Race in REH and Tolkien: A Brief Comparison

Lars Walker has a review of several works by Robert E. Howard related to his character Solomon Kane. It's a review generally pleased with the subject, but he offers a cautionary note about the handling of race:
Something should probably be said about Howard's handling of race. Solomon Kane is not hostile to the black people he encounters. In fact he often acts as their protector, flying into volcanic rage over injustices and violence visited upon them. But he is patronizing in the extreme. The author's view seems to be that Africans are a lower evolutionary form of human being, soon destined for extinction, and that it's the duty of superior whites to look after them.
It might be interesting to compare his handling of the race issue here with the way it is handled in his Conan books, and to contrast how it is handled in Tolkien. Clearly REH was excited by the idea of race as an explanation for cultural differences -- so, it should be said, was almost everyone of a scientific mindset in the early 20th century. The world of Conan reads almost like an attempt to catalog the legitimate races in REH's opinion, and show how their racial characteristics persist over tens of thousands of years.

And so you get (as you do in Tolkien, for reasons he manages to slide out of a race-based concept) a notion of High Men, Middle Men, and Low Men. But whereas Tolkien assumes a kind of basic human nature to which the High Men are always falling, but to which the Low Men might aspire, REH thinks the categories are permanent. Conan is a barbarian but a High Man because his blood is of ancient Atlantis. Tolkien's High Men (also of an island kingdom, Numenor) are High because of their friendship with the elves: only a very few of them have any admixture of actual elvish blood. Their fall -- expressed in terms of a loss of physical height, and length of years, but also in terms of a collapse of knowledge -- is cultural, resulting from a turning away from the elves (who, in turn, are High or Low depending on their friendship with the next highest rank in the Chain of Being, the Ainur, better known as Maiar or, in the case of the higher ones, Valar).

Another way of expressing this would be to say that, in Tolkien, you can rise or fall through friendship: and not just any friendship, but a kind of hierarchical friendship with those who stand in a closer relationship to the divine. When that friendship fails -- and it is friendship, a kind of love, even though one side is meant to guide and the other to be guided in how to actualize the divine order -- the fall occurs. And they have fallen farthest who have fallen under the dominion of Melkor, or later Sauron, powers that utterly reject and defy the divine order. These are sometimes (but far from always, and in fact not usually) black men "from Far Harad." There aren't any counterexamples of "good" black men in Tolkien, but one suspects there might have been: his literary structure is such that they should have improved or fallen on the same terms as others.

That contrasts sharply with REH's vision, but it is worth noticing that REH's vision isn't "evolution," either. There isn't any substantial evolution going on in the races he envisions. The ones that Conan encounters in his analog to sub-Saharan Africa are exactly the same as REH's worst ideas about the blacks down the road in his modern South (who appear in a collection of American stories, in which they are similarly more bestial, and more easily swayed by the darker powers and aspects of human nature than those descended from what REH calls, in his poem about King Kull, "high Atlantis").

Yet friendship is possible, though it brings no benefits to either party. Conan is a great friend to one of the black kings, so much so that they rule for a while together as brother kings of a tribe. In the end, though, the pull of the darker powers of the universe sways the people out from under both of them, so that his brother-king is murdered by his own people and Conan nearly so.

So I don't take REH's view to be that blacks are "a lower evolutionary form of human being," but rather a lower form per se. He believes that race is real, and as immutable by evolution as by any other process.

He still believes that it is possible to be unjust to them, or to befriend them (though it remains perilous to be close to them). It's a permanent condition, a feature of the world that a million years will never change. That's a pessimistic view, neither scientific nor religious, but one he levered for its literary force.

"This Is Aspirational."

Once upon a time, the Atlanta Police Department explained that their motto "Answer the Call!" didn't actually mean that they intended to answer your calls.
[Director Kelly of the APD's foundation] said it didn't help matters when a person was told by a 911 operator to quit calling to report shooting because the caller rang in too much.

"This is aspirational," Kelly said. "The Police Department doesn't want this problem to be there forever. They want to solve that problem."
So when we said 'this is going to be just like Amazon or Travelocity,' well... this is aspirational, don't you see?



Of course, aspirational usually means 'having to do with audible breath that accompanies or comprises a speech sound.'

Who could have foreseen it?

