Racism in Harry Potter; Owl Post: Harry Potter Beer Names
Seriously, I’m going to do a write-up on this one for those who don’t/can’t listen to the pubcast (Update: A short summary can be found under the “Pub Menu” by clicking on “more”). I’m on vacation this week (California, here I come!), so I should have time to do that. On the other hand, there will not likely be a pubcast next week as I don’t think I’ll have the resources to do it out there. Look for Part Two of this in a couple weeks.
Pub Menu:
- Random Beer Name Generator
- Karen Brodkin (Sacks) – How Jews Became White Folks and What that Says about Racism in America
- Unfortunately the specific Brodkin Sacks article and the King article I mentioned are not available through online sources. If you have access to JSTOR, you could get the Joyce E. King article on “Dysconscious Racism.”
Summary: There are obvious examples of racism in the Harry Potter series, most clearly seen in the pureblood/halfblood, wizard/muggle, and wizard/other magical brethren issues presented in the series. The most obvious examples of “racism” in Harry Potter come from folks like the Malfoys and other Death Eaters. It is this kind of racism that we can all look at and say, “I agree. That’s bad.”
Racism, however, is not ultimately about treating people differently based on their physical differences. In fact, not all people who are now considered “White” (in America) were “White” just a hundred years ago. At one point, it was only blond, Aryan whites that were considered to be superior to other races. What changed? Economic circumstances.
As such, we understand that race is something that is socially constructed, and its ultimate goal is power, privilege, and prosperity at the expense of those races that are considered “inferior” or are oppressed. And as racism is therefore about power and not simply about treating someone differently based on differing physical characteristics, racism becomes institutionalized, and therefore protected against deconstruction.
There are several examples of racism as power in the Harry Potter series. Think, for example, of Cornelius Fudge. When Dumbledore exhorts him to send envoys to the Giants at the end of Goblet of Fire, Fudge is appalled, because “people hate them…end of my career.”
We can see this also in the character of Slughorn, who only drops his racist tendencies when the muggleborn has the potential of being a person of influence; and in the way the laws against underage wizardry are enforced (see discussion in comments below).
The last example about enforcing underage magic represents something called “dysconscious racism” – an “uncritical habit of mind” that fails to take into account the privilege gained by the oppressors. For example, if a white person explains the failure of blacks in America to bridge the achievement gap by citing either the history of slavery or denial of equal opportunity, they have missed a significant portion – the lasting institutionalized social privilege granted to whites as a result of that oppression. (See Joyce E. King)
A person who is dysconsciously racist in principle hates racism and thinks it an evil thing. But until we realize our privileged status as a result of past (and present) oppressed, we remain racist, most often without realizing it, while hating racism in principle.
We can see this sort of thing in the Weasleys. Arthur, of course, has proposed the Muggle Protection Act, a key element in the fight against Wizard-Muggle racism; and clearly the Weasleys are treated badly for their class status (poor). Yet prejudices have been passed down through the Weasley family as evidenced by Ron’s frequent prejudicial statements against Giants, werewolves, and house-elves, and Molly’s desire to own a house-elf. We can see this sort of thing in Hagrid, who, though oppressed as a half-giant, carries his own prejudices as well.
As John Granger says, it seems that Dumbledore is the only one without prejudice.
As such, after a second episode discussing objections and observations based on this episode, we’ll examine Dumbledore’s take on eliminating prejudice and racism (especially as compared and contrasted with Hermione’s bombastic approach with S.P.E.W.).
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
The deep complexity Rowling weaves in her narrative, even to acknowledge such a subtle thing as disconscious racism, if she has developed these underpinnings in her characters intentionally, speaks to a profound thoughtfulness working in her as she practices her craft. If it is unintentional, which I do not think it is, it still highlights an enormous wealth of talent.
Your comments implicitly highlight the kinds of disconscious racism that exist in the church. I see a lot of church leaders, even some of myself, in your observations of Arthur Weasley. And recognize that Dumbledore’s assertions to Harry, that love trumps all and defeats this kind of racism, is indicative of Paul’s assertions to the Corinthians that love really is the most excellent way.
It’s too bad so many Christians miss out on this stuff.
Great cast, as always Trav. Have fun on vacation!
HI. I knew JKR had a lot to say on racism, but your podcast made it very clear. I agree that it’s a shame that Chrristians miss out on a lot of this stuff. As a blind person, I can identify with the topic of racism and I think it’s one of the reasons I identify so well with the Potterr series. I just discovered your pod casts and enjoy them emencely. I must say episode 15 on Laura what’s her name, made me laugh. Some of their claims are just funny!
I keep commenting before I have a chance to listen, but here goes…
I agree, prejudice (which is the broader heading racism falls under) is a big theme in J.K.s book.
I do wonder a bit if J.K. reflects some of her own unintentional predjudices into the story. All the main characters are white. Granted there are plenty of non-white secondary characters who are mostly portrayed well. But they are secondary.
There are interracial couplings, but they always fall apart. I was really excited when Harry’s first love interest was Asian. I grew to not like Cho so much, (because of her personality, not her race), and decided liking her just because she was Asian was racist in it’s own way.
Then there’s Ginny and Dean. I LOVE Dean. He’s nice and talented. I was really happy to see him and Ginny get together. I was more bothered by Ginny and Dean’s break up than Cho and Harry’s. Harry worries on and on about Ginny being “Ron’s sister” but never bats an eye about her being “Dean’s girl”. Now yes, Dean doesn’t own Ginny…but still Dean’s always been very supportive of Harry. And while Hermione tells him later than Dean and Ginny were “rocky”, to Harry’s view they were getting along well.
Last we have Fred and Angelina…an implied couple that I was hoping to see more of. But Angelina vanishes in book 6. Not a mention of what she’s up to.
I’m really hoping she pops back up in book 7 on Fred’s arm…
I’m not really criticizing J.K. I don’t think she’s intentionally trying to say anything. But yeah…I was heavily disappoint by book 6.
Sorry Carla, the race issue is dear to my heart too, but I’m afraid I think the suggestion that a writer should *make* the lead characters have inter-racial relationships and *make* them work out – in a book that is, after all, set in a British boarding school – is to suggest that overt political posturing and parable should take precedence over the story. I’m afraid I don’t agree.
The books do a great job of showing that it is the person and not their race that matters. They do it in a way that is subtle and engaging. Not like the blunt instrument you’re wishing JKR would beat us over the head with.
In my view the balance is exactly right. In interactions between the lead characters, race is simply irrelevant – in *either* direction – and that is as it should be. A non issue. If you have a problem with that then perhaps it is you that has a “thing” about race, rather than JKR.
