shire.

 

[Jandau]

I know I'm coming late to this thread, but I have to chime in.

Bullshit.

Hobbits are white. Casting white people as hobbits isn't racist, it's sticking to source material. Is there something wrong with being white? Is it a problem somehow? Seriously, pulling the race card in this case is just moronic.

 

[JDKJ]

I know I'm coming late to this thread, but I have to chime in.

Bullshit.

Hobbits are white. Casting white people as hobbits isn't racist, it's sticking to source material. Is there something wrong with being white? Is it a problem somehow? Seriously, pulling the race card in this case is just moronic.

And your source for the contention that "Hobbits are white" is what, pray tell? If you've got Hobbit photographs proving your point, please post them to the thread. Thanks.

 

[Jandau]

I know I'm coming late to this thread, but I have to chime in.

Bullshit.

Hobbits are white. Casting white people as hobbits isn't racist, it's sticking to source material. Is there something wrong with being white? Is it a problem somehow? Seriously, pulling the race card in this case is just moronic.

And your source for the contention that "Hobbits are white" is what, pray tell? If you've got Hobbit photographs proving your point, please post them to the thread. Thanks.

Wait, are you serious? Are you seriously trolling to this extent? Fine, I'll play along, just to confirm my initial impression, which is that you are just being an arse at this point...

1. Quote from the Prologue of The Lord of the Rings, when describing Hobbits: "Their faces were as a rule good-natured rather than beautiful, broad, bright-eyed, red-cheeked, with mouths apt to laughter, and to eating and drinking."

"Red cheeked" pretty much discounts any dark skin coloration since it simply wouldn't stand out. So they were white. Also, the description indicates that there wasn't much variation in their general outward appearance (the whole "as a rule" part of the quoted sentence). Sure, Tolkien might have written "Oh, and they were WHITE. Totally white. Pale white." but THAT would have been racist...

2. As for Hobbit photographs, look up any illustrated edition of Hobbit or LotR. Some of those were done while Tolkien was still alive and have his approval. Find me one single non-white hobbit. I assume you can use Google, so be my guest.

There, I've provided a direct quote from the books indicating they were white and have found no evidence to the contrary.

Also, why is it so important to you that there be non-white Hobbits? Also, a man lost his job over bullshit, which I also find to be a waste.