anghraine | Entries tagged with imperialism

My best friend and I were talking about the ways that Legend of Korra does and doesn't work for us, and particularly about the way it feels very erratic on a craft level where ATLA is pretty consistently good to great, yet ultimately LOK engages us both more. Inevitably, we wound around to a point of firm agreement: excepting Unalaq and Vaatu in B2, we consider the main villains of LOK a lot more personally and thematically interesting than Ozai and this has a weird effect on LOK's politics.

I drafted a far longer post about this [ETA: lmao], but anyway: there are many obviously progressive elements to ATLA. Ozai as a villain is fundamentally aligned with things antithetical to progressive ideals. He is a hereditary autocrat carrying on a multi-generational campaign of imperialism that historically (in the show) has been justified by familiar bigoted, reactionary rationales about civilizing and bringing prosperity to other cultures. He's overwhelmingly authoritarian in every aspect of life—as a ruler, as a conqueror, as a father, as a husband. He's less a person than an embodiment of domination, imperialism, autocracy. And the ultimate solution that ATLA provides for the problem of Ozai is 1) a greater power defeating him in combat and 2) replacing him with a good autocrat.

That's not a charitable characterization of a beautifully executed and emotionally satisfying conclusion. And I think the underlying rationale for that resolution owes more to ATLA's mythic and fantastic structure than to any serious commitment to the "what we really need is a good dictator" form of political discourse that has unfortunately become increasingly common. But solving the problem of imperialism with a Chosen One and a kinder and softer absolute ruler over the imperialists is not ... exactly a radical solution, let's say. It's not that different from, say, Lord of the Rings.

It works for ATLA's story! I just don't feel that this resolution is particularly daring or transgressive in the way that it is sometimes represented as being. Other aspects of ATLA are much more daring and revolutionary than this, but the core politics just don't feel that way to me.

LOK, by contrast, has a lot of centrist-at-best baggage. It would take awhile to detail all of this (the fantasy copaganda is probably the most obvious), but it's especially apparent with the villains. LOK essentially has a revolving door of major villains who are each very different in personality, goals, motives, politics, and symbolic alignments, but thematically unified by one very familiar concept that is obvious even before it's explicitly spelled out in B4.

I've talked about this before in relation to LOK and had plenty of criticism of it (here and here), but the basic idea is this: What if the villain actually has the right idea, but just goes too far?

( Read more... )

Current Location: Washington
Current Music: Bad Reputation (Joan Jett & the Blackhearts)

chestnut_pod left an intriguing comment on my post here in terms of racial purity/elitism in regard to Gondor c. LOTR and the characterization of contemporary Gondor by other characters, most glaringly Elrond. I started to reply more concisely, but the rant grew, so I'm just posting it here:

I always struggle with the reality that much of what Elrond says about Gondor at the Council is objectively wrong as well as repugnant, but the narrative doesn't really frame any of it as incorrect or morally dubious or a reflection on his character at all (despite the semi-corrections made by Faramir later, which somewhat ameliorates this, but only somewhat). In fact, the person who is framed as suspect in the Council interactions is Boromir for being offended and "rudely" outspoken about it (both on behalf of Gondor and Rohan) in addition to being ambivalent (not even especially negative! just unsure!) about the practical significance of Aragorn's pure royal blood.

Elrond also glorifies Gondor's former imperial power through comparison with Númenor's. His regret over Gondor's decay is tied to ideas of racial impurity (which in Gondor is a direct consequence of Númenórean and Gondorian imperialism, and which in any case is a bizarre characterization choice for him specifically) and to Gondor's inability to sustain its empire. I feel like all these sentiments are treated in the text as pretty understandable and sympathetic and right-thinking, even if Elrond turns out to be mistaken about some specific things.

Basically, it feels like the general perspective is that the Stewards were wise to move towards a more diverse and integrated Gondorian society, to recruit outsiders, to do what was necessary to keep Gondor standing and opposing Sauron where multiple purer and more insular factions failed. They were wise to relinquish imperial holdings they didn't have the power or inclination to control. But this stuff also seems to be treated as a regrettable necessity. All this is tragic and everyone who cares is kind of sad about it. As a result, Elrond's melancholy over modern Gondor, while mistaken on specific points, seems somewhat validated by the narrative framework.