Lets not reduce the books to an exercise in sloganeering or inverse-jingoism, however worthy the cause.
Travis, thank you for your thoughtful reflections on one of the deeper themes of the series – and one to which it is clear JKR has given a great deal of thought.
You comment near the end of the pubcast on the role of SPEW in relation to racism and I think it is worth noting that this is characterised as a well-intentioned but rather naive and overly simplistic campaign on the part of Hermione. In the books it is used as a device to reveal the more complex and entrenched nature of racism and oppression – even to the point where the oppressed have internalised their own self-perceptions of low status and actively promote it (Dobby – seemingly alone among all the house elves – wishes to be free, while Kreacher sides empatically with the racists).
Whilst Hermione’s youthful enthusiasms were ineffectual and, arguably, somewhat misdirected (she was in fact further disempowering and patronising the elves by taking it upon herself to champion a cause with which many of them did not wish to be associated), it nevertheless provides background against which the larger and more complex issue can emerge as the series progresses and its young characters acquire wisdom. Ie it is a useful literary device to provide a point of focus and an opportunity to show that things are *really* not that simple.
I think you are right to draw attention to racism as one of the key emerging themes of the series as a whole – and no doubt one of the key points around which book 7 will turn.
Hi. I think the relationships fell apart because that’s what happens with a lot of teen relationships not because of race. I thik the fact that no one seemed to have trouble with the interacial couples speaks for itself.
Just some thoughts.
seriously_black,
::nods:: Yeah it’s my *thing*. Please don’t think I’m calling JK a racist by any stretch. Two cases hardly make for a trend. I’m mainly putting out feelers to see if anyone has noticed this happening in other British shows/books like the recent Dr. Who.
Generally, I’d give JK five stars on portraying different races as well *people* rather than stereotypes. I have my B.S. in Mass Comm, so I just tend to over think these things.
And why would it be a blunt instrument simply to have Ginny and Dean stay together (okay at this point it would be a bit much, but if book 6 had gone differently)? Or Fred and Angelina for that matter? I mean it wasn’t a blunt instrument for them to date, so why would it be blunt for them to stay together?
Mary,
I agree with you. Particularly, when looked at as individual cases. Though, I am a tad disappointed in Harry for never once thinking about how Dean felt in the matter. He’s supposed to be his friend, after all…
Of course girls do make boys stupid sometimes…
Actually gonna comment on the Podcast now!
S.P.E.W. is an interesting animal. I think it’s shows a good side of Hermione that she cares about people unlike herself and hates oppression. But she shows her own brand of arguably-innocent “racism” by deciding what the house-elves need without trying to talk to them first.
Granted she’s young, and it’s natural to blunder through these things at first. But Hermione’s starts out as seeing the house-elves as “lesser beings” than need her protection. She’s kind to them, which is good, but they’re still “the little people…uneducated, brain washed, don’t know what they want…”
I was a little sad to see S.P.E.W. fade to the background in book 6, though I can understand why. I hope it crops up again for book 7…feels like there are somethings left unsaid on that subject.
I’m not sure we have enough evidence at this point in the series to definitively label the Ministry’s enforcement of the underage wizarding laws as “institutionalized racism.” There are a lot of questions still hanging out there:
* Does the Ministry punish children from wizarding and Muggle families equally if they are caught using magic away from home?
* Do wizard parents generally do a good job of controlling their children and obeying the law? Do they have a motivation to let their kids get away with breaking the law? Do they have a motivation to enforce the law?
* Do underage wizards have any real need to practice magic during the summer? (Hermione does alright for herself even though she seems the type to obey the law.)
* Do Muggle parents even want their wizard children practicing magic away from school before the kids are fully trained? We’ve seen a lot of incidents of youthful magic causing accidents that Muggle parents would be totally unequipped to deal with.
* Would allowing children who live in Muggle neighborhoods to do magic be equivalent to throwing the Statute of Secrecy out the window?
* Do underage wizards and their Muggle parents have any representation in the lawmaking bodies of the wizarding world?
* Has there been any debate about enforcement tactics within the wizarding community? Are the current tactics believed acceptable by all at the Ministry?
Don’t get me wrong– the whole system is definitely unfair. But is the unfairness racially motivated? Since half-blood children can get away with exactly as much as pureblood children, it doesn’t quite sync with the hierarchy of blood-status prejudice we see elsewhere in the books.
If the Ministry genuinely can’t detect magic to an accurate enough degree to punish children of wizard and Muggle parents equally, it is possible that this is a case of them just doing the best they can. Given the limits on the “technology” of magical detection, the only ways I can think of to make enforcement fair regardless of blood status would be to repeal the laws against underage magic entirely or to send a warning letter to every wizard of any age any time they did magic. Both of those seem impractical.
Whether or not the Ministry is capable of developing more accurate methods of underage magic detection and whether or not they’ve been dragging their feet on that research because Muggleborns are currently the only ones being unfairly accused… Well, I guess that’s a whole different set of questions.
Maya, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that muggleborns are necessarily being unfairly accused, but rather, that there is a law that is apparently *only enforceable* upon muggleborns, not on half-blood or pureblood wizarding children.
That is systemic discrimination, pure and simple. Laws and their enforcement should apply equally to all.
As Travis comments, the impact of this inequity is that muggleborn children do not get the same opportunities to learn and practice their magic skills. So it would be small wonder if some of them seem less capable.
I think that, given the way Rowling has portrayed the wizarding world, it’s clear that if any such inequity were to exist to the disadvantage of pure-blood wizards, it would not be tolerated for an instant. And therein you have a sufficient justification for the charge of institutionalized racism.
This is brilliant discussion, and I have to say that seriously_black has done a tremendous job answering much in the same way I would have to many of these comments. Here’s a quick drive-by reply:
Carla, there are actually essays in this published book that argue along the exact same lines: Rowling falls prey to racism and British imperialism. I’d respond along three lines:
1) Rowling is dealing with racism in her series through the “magical” world, not the race lines drawn in our world.
2) As such, seriously_black’s response is right on target.
3) It’s altogether possible Rowling has some racism issues even she doesn’t know about. But, though white, she (a) is a woman, and (b) was at one point a poor, single mother, so she knows what it’s like to be on the wrong side of political power plays for privilege and wealth.
Maya, if you don’t mind, I’m going to take up your response in an upcoming podcast. I’ll either put it in part 2 or I’ll make a part 3 (which I’m leaning towards, since discussion has been so good). I’ve gotten these objections before, and I’d like to address them at length, because I think they’re important things to consider.
