The wizarding world and empire/Grindlewald

[jodel at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 50811

Ebony asks;
>>If the wizarding world did not mirror the Muggle one in any way...

...then why are Dean Thomas and Angelina Johnson named thusly?  <<

You are absolutely rignt. Rowling's world does mirror the real one far enough 
that it seems that many of the persons of African decent in England came 
there by way of the West Indies. Families adopting the names of plantation 
owners in Jamaica, et als. The existence of empire in her world's history is 
obvious. Without that assumption there is not parallel and point of 
connection between her Muggle world and ours, outside her pages.  Which is 
pretty much necessary to the reading of the text. Why are we eving arguing 
about it?

In Dean Thomas's case, the canon information points to the liklihood that he 
may be Muggle-born. And Angelina's name (as well as Lee Jordan's) certainly 
indicates the strong possibility of same sort of emergence from the Muggle 
world at some point in their families' histories as well. (Much of this 
reasoning is moot, since these students were not even identified as black 
until the American edition. Although I believe that Lee Jordan always had 
dreadlocks.)

We do not know the state of magical terchnology in tribal Africa during the 
16th -18th centuries, the era that the African slave trade was most active 
worldwide. It is quite possible that the level of magic and communications in 
tribal society was such that being a wizard in itself was not enough to 
prevent capture and sale into slavery in the new world. It certainly would 
not prevent such in the case of children of magical ancestry who were 
captured and transported as such. 

However, we did see native African shamen in attendence at the QWC. So there 
is a modern day magical culture alive and (presumably) well in sub-Saharan 
Africa. As to whether there is any sort of representitive of this culture at 
Hogwarts, does one dare to direct attention to the ever-enigmatic Blaise 
Zabini, or is that too long a stretch?

However, I take stroing issue with the evocation of the mention of 
Grindlewald as constituting any kind of evidence of "knowledge of conquest 
and empire".  We have *no indication whatsoever* of what kind of threat 
Grindlewald was represntative of in his day. 

What we know of Grindlewald consists of;
1. He was a Dark Wizard.
2. He has a germanic name.
3. Albus Dumbledore defeated him in 1945.

We do NOT know that he was actually a German citizen. (Can anyone prove he 
wasn't, say, a Yank? No, not even that.)
We do NOT know that he proposed any racial "isms" or indeed any sort of isms, 
whatsoever.
We do not know that he ever aspired to being any sort of a Dark "Lord". (It 
stands to reason that the majority of Dark wizards don't. They just 
constitute a serious threat to their neighbors -- and their decendents.)

But people run away with the date and the name and keep building him up as 
Hitler's more effective answer to Cornelius Fudge. It's "fanon" damnit. There 
is no supporting evidence for it. The politics of the wizarding world does 
not exactly mirror that of the Muggle world. The WW may not even have *been* 
at war during Riddle's school days. And Dumbledore's status as being arguably 
the "greatest" wizard of the 20th century is a lot more likely to rest upon 
those 12 uses of dragon's blood and the subjects of his collaboration with 
Flamel than it does on having defeated Grindlewald. It is not *necessary* 
that Dumbledore be a "war hero" in order to be regarded as "great". 
Everything we've been shown of his character leans more to his being a "great 
humanitarian", instead. Even if Voldemort *is* afraid of him.

-JOdel (grumpily)