For instance, in the description of the (100% heroic) people of Lebennin, we can see that element of reservation about modern Gondor with regard to race and racial mixing:

the most part of the people of Gondor lived in the seven circles of the City, or in the high vales of the mountain-borders, in Lossarnach, or further south in fair Lebennin with its five swift streams. There dwelt a hardy folk between the mountains and the sea. They were reckoned men of Gondor, yet their blood was mingled, and there were short and swarthy folk among them whose sires came more from the forgotten men who housed in the shadow of the hills in the Dark Years ere the coming of the kings. But beyond, in the great fief of Belfalas, dwelt Prince Imrahil in his castle of Dol Amroth by the sea, and he was of high blood, and his folk also, tall men and proud with sea-grey eyes.

And I think Aragorn and his royal purebloodedness are deeply bound up in this. To an extent, this framework also validates the Northern Dúnedain's prioritization of Númenórean purity above all else. The negative extreme of their position is mediated through Gondor (in the Kinstrife) and then (~sadly but necessarily) becomes less of a priority over time. Thus Gondor survives through "hard" choices like "sustaining the population through interracial marriage" and "including local indigenous people as full citizens." So there's still a substantial polity left for the ultimate result of the Northern Dúnedain's blood purity—Aragorn—to rule over and "restore". But the Northern Dúnedain themselves don't have to compromise their valuation of purity for this to occur, and in fact, the purity they so carefully maintained in the royal line only makes it all the more natural for Aragorn to rule over the racially and culturally "impure" Gondorians and to forge their nation into a new, kinder and gentler(...) empire.

Further tangent: It's unsurprising that Tolkien struggled a bit with figuring out who would be suitable for Aragorn to marry and thus whose blood would mingle with his into the next generation. If I recall correctly, Arwen was created pretty specifically to be Aragorn's queen and to reinforce his bloodline (this was done in a fairly evocative way, but still). I do get why Tolkien felt Éowyn was too young etc for Aragorn, and I prefer Faramir/Éowyn by a mile, but I am not convinced that Éowyn's "lesser" racial status (in-world) was not also part of the calculus.

Anyway, I guess Aragorn's rule is the intended compromise between Faramir's explicit "a king would be nice but not dominating other people" and the various awful imperial legacies at play. But it feels to me like the suggestion here is that the problem is doing empire wrong rather than doing empire at all.

I do think that Tolkien had pretty messy feelings about this and you can see him trying to complicate various aspects in some of his post-LOTR writings. LOTR frames early Númenórean imperialism as uncomplicated benevolence towards, I think he said, "lesser" races of men; over a very long time, their dominance in Middle-earth becomes corrupted and nightmarish. But by "The Mariner's Wife," it's evident that their involvement was morally compromised and horrific from day 1, yet Tolkien also tries to complicate that with Aldarion's mixed motives (partly it's straightforward empire-building for its own sake, but partly he's trying to prepare for a very real threat and Ancalimë's refusal to continue his policies in Middle-earth is not exactly bad but certainly not good). Tolkien even argues in Peoples of Middle-earth that the High Men/Middle Men/Wild (or Dark!) Men distinction in LOTR is entirely about cultural affinity for "The West" rather than race as such (I doubt this was quite the intention in LOTR itself), and moreover adds that plenty of people had pretty good reasons for cultural opposition to "The West" because of devastation previously wreaked by Western powers like Númenor. (The subtext is not subtle.)

But I think there's always this partly-aesthetic, partly just racist appeal of the "good" empire ruled by a(n ideally pureblooded & superior) racial elite for him, alongside his ever-increasing skepticism about what this entails and what it can lead to and if it will inevitably be corrupted and how that interacts with (in his view) the intrinsically fallen nature of humanity. So it's a mess and there are these points of reservation and skepticism and outright criticism of things like racism and empire and the interrelationship between them embedded within his work that can give us some room to maneuver, I guess? But the overarching trends voiced by characters like Elrond and Aragorn are still really present and unavoidable.