Thanks, all, for the participation here. This is the kind of dialogue that should be happening about Harry Potter!
Re seriously_black’s comment:
I understand the argument Travis was making, I really do. My point is that the evidence in the books is not sufficient to flat-out say that racism is the root cause of this particular unfair policy. Maybe racism is part of it, maybe racism is none of it, maybe racism is all of it. But to say it’s definitely any of those is jumping to conclusions in areas where Rowling has never given us (and may never give us) information.
Further, we don’t have any indication in the books that the Muggleborns are put at any disadvantage by not being able to practice over the summer. I can’t recall the books ever mentioning any Muggleborn that had more trouble with their schoolwork than the other students. We don’t even have any indication that it’s common for wizard parents to allow their kids to “cheat” over summer. It would be nice to verify that the charge was true before making it.
As for no one “suggesting that muggleborns are necessarily being unfairly accused”– I don’t see how we can *not* suggest that, since it happened. That one’s actually a canon fact, and shouldn’t be discarded if we’re considering the problems involved in the Ministry’s policies.
And I’m all for equality, but I think you’re ignoring the facts as JKR has presented them if you say the way forward is as simple as “Laws and their enforcement should apply equally to all.” Of course they should! But how exactly is the Ministry supposed to achieve that equality in this case? I honestly can’t think of a completely fair way for them to handle this.
Do they repeal the underage magic laws and let all kids do magic whenever they want? That seems like a recipe for disaster as long as the Ministry is interested in keeping down the likelihood of magical accidents and the chance of the Statute of Secrecy being violated.
Do they send a warning letter to every house with an underage wizard every time magic is done? That would be a bureaucratic nightmare, and would dilute the effect of the warnings since the vast majority would be false alarms.
Do they keep the system exactly as it, even though the cases of Dobby’s pudding and the Riddle murders indicate serious problems?
None of the solutions are perfect, and that’s sadly realistic.
It’s easy to sit back and say, “That’s not fair, they shouldn’t do that.” But realizing social justice requires finding solutions as well.
One thing I would like to comment on is the parallel that I find between Hitler and Voldemort. It seems that Voldemort and the DE’s are biased against the things that their leader is (LV he is a half-blood and an orphan, just like Harry). Hitler was the same way, believing that the perfect race would be composed of people with blonde hair and blue eyes (makes one wonder if he ever owned a mirror in order to see that he certainly did not fit that description). I find it interesting that people find the flaws in other people that reflect their own.
I also think that Hermione is simply trying to be helpful with S.P.E.W. She, as a muggle, can’t possibly imagine how any creature would like serving others without pay or benefits. But she also shows us that the wizarding world, for the most part, is quite blind to it. There is definite mistreatment by some wizards, but no one really thinks too much of it. It really illustrates how much people “get used to” the suppression of other people. Sometimes an outside perspective is just what it takes to get things done. And I think book 7 will be a perfect opportunity for the houseleves to show everyone just how powerful they are, and what they are capable of.
Maya, the “way forward” is indeed simple.
If parental supervision is a sufficient level of “control” for pureblood and halfblood children then it is surely good enough for muggleborns as well.
The fact that Rowling has portrayed a wizarding world in which muggleborns are singled out for interventions which are not deemed necessary (nor even possible in practice) for others leads directly to the conclusion that she is describing a world of inequality.
We do not need to know all the many other attendant details about how else they might enforce such a law if in fact they wanted to, to be able to note that an inequity is implicit in the present provisions.
Gotta disagree, seriously_black. A muggle parent has no way to undo the magic their child has done should it go awry.
It’s not fair…but it’s one of those unfairs that’s a bit like it’s unfair that some people have more money than others. The sort of government measures it would take to fully level the playing field would probably cause more problems than they fixed.
Yeah, they could take up the kids’ wands over summer break, but then the kids could always get second wands. They could make school year round, but that would break down family structures. They could do away with the statute of secrecy, but that would invite a whole mess of other problems.
For *most* of the year the kids are on a level playing field. May be the best they can do in that instance.
You’re all getting to the key issues surrounding this debate. Here are my thoughts, many of which (and more) I’ll share in the next podcast.
Maya,
You wrote, But to say it’s definitely any of those is jumping to conclusions in areas where Rowling has never given us (and may never give us) information.
I don’t know. This eliminates a lot of discussion about the HP books. Rowling hasn’t spelled out every single thing about these books; she’s left it to us to flesh out the implications of things. So I disagree with the premise that we can’t draw conclusions on things Rowling hasn’t conclusively revealed.
You wrote, Further, we don’t have any indication in the books that the Muggleborns are put at any disadvantage by not being able to practice over the summer.
Oh, sure we do. It wasn’t specifically academic (for a grade), but Draco got to learn Occlumency over the Year 5 – Year 6 summer. Harry desperately needed to learn it, but couldn’t.
But how exactly is the Ministry supposed to achieve that equality in this case? I honestly can’t think of a completely fair way for them to handle this.
Carla echoed these sentiments as well. I appreciate this concern. But I don’t see seriously_black’s solution as being at all inadequate. Carla says that “A muggle parent has no way to undo the magic their child has done should it go awry.” But surely, if an owl can get to the house within minutes, a wizard can apparate there within minutes to undo any problem. There’s no reason that muggle parents can’t police their children just like wizarding parents…
…unless you instinctively distrust all muggles, which brings us back to the prejudiced nature for the law.
I agree, in principle, that the MoM as it presently exists doesn’t say, “We really hate muggleborns and want purebloods to do better, so we’ll make this law that only effects muggleborns.” (Depending on how long this law has been on the books, that may actually have been the original reason! But we don’t have enough to go on there.)
However, dysconscious racism is still racism. The one common aspect of this conversation is that everyone seems to agree the law is unfair to muggleborns. Or, put a different way: It automatically grants privilege to purebloods. As such, the law is “racist,” whether the present MoM intends it to be or not.
But we should not be too naive, either. Dumbledore flatly accused Fudge at the end of GoF of putting too much stock in “the so-called purity of blood.” The Top Dog at the MoM is clearly guilty of all the “racist” problems in the Wizarding World – Pureblood/Muggleborn, Wizard/Muggle, Wizard/Magical Brethren.
Carla wrote, They could do away with the statute of secrecy, but that would invite a whole mess of other problems. I think this is the ideal; I think this is ultimately what Dumbledore would want. The “statute of secrecy” is built on fear and prejudice, both ways between wizards and muggles. But this would take a whole lot of time and change.
Anyway, excellent and stimulating thoughts from all. Thanks for the discussion so far.
