This is a good summary of why it's always extremely confusing when people tries to draw a direct comparison and imply the "Drows are painted as bad because they are mean to represent African people, so their existence should be offensive for people of African lineage".
No, they are not, so no it shouldn't be, rationally speaking.
Thanks! Agreed.
P.S. On the topic of "binary division between good and evil" and how "it all began with Tolkien" according to some people, it's somewhat important to stress for context that Tolkien's narrative didn't lack "nuance" out of naivety, but out of a deliberate stylistic choice.
I think Tolkein, despite his denials, did have a moral message to deliver. I think his denials were product of trying to distinguish himself from C.S. Lewis and to get from the whole Tom Bombadil controversy.
For Tolkein, evil is the corruption of the good. And he locates the origins of this corruption in two human failings: fear of death and fear of change. Saruman is corrupted because he fears his own death. If the new age, the age of men, comes to pass Saruman's immortality will fade. So he holds on to life even as his efforts destroy all that makes life worth living.
I think he, as a small c conservative, was speaking to his fellow conservatives urging them to caution. The rise and rule of the hobbits is not something to resist . . . I think he, as a patriot, was trying to find a new story to shore up the value of kings and queens . . .
There are layers to Tolkein that are lost if we lose the "inherent"
TL;DR Tolkein was sophisticated think. A belief in essence doesn't mean your thought less sophisticated.