Imagine for a moment we had a press that was reporting on controversial issues. Here's an exchange in 2009 between an Obamacare shill and a skeptical member of Congress:
REP. PRICE: You also mentioned, as other folks have, that the president's goal -- and it's reiterated over and over and over -- that if you like your current plan or if you like your current doctor, you can keep them. Do you know where that is in the bill? 
MS. ROMER: Absolutely. And things like the employer mandate is part of making sure that large employers that today -- the vast majority of them do provide health insurance. One of the things that's -- 
REP. PRICE: I'm asking about if an individual likes their current plan and maybe they don't get it through their employer and maybe in fact their plan doesn't comply with every parameter of the current draft bill, how are they going to be able to keep that? 
MS. ROMER: So the president is fundamentally talking about maintaining what's good about the system that we have. And -- 
REP. PRICE: That's not my question. 
MS. ROMER: One of the things that he has been saying is, for example, you may like your plan and one of the things we may do is slow the growth rate of the cost of your plan, right? So that's something that is not only -- 
REP. PRICE: The question is whether or not patients are going to be able to keep their plan if they like it. What if, for example, there's an employer out there -- and you've said that if the employers that already provide health insurance, health coverage for their employees, that they'll be just fine, right? What if the policy that those employees and that employer like and provide for their employees doesn't comply with the specifics of the bill? Will they be able to keep that one? 
MS. ROMER: So certainly my understanding -- and I won't pretend to be an expert in the bill -- but certainly I think what's being planned is, for example, for plans in the exchange to have a minimum level of benefits. 
REP. PRICE: So if I were to tell you that in the bill it says that if a plan doesn't comply with the specifics that are outlined in the bill that that employer's going to have to move to the -- to a different plan within five years -- would you -- would that be unusual, or would that seem outrageous to you? 
MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing is, what kind of changes are we talking about? The president was saying he wanted the American people to know that fundamentally if you like what you have it will still be there. 
REP. PRICE: What if you like what you have, Dr. Romer, though, and it doesn't fit with the definition in the bill? My reading of the bill is that you can't keep that. 
MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing -- the bill is talking about setting a minimum standard of what can count -- 
REP. PRICE: So it's possible that you may like what you have, but you may not be able to keep it? Right? 
MS. ROMER: We'd have -- I'd have to look at the specifics.

This promise he'll keep

"If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes."  That's the way you solve conflict when you're a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  Iran won't exactly freeze its enrichment program, but it will potentially stop accelerating the rate of its production, if it feels like it, after we lift sanctions.  Such a deal!

As Ace noted recently, the President really is earning that Prize:  this lunacy has induced Israel and Saudi Arabia to work together.  He's even stirred up France, which has vivid memories of the last time it tried to get Israel to swallow a mortal threat while making ineffectual, scrabbling motions in the direction of controlling anti-semitic madness in the Middle East.  In 1967, when it was Israel's chief military supplier, France threatened to cut off the pipeline if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike.  Israel thought about it, then decided not to commit suicide, many of its people having vivid memories of the last time they failed to fight back before it was too late.  These days, France knows that wagging its finger at Israel isn't going to cut any ice as long as that country is under existential threat.  Israel is not in the habit of making idle threats about its self-preservation.

Credibility trickle-down

You can't get low-information voters to pay attention to much detail, but you can create a mood of powerful skepticism if you screw the pooch often enough.  A small-town Pennsylvania mayor found that out when he lost his seat to a candidate who didn't think much of his support for Mayor Bloomberg nationwide anti-gun crusade:
“Look, people outside of Washington look at all of the spying with the NSA and problems with the IRS they see coming out of D.C., and they just don't trust the government,” he said.  “I understand that, they just don't want any more interference.”

261-157

The House approved the Upton (R) version of "Keep Your Plan" by a solid but not veto-proof majority, 261 to 157.  Thirty-nine Democrats defied their party leadership's complaint that enforcing the President's 99%-true promise was tantamount to repealing Obamacare.

For those keeping tracks of proposals:

Upton (R-House):  Everyone is eligible to sign up for a grandfathered plan for a year, regardless of whether they previously had such a plan, if insurers agree.

Landrieu (D-Senate):  Everyone enrolled in a grandfathered plan by October 1, 2013, can keep it until the last customer drops out of the plan, regardless of whether insurers agree.

Obama (by executive fiat):  Everyone currently enrolled in a grandfathered plan can keep it for a year unless he says otherwise at any point by executive fiat, if insurers agree.  Obama also has announced he would veto the Upton bill.  Not that it matters, since it's hard to imagine that Harry Reid will let either the Upton bill or the Landrieu bill come to the floor of the Senate under any circumstances.

How Many Historians Does It Take To Screw In A Lightbulb?

A peer-reviewed account.

Happiness in the Book

On reading as a form of happiness. And of course it should be, because we know from Aristotle that happiness is an activity. If the readings lift your heart and mind into active engagement with heroic qualities, of course it ought to make you happy.

Unless The Enemy Has Studied His Agrippa...

...which he has.

Now you can too!