Travis,
You mention, in response to maya’s post, how Draco was advantaged by being able to learn occulmancy. I think that this fact is further supported by comments made by Slughorn. It seems to be apparent to Slughorn that “pureblood” students are generally more accademically successful than their muggleborn counterparts. When talking to Harry about Lily he says how he couldn’t believe how excellent a student she was for a muggle-born. To me, at least, is very suggestive of how unequal are the abilities of muggle-borns and pure-bloods WHEN STUDENTS. I’m sure that any muggle-born student can work hard and earn their OWL’s and NEWT’s… But it definately stacked against them.
Matt
Matt, I think that’s fair to say, yes. And that’s the point – whether we have any direct examples or not, the injustice still exists.
All: A few more thoughts (even on vacation, I get little time to actually join in these discussions!):
Certainly many wizarding families do enforce the laws – the Weasleys, for example. But the very fact that a law exists that is not and cannot be enforced on wizard-born students is severely problematic. Maya has done an excellent job highlighting the difficulties of finding an alternative. seriously_black has suggested one, which to me seems plausible, but which Carla thinks would be too difficult to enforce. Any further thoughts on that suggestion (that muggle parents of wizards be entrusted with the same responsibility as wizarding families)?
It makes me wonder about the magic that Harry did as a youngster (with NO wand, I might add); apparating onto the school roof, alohomora on certain doors, reducto? on the Boa’s cage barrier, metamorphagusing his hair???
I think it was Dumbledore that said that the location of the magic is all that the Ministry confirms, not the caster. So, is it only muggle houses that are monitored? If it is ok to do magic in a muggle schoolyard, why not in a muggle house?
Matt
Juat a quickie – a thought about the Underage magic restriction and why it is only enforced on Muggleborns. This came to me, I must confess, through thinking out a fanfic and also thinking more about young Tom Riddle. How do children usually learn rules and morality? When they are very young, it is a combination of a desire to emulate those they admire and fear of punishment. We may object to the fear portion; we may wish emulation alone would work, but the fear is there. Small children both fear and admire the adults they love. And those adults are able to enforce discipline, when necessary, by gently restraining kids, scolding them, withholding privileges – and so on. Methods vary (you’ll note I’m not even talking about physical punishment here.)
Now let’s look at little Tom Riddle. He discovered, early on, that he could do things no one else could do. He was more powerful, cleverer, and more capable than the adults around him, and no one could discipline him. We know what the results were.
Muggleborn children may have developed normally, unlike young Riddle. They may love and admire their parents and want to please them – but they can do many, many things their parents can’t. No muggle parent would be able to discipline a magical child who had learned “impedimenta” or “silencio” and was throwing those hexes around at home! The parent-child dynamic would be fundametally altered. This is obviously *not* the case in wizarding homes, or even homes of half-bloods, where at least one parent remains more able and powerful than the child until that child is at leat in their mid-teens.
So I don’t think this particular law is necessarily racist at all. On the contrary, it may be aimed at (1) keeping muggle family members safe from experimenting young wizards, (2) preserving a psychologically healthy family dynamic, and (3)keeping the young wizards from getting warped by having too much power, too soon.
Just my two cents!
Mary covered the point I was about to make and did it very elegantly.
Travis, I don’t distrust muggles anymore than I do people, but I do distrust people.
The ministry law is mainly a safety matter. Kinda like we don’t let kids under 18 drive (laws varying by area, etc.) without a liscensed drive riding with them. Someone who didn’t know how to drive would be a lot less help than someone who did, and a few minutes could be the difference between life and death (or exposure).
Also, on the owl arriving in minutes…keep in mind that Harry lives fairly close to London. A kid in Scotland or Ireland would take longer to reach. Also, Harry’s probably under closer watch than the average Muggleborn, and the Ministry was looking to trip him up at the time.
I’ve always found it curious that Hermione mentioned having tried spells (and had them work) the first time they met her on the train. Wonder if she earned herself a warning owl, or she knew to wait for the train ride before playing around…
Mary, Impedimenta and Silencio, Langlock and Petrificus Totalus etc are as effective against a pair of wizard parents as they are against muggle parents.
But magic aside, there are many instances in life when children have gifts that their parents don’t.
A highly intelligent child (for instance) may run rings around his/her less intelligent parents. No ministry edicts force such a child to stop using intelligence in the family home, or over the summer vacation. And yet the world has not gone into collapse.
I’m sorry, but I don’t find your arguments convincing.
Travis, feel free to delete any double or triple posts that show up from me. Something odd is going on, and I can’t tell if my messages are actually posting.
Okay, obviously that one posted. Let’s try this again from the top.
—
seriously_black said: “If parental supervision is a sufficient level of ‘control’ for pureblood and halfblood children then it is surely good enough for muggleborns as well.
Carla and Mary have already made good points about the limitations Muggle parents would have in coping with the magical mishaps or outright disobedience that are bound to arise, so I won’t retread that ground right now.
Even if you disregard Carla and Mary’s points, however, there’s still a problem. While your proposed solution might deal with the unverified problem of some students getting more practice, it does nothing to fix the verified problems that triggered Harry and Dumbledore’s conversation about the unfairness in the enforcement of the law. There’s nothing about your suggestion that prevents Dobby from making it look as if Harry had done something with his magic that he shouldn’t have. There’s also nothing to stop Tom Riddle from messing with Morfin’s mind and framing him for murder.
It’s fine if you believe your method is better than the one the Ministry uses now. Trying to make things better is good, even if reasonable people can disagree on what is actually “better.”
In this situation, however, you made your suggestion in response to my assertion that no method of enforcement in this scenario was “completely fair” or “perfect.” So in this context, I have to call you on it– your solution isn’t perfect. And I’m not saying it to be mean or contrary. It would be really cool if there was a single step that solved the entire mess, but I don’t think there is. Maybe if you keep developing the idea you could combine several steps to come up with a plan that results in a low degree of unfairness, risk of harm, loopholes in the system, etc. I stand by my assertion that it’ll never be perfect, though.
“We do not need to know all the many other attendant details about how else they might enforce such a law if in fact they wanted to, to be able to note that an inequity is implicit in the present provisions.”
Hmm. It seems we have a persistent communications gap. I’ve said this twice, but I guess I need to say it a third time: I am noting an inequity in the system. I’m even saying that inequity could be caused by racism within the Ministry. However, I’m also pointing out that there may be insufficient evidence to say that the inequity must be a result of racism.
So, yes, the other details are relevant. Before we can say that X definitely does or does not cause Y, we need to determine if we have enough useful data to make that call.
