Now I know I might get flack for this. After all, J.R.R. Tolkien's work is well known for having very few female characters and for the basic assumption that most everyone is white. But at the same time I would ask them, why should it matter? You're here to read an epic tale of friendship and loyalty, of epic battles and humble folk. What does it matter if they are male or female or whether they are white or not. I am aware many might take offense at that and insist that it does matter.

Well I suppose if it matters so much to them, I will point out that despite not having the characters of the right "gender" or "race," all of Tolkien's work is very progressive in its values and even some of the characters.

1. Diversity

When it comes to the characters and cultures of Lord of the Rings, you'll find it to be doused with white people and Western European culture. And to be honest, that's great.

You need to realize what Tolkien originally set out to do with his books. Being a rather large nerd himself, Tolkien was obsessed with mythology and what we would call "fairy tales," but was disappointed to find there wasn't a "British" mythology. Of course the Celts had a rich mythology but it wasn't "British" per se. There was Robin Hood, but he was always viewed as more of a historic hero of the people, rather than a mythological story. Many other myths that were perhaps considered "British" were actually brought to the island from nearby areas. Beowulf was Scandinavian; King Arthur was French.

So Tolkien decided he would make a modern mythos for the home he loved. And it is because of this that you find Aragorn isn't a cool Shaft-like character and Gandalf isn't a wizened sensei, much like you wouldn't find a Roman centurion in Romance of the Three Kingdoms or a Native American guide in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It simply is based on a culture and does not need to pander to others.

As for the blatant "racism" people see in Lord of the Rings, I see no truth in their arguments. Sure, the humans that fight for the Dark Lord are called Easterlings who ride elephants and live in desert environments. To that I say, what do you mean it is racist? Because you might attribute them to the people of the Middle East? But that's you doing that isn't? Tolkien himself said Lord of the Rings shouldn't be read as an analogy because it is a myth. These are fictional people who stand for themselves and no others. Even if they are, so what? By the end, peace has been made between Gondor and the Easterlings, and relations are improved with the fall of the dominating Dark Lord.

It should also be taken into account that one of the overall lessons in the story is that diverse cultures are good. Sauron, the Dark Lord, seeks to overwhelm the world with his monolithic way of life in service to him, while the Free Peoples battle against him in an effort to retain their identities.

2. Women in the Story

The number of major female characters in the main book series can be counted on one hand, it is true. But each is so their own that they are immediately recognizable. So we are gonna take each one and focus on their qualities.

First we have Arwen, the archetypal princess for whom the hero must fight. A closer look grants a better look at her actual character. Arwen is the Evenstar of her people, the last gasp of the beauty of the elves, but at the same time she is of the Half-Elven line and has the choice whether to live forever or accept the Gift of Man, death. And it is this great decision that she uses to drive the man she loves to do what must be done.

At the beginning of Lord of the Rings, Aragorn does not want to become King of Gondor. If he had his way, he would probably just have a small house in Bree and live quietly with Arwen. But Arwen is almost what counts for royalty in the culture of the elves, and only a King would be a fit husband for her. Arwen knows this, and also knows that Gondor needs a King to unite the realms of men to defend against the onslaught of Mordor. Damsel in distress? More like cunning hero.

Next we have the wise Lady Galadriel, who momentarily takes the role of Gandalf when the Fellowship reaches Lothlorien. An ancient elf queen, she gives Frodo the guidance he needs when he needs it most. She shows him the necessity of seeing his mission through and also refuses the temptation of the ring, which looking at her lineage, is very surprising: Galadriel's uncle went on a mad hunt in an effort to retrieve his precious gems; her cousins killed their own kin for said gems. She even abandoned the paradise gifted to her by the gods, in favor of coming to Middle Earth to make a kingdom of her own domain. She isn't some faultless goddess, she is a person who has made her own mistakes, learned from them, and passed on the knowledge she has gained to those who need it most.

And finally Eowyn, the badass shieldmaiden of Rohan. Many criticize how Tolkien takes her from being a warrior to a married woman more concerned with healing, but I fail to see how this diminishes her character. She is only a warrior when war makes it necessary. What use does peace-time have for a warrior? Eowyn is wise enough to know this and realizes that healing is just as important in peace as killing is in war. She loses her cold, suicidal outlook she has when we meet her and it is replaced with a hopeful worldview.

3. Lessons

Lord of the Rings has many lessons to be learned and all of them in my opinion have value. Friendship, loyalty, determination, dedication, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and sacrifice are all given time in this epic tale. But the one I would focus on with the idea of diversity is the idea that no one in Lord of the Rings is inherently evil. Even the orcs, a race which loves to pillage and murder, started out as elves, tortured by the first Dark Lord, and distorted into the creatures they are now. Even in their orc form, they are not conquerors. Without the influence of Sauron, they would hide in the mountains and not march in force. Despite being vicious, they are still cowards.

Even Sauron and the First Dark Lord, Morgoth, started out as "angels" who wanted to do things their own way. They didn't intend to cause mayhem and misery, but it came across as part of their consequences.

Tolkien insists that people are not born wicked, but often have it thrust upon them. And I find this to be quite prevalent in our world where any who disagree with us are immediately labeled as wrong and bad.

4. Conclusion

If you have stuck around this long, I gotta give you props. I realize I can ramble when it comes to one of my favorite book series of all time, but I feel like these things need to be realized to truly give Tolkien the credit he is due. Tolkien isn't perfect, but to call his work regressive and a relic of a bygone era is to ignore his true contributions to the genre.

And that is a fact worth acknowledging.