The Fall of NĂºmenor

Unlike the legendary kingdoms of NĂºmenor or Atlantis, this was a slow and quiet fall:
Doggerland, a huge area of dry land that stretched from Scotland to Denmark was slowly submerged by water between 18,000 BC and 5,500 BC. Divers from oil companies have found remains of a 'drowned world' with a population of tens of thousands - which might once have been the 'real heartland' of Europe.

Letting Joe Say No, Or, Shouldn't All Soldiers Be More Like 'Chelsea' Manning?

An author at the Boston Review suggests that members of the all-volunteer force should be allowed to opt-out of wars on an individual basis.

The proposal is completely impractical, for reasons I assume I don't have to explain to this audience. What's more interesting are the responses, of which there are quite a few, including this one by West Point's senior military philosopher.

First do no harm

From Thomas Sowell, that lovely thinker:
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear:  “But what would you replace it with?”  When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Keeping Your Plan -- Update

While it's true that it's pretty late to expect insurance companies to reverse course on policy cancellations that have been in the works for months if not years, it's also true that in a crisis, motivated people can find a way through the red tape:
It’s worth noting the California insurance commissioner is forcing two insurers to reverse cancellations for hundreds of thousands of individual market plan enrollees, and the insurers are reluctantly complying to keep people in their plans beyond January 1.  In that case, operational issues were not impossible to overcome. 
Insurers respond by noting that it generally takes months to have insurance regulators approve their rates before offering plans in the marketplace.  While true, that does not mean that the regulators would not act much more quickly in a crisis.  Indeed, there should be no doubt that, if the Upton legislation were to become law, there would be great pressure on the state regulators and the insurance industry to do whatever it takes to keep these plans open.  The same political firestorm that is propelling the Upton legislation through Congress would force the states and insurers to be responsive also to the plight of the enrollees in the cancelled plans.
It's amazing what can get done if the insurance regulators want it to happen.

Must be doing something right

Jonah Goldberg indulges in a big dollop of schadenfreude today, observing that the Obamacare website couldn't be more like the "third-world experience" Henry Chao was desperate to avoid if it required customers to pay in chickens.  The exchange, as he says, rolled out "like a piano into a peat bog."

But that's just the chattering classes who live on the Internet.  What is the man on the street hearing about all this?  It was interesting to listen to a neighbor at dinner the other night describe the reaction of the workers at his small construction company, whose excellent healthcare policy is being taken off the market.  They weren't sure exactly what was going on, but every single one of them had gotten the news that the President lied to them about keeping their plans.

Turning now to the fever-swamp perspective, a cri de coeur from a Firedog Lake commenter who's evidently been accustomed to serve as an opinion leader on the jobsite:
This polling makes me sick!  Yesterday in the lunchroom, I was subjected to a bunch of moronic gibberish about how “I just wish the teabaggers would shut the damn government down permanently and let us govern ourselves at the State level”. 
I tried to talk some sense into these ‘people’, but all I got was a dozen or so neanderthals looking at me as if I, rather than they, were a lunatic. 
The Federal Family has been trying so hard to establish a truly fair and equitable society and yet the filthy and maniacal millionaires and billionaires who control the ‘media’ on behalf of the corporations continue to spew forth all these absurd lies cooked up by the “vast rightwing conspiracy” which so pervade our society. 
I’m sick of it! Apparently the same damn thing is happening all over the world! The ultra extreme far right just messes up EVERYTHING! 
I’ve got to go now, I can feel another onslaught of agonizing cognitive dissonance coming on.  I certainly hope that once Obamacare becomes effective, I can see a doctor, any doctor who will prescribe a medication that will stop this D*MN cognitive dissonance …  IT’S MAKING ME SICK!

Causality & The Lord of the Rings

Who killed the Witch-King of Angmar?

I couldn't stand the first movie, so I never saw the others. Jackson's infatuation with the modern is a wedge between him and Tolkien. I am therefore not surprised to see his error in this clip, which misstates entirely the events at the death of the Witch-King.



Éowyn is here represented as killing the Witch-King, with the hobbit as a kind of supporting actor -- distracting him with a little back-stab. You get the effect with the strange 'pulse' that flies from the Nazgûl when he is struck by Éowyn. Just the opposite is what Tolkien intended.

"[Meriadoc the hobbit] brushed away the tears, and stooped to pick up the green shield that Éowyn had given him, and he slung it at his back. Then he looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the DĂºnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

So the blow that should have sent the 'pulse,' if pulse there should have been, was Meriadoc's. It was the hobbit, the small man who bore the sword he was never expected to bear, who struck the fatal and unexpected blow. He cut the web of spells, fashioned long before him by mighty ones who did not bother to take his kind into their reckoning.