Travis presented the piece he read on the podcast as something he hopes to develop into an academic paper for an academic conference. He also welcomed comments. A section of his work struck me as containing either a logical fallacy, lack of evidence, or a point of view that wasn’t communicated clearly to me as the listener. Any of those is a problem in an academic paper. So I came here to point that out, just like I would for a friend who asked me to read their paper and supply feedback.
I said: “But to say it’s definitely any of those is jumping to conclusions in areas where Rowling has never given us (and may never give us) information.”
Travis said, in response: “I don’t know. This eliminates a lot of discussion about the HP books. Rowling hasn’t spelled out every single thing about these books; she’s left it to us to flesh out the implications of things. So I disagree with the premise that we can’t draw conclusions on things Rowling hasn’t conclusively revealed.”
You’re disagreeing with a premise I didn’t put forward. It’s fine if you disagree with it, just so long as we’re clear that it’s in no way an argument I’m making. (Is it even likely that I would be listening to your podcast if I believed we shouldn’t discuss things that JKR hasn’t provided us with a complete answer key for? Are you getting a lot of messages from people saying, “Stop with the thinking, already!”?)
Do me a favor– go back and look at the sentence of mine you were responding to. Note the use of the word “definitely.” My point, as I was just re-re-explaining to seriously_black, is about a specific problem I see in your piece. When listening, I got the impression that you were trying to convince your audience that racism in the Ministry is the root cause of any unfairness in the way underage wizardry laws are enforced. I went back and listened to it again today, just to be sure, and that’s still the impression I got. If you weren’t trying to say that, then my suggestion is to read the piece for as many people as you can, ask if that’s the impression they get as well (to eliminate the possibility that I’m a statistical outlier), and revise as you see fit.
If you indeed were trying to say that the unfairness is necessarily a result of racism, then you’ve got what’s usually considered to be a logic problem. Suppose you heard someone making this argument:
There are a bunch of Christians who say that the Harry Potter books are evil. My friend Tiffany’s parents are Christians, and they wouldn’t buy her a Harry Potter book when the family was at the mall yesterday. Tiffany’s parents must think the Harry Potter books are evil.
It’s easy to look at that and see a big problem with the conclusion Tiffany’s friend is drawing, right? The friend starts out with the true statement that some Christians believe Harry Potter is evil, then adds the true statement that Tiffany’s Christian parents turned Tiffany down when she asked for a Potter book. But noticing that two things are both true and one is capable of causing the other is not enough to say we definitely know one caused the other.
In the example I just gave, it’s possible that Tiffany’s parents wouldn’t buy her the book because they really do feel Harry Potter is evil. It’s also possible that they had heard some things about the content that made them concerned, so they wanted to review a copy from the library before they bought it for her. Or maybe Tiffany had already lost the last three Harry Potter books they bought her. Or maybe they didn’t get her the book because they had already agreed to buy her a new pony (hypothetical malls can sell ponies), and were out of cash. More than one cause can bring about the same result– in this case, not buying the book.
In the podcast, it seemed to me like you jumped straight from “the Ministry / Ministry employees are capable of discrimination” (true) and “the system in place to control underage wizardry can be unfair” (true) to “racist attitudes in the Ministry are the root cause of unfair enforcement policies” (possibly, but not necessarily, true).
And as long as I’m getting this deep into it, I guess I should point out that I felt you were doing a similar type of thing when you laid the blame for Ron’s attitudes in Arthur’s lap. Just because parents can influence their children’s belief system and Ron’s belief system is skewed, it doesn’t in any way prove that Arthur condones Ron’s attitude or encourages his children to discriminate.
Correlation does not prove causation. That’s a pretty well accepted principle over in science-land. And since your paper falls under the social sciences… Well, I’ll just say that I wouldn’t want to have a potential logical fallacy in a paper I was presenting to academics. At least not without a disclaimer. And especially not when the subject is racism, considering logical fallacies are frequently the last refuge of racists.
It may also be possible that you feel you have enough evidence to definitively prove that this is a case of causation rather than mere correlation. If that’s the case, you shouldn’t skimp on the canon that backs you up. Connect those dots! Explain why nothing but racism could be the problem. Then it won’t feel like you skipped a step in your reasoning.
Travis said: “It wasn’t specifically academic (for a grade), but Draco got to learn Occlumency over the Year 5 – Year 6 summer. Harry desperately needed to learn it, but couldn’t.”
Er… but if you do go the “evidence” route, I hope that not all of your evidence is like that.
I’ll grant that you’ve found an example of a pureblood learning something away from school. Good job on that, and I mean it.
But you’re already conceding that this example gave Draco no particular advantage in school, while a large part of your overall argument seems to be assuming that the purebloods and half-bloods are benefitting academically because of the Ministry’s enforcement style.
It’s also a case where he learned Occlumency– something that’s completely internal when done correctly. Do we even know if that kind of magic is detectable and/or restricted? I know the Ministry likes its bureaucracy, but are they really going to go so far as to send out citations for the things a person does inside their own head?
Additionally, Draco learned Occlumency from Bellatrix. She is A) Not his parent, B) Not in any way the example of how a typical parent is likely to act, C) Completely untroubled by the thought of breaking the law.
On top of all that, your point about Harry is kind of moot. Harry was only at the Dursleys’ for two weeks during the same summer that Draco apparently learned Occlumency. If Harry needed to learn so desperately as you suggest, Occlumency lessons could easily have been arranged for him during his time at the Burrow.
“But I don’t see seriously_black’s solution as being at all inadequate. Carla says that “A muggle parent has no way to undo the magic their child has done should it go awry.†But surely, if an owl can get to the house within minutes, a wizard can apparate there within minutes to undo any problem.”
And that might be a workable system, but it does still require special treatment of the Muggle households. Possibly a special Ministry department for underage Muggleborn support services. I don’t have a problem with the Ministry doing a little extra for the Muggles, but that’s not quite the “Laws and their enforcement should apply equally to all” treatment seriously_black began by advocating. (At least not as I understood it. Feel free to clarify, s_b.) It’s just gone from the Muggleborns getting extra negative attention to them getting extra positive attention.
And there’s still the practical problem of what happens the first time a Muggleborn does something that can’t be fixed in less time than it takes an owl to fly to London for help…
“There’s no reason that muggle parents can’t police their children just like wizarding parents…
…unless you instinctively distrust all muggles, which brings us back to the prejudiced nature for the law.”
Oddly enough, I happen to be a Muggle. I don’t instinctively distrust myself, yet I can see that I might have problems controlling / protecting a magical teenager in my care. (It’s hard enough to do that with regular teenagers.) Does that make me racist against my own kind? Or is it okay for me to think that, but wrong if a wizard thinks it?
