On Orcs and Cultural Genocide

So Nine does not simply insist that the collective in question adds material and symbolic value to the land and is in turn shaped by its ways of dealing with the land. While land-use patterns are important, what matters is that these land-use patterns are geared towards the establishment of just communities. To illustrate, in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, the evil Orcs build a sophisticated underground system of dungeons and mines in preparation for future misdeeds. When the Ents (tree-like beings that keep the forest) flood and thereby destroy these structures during the Battle of Isengard, they are disrupting established land-use patterns. But since the Orcs did not build this system to advance justice, no loss of moral value occurs.--From this review by Mathias Risse of Cara Nine, Global Justice and Territory.

 From Risse's description it is not entirely clear if the example is in Nine's book (a quick search suggests not). Let's stipulate (a) that the Ents waged a just war in self-defense and (b) that as a matter of fact the Orcs' land-use patterns do not advance justice (regardless of the Orcs' views on such matters). I am, however, troubled by the final claim that "no loss of moral value occurs." For it seems that cultural genocide is endorsed in the example. (Quite a few, unnarmed Orc laborers also die--most of the Orc warriors of Saruman were fighting elsewhere.) Here are three reasons for concern: first, we should not be blind to Tolkien's racialized stereotypes--the Orcs are dark-skinned 'others.'

Second, there are considerable gaps between (i) not-advancing toward justice and (ii) not having any moral worth. Even if Tolkien thought that the Orcs were pure evil, why should we embrace his manichean world-view? Given that Orcs placed some value on Orc-life (even treating non-Orcs with their medical art), it seems dubious to think there are no moral qualities among the Orcs. 

Finally, we should, in general, be cautious about endorsing a high level moral principle that is indirectly permissive toward cultural genocide. For even if particular instances may be justified on other grounds, we would want our political framework to have a bias against it. Even if "the master value is justice," this value can be constrained by other values. My bias is just enlightened self-interest: if exhibiting patterns of land-use that not advance toward justice is a condition that can undermine the "territorial rights" that "can be legitimately claimed," and that, therefore, these territorial (purported) rights can legitimately be taken away by stronger outsiders, what stops this principle from justifying all kinds of humanitarian-imperialist actions?