Here as elsewhere, this is a theme of Tolkien's. The Hobbits are small people, unexpected, whom the great and the powerful fail to take into their accounts. Yet again and again, they are the tools of a greater artisan.

The magic of self-pay

I tried something new at a doctor's office today.  I'm trying out a new GP in a nearby community, someone with great patient ratings.  I went to see him today, not because I needed anything, but to put myself in his office system so that if I do need something, there's some chance of my getting an appointment before I die of whatever it is.  My more local doctor never seems to be available any more in an emergency.  Though I can generally get in to see a P.A. on a same-day basis, and his P.A.'s are very nice, they haven't had much of a track record in the last couple of years diagnosing anything usefully.  So I'll see how things go with the new guy.

The really new thing is that I told the office staff to treat me as self-pay.  I told them I have insurance, but I'm not going to burden you with the knowledge of who it is, so you won't have to worry about whether you're complying with your contract.  Just tell me what the prices of things are going to pay, and I'll pay you cash.  If I get remotely close to my deductible, I'll gather up my bills and send them in and see whether my insurance company will acknowledge them, but you don't ever have to fool with that part of it.

Like magic, for the first time I can remember, I got a prompt and unequivocal answer to my question "How much is this visit costing?"  It was a very reasonable fee, which I paid on the spot by check.  The doctor recommended a standard blood panel, which would cost about $400 if I went through Blue Cross, but will cost only $84 if I self-pay.  In the past, I've had similar blood panels done through a doctor's office to whom I had incautiously confessed my affiliation with Blue Cross.  Suddenly it became "illegal" for them to treat me as self-pay, even though I'm going to pay in cash, because (as always) I'm nowhere near my deductible.  Apparently the only way out of this trap is never to tell them you're insured in the first place.  Some offices won't take you as a new patient on that basis.  They aren't likely to get my business.  What do you guys want from me?  A cash retainer to prove I won't stiff you on my bills?

I'm faintly hopeful that, as more people are shoved into the new style of mandatory health plan with very high deductibles, they will begin to approach things my way, so we'll see more of a transparent, cash-basis market at least for ordinary stuff like exams and blood tests.

The doctor seemed sensible, had practical advice to offer about various minor ailments, and didn't pester me with any questions about spousal abuse or guns in the home.  It was such a rational and worthwhile experience that I got through the whole thing without exploding with rage about Obamacare!

On that subject, though, here is the latest thinking from the President's apologists:  When he told us we could keep our plans, that was 99% true, and it was shockingly unfair to make a fuss about the tiny, unimportant sense in which that was a  lie.  The people who aren't getting to keep their plans are an insignificant sliver of the marketplace, most of whom aren't even going to see their premiums go up, so don't believe what you read.  Besides, the old plans are terrible; nobody in his right mind would keep them if he were offered something better.  But when we ask the President to support bills in Congress to ensure that we'll keep our plans, it turns out that letting us do that would be a dagger at the very heart of Obamacare.  If even a minuscule fraction of the market doesn't sign up for the new plans, the entire creaky edifice will crash and burn.   And it won't be a few customers, it will be a stampede, because almost everyone will want to keep his old bad plan instead of taking the priceless gift of the wonderful new plans.  Also, although the financial harm suffered by this inconsequential backwater of the market, just a few Americans, 15 million tops, is hardly worth mentioning, the fact remains that denying this stupendous influx of revenue to the grand nationwide Obamacare experiment will starve it of its lifeblood and leave the brilliant social experiment in smoking ruins.

Looking Glass World

Where the authorities have all the time in the world for trivia and none for anything that matters.

Update:  link fixed!

"Do You Got"?

I realize it's the smallest thing wrong with this, but somehow it seems to tie it all together.

The Center

From Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt, some statistics from a recent Esquire survey of the political "center," which is looking pretty conservative.  Affirmative action:  57% oppose it in hiring decisions and college admissions; 19% support it.  Amnesty:  54% oppose a path to citizenship for those who have come to the country illegally; 32% support it.  Voter fraud:  75% support requiring photo ID to cast a vote; 15% oppose.  Abortion on demand:  38% support it, but only in the first trimester; 29% would limit it to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother; 12% support abortion on demand through all 40 weeks.  Personal accountability:  78% said the bigger problem for the United States is people aren't accountable for their decisions and actions; 22% said that the bigger problem was "people aren't compassionate toward one another."  Federal budget:  77% support a Constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year; 11% oppose.

I can't link directly to this emailed newsletter, but you can go here to sign up for free delivery of future Morning Jolts.

A Little Music for Veterans Day

I like letting vets tell their own stories. Luke Stricklin served as an infantryman in Iraq, where he and a couple of buddies wrote this song.