Maya, laws and procedures that do not apply equally to all races *are* racist, whether or not the lawmakers intend them to be.
The concept of dysconscious racism which Travis discusses deals directly with a variety of forms of racism of which the perpetrators may not even be aware.
Unlike you, I found Travis’ explorations of the eubject to be clear and logical – and a quite adequate basis from which to work up an academic paper.
Alright, lots to respond to here:
Mary and Carla, I hear what you’re saying; but I don’t find the argument convincing, either. What in the Wizarding World, particularly in the MoM, would convince you that the Ministry is actually really, really concerned about the “safety” of Muggles? Only Arthur and a handful of others seem to be genuinely concerned about this at the MoM, and they’re laughed at.
Maya, I think the thing I most need to clarify is that this podcast is not my academic paper! I do very much appreciate criticism from all perspectives so that, should by deconstruction paper be accepted at Prophecy, I can present the best paper possible; your challenges to my thoughts here are going to sharpen my thoughts and make the paper better, so thanks! But I do ask that you keep in mind that I’m trying to keep these podcasts under 20 minutes and that the only time I presently have to actually do them is at about midnight on Fridays or Saturdays. So these are very off-script sorts of things.
Now, to the actual arguments:
I’m fully aware that correlation does not equal causality. (After all, I’m highly skeptical of global warming. *ducks behind the bar*). This is where I feel like you’re not hearing me: I’m not trying at all to indicate that we have concrete evidence that some racist person at the MoM said, “We need to put those Muggleborns down, so let’s create a law that is only enforced on them.” So, strictly defined, you’re correct: we don’t have incontrovertible evidence that there were blatantly-stated racist reasons for the law.
But dysconscious racism is still racism. So what I’m asking is that we consider this: when this law was put into place, and even now in the WW, does one group of people gain potential privilege over another based on this law? And the answer to that is yes, on two accounts:
1) The consequences of the law are unjustly applied. Only muggleborns are targeted.
2) The potential exists, and it is most certainly taken advantage of in some families (like the Malfoys), that purebloods can have a summer of practice while muggleborns do not have that option.
As such, the law is, by nature, racist.
I think it’s fair to stay I “skipped a step” in my reasoning, or more accurately, I skipped a step in presenting my reasons in the podcast. seriously_black quite obviously understood what I was getting at, but it’s clear others haven’t, so I’ll work on clarifying.
Maya, now for the second comment (#26):
See the post above: I’m arguing that the potential for pureblood advantage is there; perhaps I was a little too strong in the podcast, coming across as intimating that the law makes it so that all purebloods obviously do better because of this advantage. I’m not trying to say that. But the Draco example confirms my suspicion, and Bellatrix is not the only person that doesn’t care about the laws. Any family associated with the Death Eaters – they don’t care. And on top of that, there are plenty of ambitious parents who would have all the motivation they need to turn a blind eye – or even help – while their children practice magic over the summer.
You wrote, Oddly enough, I happen to be a Muggle. I don’t instinctively distrust myself, yet I can see that I might have problems controlling / protecting a magical teenager in my care. (It’s hard enough to do that with regular teenagers.) Does that make me racist against my own kind? Or is it okay for me to think that, but wrong if a wizard thinks it?
Honestly, I’m a little confused by this paragraph. Racism has absolutely nothing to do with what you think of people who are just like you. You have shared cultural experience and epistemological assumptions. It’s absolutely fine for you to think you or any other wizard or muggle might have difficulty with a teenager, and vice versa.
But “difficulty with a teenager” is not the problem here. In fact, the whole line of argument here is individualistic, whereas mine is corporate: the MoM has constructed a law, whether they intended to or not, that is built on distrust of Muggle parents as a whole and is unfairly applied (AND has already resulted in several injustices, including the wrongful imprisonment of Morfin and the false accusation against Harry). I’m not sure why this is so surprising. Rowling has clearly presented us a world in which, by and large, the WW is distrusting of Muggles (and to some extent, this is quite natural, given previous Muggle oppression of wizards and witches). (Do I need to enumerate the evidences for this?)
There’s actually more (I know, it doesn’t seem possible) to what I was trying to post last night, but I’m having a terrible time getting things to post here. Maybe the journal thinks I’m trying to flood it.
I’ll try again later, and respond to the newer comments at that time. In the meantime, I’ll just say that the point where my previous comments were cut off may have been an unfortunate one.
Maya, I’m sorry you’re having difficulty! What web browser are you using? Sometimes when the comment threads get long, certain web browsers have a little difficulty with this site. If you have an alternate browser, try that.
Travis, when you said, “Mary and Carla, I hear what you’re saying; but I don’t find the argument convincing, either. What in the Wizarding World, particularly in the MoM, would convince you that the Ministry is actually really, really concerned about the “safety†of Muggles? Only Arthur and a handful of others seem to be genuinely concerned about this at the MoM, and they’re laughed at.”, you misunderstood what I was saying. I don’t think the MoM is the least little bit worried about what happens to Muggle relatives of magical children. I happen to think the Wizarding World is racist to the core and does not examine those attitudes at all, so I’m not really disagreeing with your original post. What I AM saying is that the unequal application of the restriction against the use of underage magic is not, in itself, proof of racism.(If it *is* unequally applied; basically, it doesn’t seem to be applied *at all* except to Harry! Hermione, all the Weasley kids, and Draco all seem to get away with using magic over the summer. So does Harry, for that matter, when he’s at the Weasley’s – I’m talking about pickup quidditch games. Surely flying on a broomstick is a use of magic?) As you say, the Ministry doesn’t seem concerned for the safety and health of Muggles. What may worry them is unlimited power in the hands of Muggleborn *kids*. How, after all, did Riddle get to be what he was? A Muggleborn child may be an outsider in his own family – Harry certainly is. He may be made to feel a freak, and may be given no healthy outlet for the negative feelings that result – again, that certainly applies to Harry. Finally, such a child would be able to punish and control the relatives who have angered him through the use of magic. Isn’t that exactly what Riddle did in the orphanage? Well, Harry has done exactly the same thing, twice. We’ve seen him do it, and thought nothing of it because the relatives he was punishing were so odious. But it is not good, psychologically and ethically, for a child who is still forming his morality to have that kind of power.(*)
So, the ministry, in coming down on Harry, is not necessarily trying to protect his Muggle family. On the contrary, they may be trying to prevent the formation of another Dark Lord. Is it possible that all Dark Lords, to date, were raised by Muggles outside the Wizarding World, and therefore got an inflated opinion of their own power and importance?