Current Location: Washington
Current Music: Funny How Love Is (Queen)

An anon asked:

More HEARTCANON/SOULCANON/any canon about Gondor please! Or, related: do you think Faramir ever regretted recognizing Aragorn as king of Gondor? Did Aragorn ever have second thoughts about the guy he appointed steward?

I replied:

Oh, interesting!

My default inclination is to say no, because of the mystical element of those initial recognitions. It’s not a rational evaluation of each other’s abilities/qualities so much as a sense of basic identity.

Faramir doesn’t recognize Aragorn as king because he thinks through it and decides Aragorn has the qualities of a good king, but because after the healing, he feels in his soul that Aragorn is the king in some essential way. Aragorn’s entire conduct towards Faramir inclines me to think that he sees Faramir as the rightful Steward, has a sense of Faramir’s being that he (Aragorn) respects, and—as far as Faramir is concerned—never considers acting in any way other than he did. I don’t think either would have regrets in the sense of wishing he had made different choices; they couldn’t have made different choices, ethically.

That said, there’s a fairly major issue that seems (IMO) like it would have to come up: the disparity between their visions for Gondor.

Faramir famously says in TTT, well before meeting Aragorn:

I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as a queen among other queens: not a mistress of many slaves, nay, not even a kind mistress of willing slaves. 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.

He would like to have a proper king again (“the Silver Crown return”). But the rest of the quote is about his vision for a then-theoretical renewed Gondor, and repeatedly returns to the point of avoiding domination and fear.

Meanwhile, what actually happens:

All men that had allied themselves with Sauron were slain or subjugated. (POME)

Gondor [was] soon to be of imperial power and prestige… I did not, naturally, go into details about the way in which Aragorn, as King of Gondor, would govern the realm. But it was made clear that there was much fighting and in the earlier years of A.’s reign expeditions against enemies in the East. (Letters)

And wherever King Elessar went with war King Éomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhûn and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the cavalry of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Éomer grew old. (LOTR)

At some point Aragorn “granted mercy and peace” to Mordor’s traditional allies once he became their overlord, which is—well, Tolkien’s description of Aragorn’s Gondor as “imperial” seems very accurate.

I’ve wondered for a long time about the reason for the gap between Faramir’s ideal and Aragorn’s reality, and I have some scattered ideas that aren’t really relevant, but in-story: how would Faramir respond? As Steward, he is Aragorn’s chief advisor and regent. Even if what happens looks less stark and more complicated from the inside, even if I squint, it’s hard to see Faramir being 100% rah-rah-rah onboard with all this.

Would he make actual trouble over it? Canonically, it’s hard to see anything very disruptive happening, but at the same time, I don’t see their relationship as always one of perfect harmony. If there ever is major trouble between Faramir and Aragorn, this is certainly where I see it cropping up. But whether that would extend so far as wishing they’d chosen different people …? I’m not sure. Even with all my reservations, it’s hard to see it going that far.

[ETA: 3/8/2024: this was a #de las bóvedas post.]

Current Location: Washington
Current Music: Try (P!nk)

Inspired by a Twitter conversation:

One of the more important things about the material around Aldarion and Erendis is that it destroys the idea that the early stage of Númenórean imperialism was purely benevolent.

Like—Erendis may be ~~rightfully~~ bitter, but she is 100% right about sexism and war (certainly no one is able to offer a rebuttal, and her denunciation foreshadows where it’s going to lead). Tolkien says of Aldarion’s actions in Middle-earth:

The changes that followed were largely due to the operations of Tar-Aldarion, the Mariner-king, who formed a friendship and alliance with Gil-galad. Aldarion had a great hunger for timber desiring to make Númenor into a great naval power … [and i]n voyages down the coasts he saw with wonder the great forests, and he chose the estuary of the Gwathló for the site of a new haven entirely under Númenórean control. …[T]he native folk that survived fled from Minhiriath … The devastation wrought by the Númenóreans was incalculable.

That’s not “if you read between the lines you can see—” That’s The devastation wrought by the Númenóreans was incalculable, right there. It got very much worse later on, but at no stage was it harmless.