Siriusly-black, it is true that a child could try to cast spells on magical parents, also, just as a normal toddler may try to bite or hit his parents. But a wizarding child in a wizarding family will not be made to feel a freak just for being magical. And there won’t, generally, be a tremendous imbalance of power. Even if the kid does succeed in petrifying a magical parent, he knows that parent will both know exactly what he has done, and be able to discipline him for it.
And yes, such imbalances exist in the Muggle world, too. I’d argue they always put extraordinary stress on the children involved and warp their development, however slightly.
Sorry – again – for the length. To sum up really briefly, the restriction on underage magic may not be the best example to use to prove the (undeniable) racism of the WW, because (1) we do not know how or whether it is usually applied. The only child who has ever been affected by it in the books is Harry. (2)If it is indeed applied primarily to Muggleborns, the ministry may have a legitimate, non-racist reason for that.
(* Note – Perhaps it is not only Snape who sincerely believes Harry is a budding Dark Wizard. And I do think Snape believes just that – but that’s another tangent entirely.)
Interesting comments, Mary.
It seems your conjecture is that the Ministry is singling Harry our for unusual interventions and seeking to impede his development as a wizard (under the guise of enforcement of a law about underage magic), because it conjectures that he may in the future go bad.
If that were to prove to be the case then it would surely be the most gross abuse of power and miscarriage of justice. Even in the wizarding world, it does not otherwise appear that public instrumentalities are able to intervene in people’s lives merely because of some bureaucrat’s opinion about what they *might* do in the future.
No – it’s not what they might do in the future, it’s what they have actually done. There is a question I would like you to consider: “Is it possible that all Dark Lords, to date, were raised by Muggles outside the Wizarding World, and therefore got an inflated opinion of their own power and importance?”
I think that is quite possible. And we do need to remember that Harry, when he pushed Dudley into the Python’s cage and blew up aunt Marge, was acting out of anger. Quite unconscious, and therefore innocent enough, but still – is it not possible that this is exactly how Voldemort started out? Someone over on livejournal – it may have been Swythyv; I’m afraid I’m not sure – pointed out that Salazar Slytherin may have had good reason to distrust Muggleborns, because the Muggleborns may have been more given to Muggle baiting than other wizards!
But that’s all speculative. What is certain is that we do not actually know how the reasonable restriction against underage sorcery is applied and enforced, nor what its purpose actually is. We cannot therefore say this law is racist.
What we can say is the following:
1. The WW is racist and controlled by fear. It’s not a good place. And-
2. The Ministry of Magic is corrupt and grossly unfair to Harry.
I’d say both those points are absolutely canon. I’m not disagreeing with either of them; I’m agreeing! I’m just saying that you cannot use this law as an example of racism.
Hmmm I have to say that after reading all the comments, I can see both sides of the debate. I will be watching this discussion to see how it develops.
Maria sitting on the fence!
Hey everyone, I’m a bit behind ’cause I was on planes all day today. I’ll try to catch up by the weekend.
Travis: I did try switching different browsers, going as far as switching computers and operating systems at the same time. I’m not entirely sure it’s a browser problem, though. The biggest thing is messages that seem like they’ll post, but that don’t show up. And after that, I get a “duplicate” post error warning if I try to resend the message that never appeared. That happened even when I switched computers. I can’t recall ever seeing anything quite like it on a blog or forum before.
I’ll consider myself lucky if this message shows up. It’s kinda frustrating to be cryogenically frozen in the conversation as it was a couple days ago…
Maya, this is very strange. If you’d like, until the bug gets work out, send comments via the E-Owl link, and I’ll post them.
All: Anyone else having difficulty with getting your comments posted?
Mary, lots of interesting comments here. I’m glad you do see the racism in the wizarding world, and you may, to some extent, have gotten behind some of the potential reasons that the law was created. Let’s talk about a few things:
First, it’s not a law that is directed only at muggle-borns. It’s the “Restriction on Underage Wizardry.” The problem is that it inherently can only be applied to muggle-borns because of how the WW monitors magical activity. As such, I think it’s a law that is intended to secure the “Statute of Secrecy,” not a law for the prevention of Dark Lords.
But on that point, you write, Is it possible that all Dark Lords, to date, were raised by Muggles outside the Wizarding World, and therefore got an inflated opinion of their own power and importance?
Interesting, but I don’t think I buy it. Salazar Slytherin himself is a good enough example of a pureblood turned dark wizard. In fact, we should remember that the Dark Arts are fancied most by slytherin-types – purebloods.
But once again (this is becoming my mantra), whatever the stated or intended reasons, dysconscious racism is still racism. If the law is enforced unequally on the basis of “race,” it is racist.
As for the law being applied only to Harry, the best we can do is purely speculate. It’s obviously not applied to flying at the Burrow, since the MoM wouldn’t be able to detect who was flying. It wasn’t applied to Hermione, but that was before she entered school. I get the impression that the MoM doesn’t start working on enforcing those laws on anyone until they’ve started school and have been made aware of the WW laws. In fact, it’s pretty much expected that witches and wizards, especially those who don’t know they are such, will at least accidentally perform magic quite a few times before they start school.
I don’t see any particular reason to assume the law has existed for years, but now they’ve suddenly decided to apply it only to Harry. It seems Dumbledore would have said something about the law never being applied anyway when Harry protested about Tom Riddle’s murdering his parents.
Maya’s comments via E-Owl:
Maya wrote:
Okay, here’s the last chunk of what I was trying to post before. The contents obviously won’t reflect the newest conversation, but at least it’s finally posted thanks to Travis’ help.
—
Travis said: “As such, the law is “racist,” whether the present MoM intends it to be or not.”
So is it deep-rooted or dysconscious sexism that robs women of free access to urinals? I’m sorry, but practicality and intent count for something in my book.
As for “whether the Ministry intends it to be or not”– if that one phrase had been thrown into the argument you made in your podcast, I think I would’ve been a lot clearer on what point you were intending to convey.
—
korg20000bc said: “It seems to be apparent to Slughorn that “pureblood” students are generally more accademically successful than their muggleborn counterparts.”
Um… I think it’s pretty clear that we were supposed to catch onto Slughorn’s obvious bias as quickly as Harry did. Someone with existing prejudice is not a good source of objective data, because their opinion is likely to distort their perception of the truth.
If a teacher told me, “For a girl, you’re good at math,” they are not the first person I would go to for useful observations on whether or not there really is an achievement gap between male and female students in math and science.
It’s also worth noting that Harry (who hasn’t displayed blood-status prejudice) reacted to Slughorn’s statements with a, “Well, duh, of course Muggleborns are good at magic,” kind of attitude. He didn’t stop and think, “Oh, wait. I’ve never noticed it before, but he has a point.” Harry’s been at school for years, he knows the blood status of quite a few classmates, and yet he doesn’t expect the Muggleborns to do worse in school than anyone else.
I know some people like to pass Harry off as clueless, but is he really more clueless than those of us who have never set foot in a Hogwarts classroom or heard other students chattering about their test grades? Is Rowling simultaneously trying to show us that blood status doesn’t matter… but by the way, all the purebloods get better grades even though she’s not showing us that
bit? I hate to play the “it’s a children’s book” card, but there is a point at which not everything is going to be 12 feet deeper than it looks on the surface. Her themes are sophisticated, yes, but also very easily accessible.
—
seriously_black said: “Impedimenta and Silencio, Langlock and Petrificus Totalus etc are as effective against a pair of wizard parents as they are against muggle parents.”
Actually, no. We’ve seen that many spells can be blocked or broken by a trained wizard. Maybe a wizard kid could get away with throwing something like that at their wizard parent once, but probably not more than once. A Muggle could never defend themselves, unless you count dodging behind the couch. And that would probably only work once as well.
“A highly intelligent child (for instance) may run rings around his/her less intelligent parents. No ministry edicts force such a child to stop using intelligence in the family home, or over the summer vacation. And yet the world has not gone into collapse.”
That analogy needs some work.
Intelligence is not going to start a fire or inflate an aunt or turn the cat inside-out. Intelligence on its own is not a lethal force, but a wand can be.
—
I don’t have time to do a proper reply to all the new posts right now, but it looks like everyone’s at least getting to a point where there’s not as much misunderstanding being tossed back and forth. Gotta love that.
In that spirit, I want to make sure that I really understand something before I do come back and reply. Travis and seriously_black, would it be a fair description of your position(s) to say:
1) Racism is always wrong, and
2) Any law/policy and/or enforcement thereof that leads to one racial group being treated differently than another is racist?
korg20000bc, we’ve seen fully grown Death Eaters stopped by hexes and spells such some of those I mentioned (cast on them by teenagers at the MoM at the end of OOTP) – rendered helpless until freed by their brethren or seized by ministry officials.
I think we can assume that the much-feared Death Eaters are likely to be at least as skilled at duelling and resisting magical impediments as most “average” wizarding parents.
Meanwhile, the intelligence analogy was specifically offered in response to the suggestion that the character development of mudblood wizards must always lead them to meglomaniacal pathology. Ie regarding Mary’s “psychologically healthy family dynamic” comment in post 20. It was not proposed to address arguments about physical risks, so I’m afraid your response about “not a lethal weapon” is rather beside the point. If that had in fact been the point I was contesting, there are other analogies which would be apt enough.
For instance, acquaintances of mine who are neither athletic nor gifted with physical skills were surprised to find a few years ago that their (then) seven year old daughter had a gift for archery. She rapidly went on to compete at National level. She can split a flying leaf at fifty paces with ease, speed and lethal accuracy – something that neither of her parents could do in a decade of trying. It’s a lethal skill that her parents don’t share – yet they did not have to hide behind the couch. There was no MoM intervention in that household – yet that did not prevent her from becoming a delightfully well adjusted young woman. Nor has the world collapsed around her family.
As regards your final summary of points, I agree with point 1, but point 2 requires some work.
I would replace the words “treated differently than another” with “disadvantaged”. It’s not identical treatment that matters, but equitable treatment. In fact to treat people the same when they are not the same can be as much a problem as to treat them differently when there are no relevant differences.
I would also add that that a discriminatory law or practice is racist *whether or not* that was the intent. Even “unintentionally” racist laws, policies or procedures are a failure of a duty of care on the part of the responsible body.
Seriously_Black,
I’m not sure who you were responding to, but it definately wasn’t me.
I agree whole-heartedly with you objection that exceptional children will only obey they parents if they have equivalent or greater powers. It’s a rubbish argument… I believe that children want to do the right thing out of love and respect for their parents; if the parents have been good rolemodels. Some of the arguments I’ve read above about how muggle-born wizards/ witches would walk all over their parents is just doo-doo. You’d have to be a pretty unimaginative and fearful parent to get into this state. Who’s the wizarding-world equivalent of Doctor Phil?
Matt
Matt and SB, the confusion here is in Maya’s comments, which I posted just last night. Just for clarification: The entirety of comment #40 is Maya’s.
Hi Travis and korg20000bc,
I now see that I did indeed mis-attribute the passage to which I was responding.
My apologies about that – and thanks for the clarification!
I just listened to your first pubcast concerning prejudice (#17) and found it to be excellent. Quite thought provoking. I was surprised by your comments concerning the Ministries abilities to detect magic done by underage wizards and how this perpetuated the “superiority†of purebreds. I had never realized this aspect of it. Thanks for opening my mind to that and other dysconscious aspects of myself. I am better for that realization and I heartily thank you for that.
I must ask, though it is certainly not politically correct, is not some of the racism discussed just the tendency toward self preservation based upon statistically justified judgments of others in a well defined and characterized group. You note Ron’s prejudice against giants and werewolves (although he likes the ones he knows personally). Based upon the actual observances of giants (during Hagrid’s attempt to be an envoy to them), they do seem quite violent in general (to the point of their potential for self induced genocide). Are not Ron and others, correctly predisposed to treat them as violent until they know more about any individual case? Is this not obviously the case with werewolves as well? Wouldn’t you justifiably teach your daughter to stay away from them?
It was noted that DD was the only character without prejudice. I believe that may not be totally supported by your dysconsciousness argument. Is not DD treatment of house elves at Hogwarts an example of his dysconscious prejudice against them? I think Jo makes this point clearly in GoF during some of Hermione’s discussions of house elve’s treatment at Hogwarts. He does not take affirmative action to reverse the inequity in their “employment†arrangement with the school. And, perhaps, is not the house elves treatment of themselves, as totally servile, an example of their dysconscious prejudice against themselves?
Perhaps Harry has the pure soul in this series.
Very important questions, all of which will be answered in Part Two!
I do think JKR is being racist (intentional or not), in her portrayal of the Asian characters. And I include the two Indian girls along with Cho. Im surprised they never came up in the above discussions, it is to me indicative of the racism / dismissive attitude prevalent in white societies against brown people and non christians (read Hindus).
I feel for all her (subtle?) anti racist stance vis a vis the muggles and pure bloods, there are inherent dismissive attitudes towards asians and condescending (token) attitudes towards black people in the books.