More about the wizarding world and empire...

[Ebony <selah_1977@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50852

Christian notes the very thing that I thought of in the bath last 
night, *after* I posted:

"It is not a given that Dean Thomas' name reflects typical practice 
in 
the wizarding world. It has always been my assumption that Dean 
Thomas is muggleborn (canon doesn't seem to actually say so, but 
there are indications - being a Westham FC-fan, for instance), and 
Angelina Johnson may well be so too, as far as I can see. I do not 
think one can conclude from the names of those two characters that 
the wizarding world has had the same attitude towards race as the 
muggle-world, given that they easily both can be muggle-born."

I did forget to type in my last post that Dean is indeed Muggleborn.  
But Christian, this is like saying that we cannot reach any 
conclusions about the true nature of house-elves because thus far in 
canon, we have only met two.  No other aspect of canon is placed 
under such ridiculous constraints.  These are only two black 
characters that we know of, and they both have European names.  My 
question still hasn't been answered.

And if they are both Muggle-born, then either intentionally or 
subconsciously the author has thus relegated two of the characters 
who are racially Other to the Othered group in the wizarding world--
that of the Muggleborn.  So even if their status at It would have 
been much more groundbreaking and interesting if at least Angelina 
*were* from a pureblooded family.  I thought of a definite way that 
she could indeed be, but it's far too long to post here.

Which brings us back to our former problem, doesn't it?  

Amy writes:

"JKR does this kind of thing when she wants to: for example, she 
mentions parchment and quills and torches to convey her conceit that 
the WW has maintained much more of medieval life than has the Muggle 
world. In short, she has the required attention to detail to get 
across the idea of a history apart from colonialism, if that idea 
were a part of her vision of the WW. It's not there (yet, anyway), 
so I doubt that wizard immunity from the mass deportations of the 
slave trade (e.g.) appears in the notorious backstory notebooks. 
Though it could be that she *does* have an idealized view of WW 
history and just hasn't thought through how that would play out in 
such things as 20th-century characters' surnames."

Indeed, this is exactly what I believe that JKR has done.  Her work 
does say a lot about tolerance, and most of it is positive, yet at 
the same time vestiges of the empire are absolutely inescapable in 
the novel.  Indeed, no one answered this part of my original post:

Me:
"I also think it's significant that the other nonwhite characters 
that 
we see being educated at Hogwarts represent nations that England 
either conquered completely (Ireland, India, etc.) or had some sort 
of favored nation status with (China--although Hong Kong was under 
British control for a long time, yet? Don't know the history 
completely there.) If there was no empire in the history of JKR's 
wizarding world, then why are they being educated in Britain? 
Because Hogwarts is the best school in the world? If so, then *why* 
is Hogwarts the best, and not another place where magic likely has 
been practiced far longer (China, Egypt, etc.) than in either Britain 
or Europe?"

I'm still waiting here.  :-D  Where are the historians?  I'm a 
literary scholar, and I know there are people far more versed in 
British imperial history here.

Pippin, whose points about premodern imperial Britain I *really* 
liked, said:

"World-builders must sometime make compromises. If Rowling 
had used African surnames when most native-born black British 
subjects have anglic names, that would have labelled the black 
characters as exotic, when she obviously doesn't want them 
perceived that way."

Hmm.  I would think that JKR wouldn't think that the use of 
traditional names as being exotic... why not Anglicized first names, 
and African last names?  The fact that canon has a Parvati and Padma 
Patil, as well as a Cho Chang, tells me that this author doesn't have 
a problem using ethnic and non-Anglicized names.

And "she wasn't thinking about it" might be very true... but heavens, 
this is an author who pays a lot of attention to nomenclature.  Why 
*wasn't* she thinking about it?

I also suggest that GulPlum re-read my original post more carefully, 
as he said:

"Back to the subject at hand: I agree with Christian and I don't 
really see why Dean and Angelina having Western names indicate the 
magical community's racial prejudice; on the contrary, the magical 
community appears to be quite colour-blind. They do, of course, have 
their pure-blood/Muggle-born prejudices, but that's something 
different."

Oh, dear.  Where did I say this?  I think you skimmed my post, saw my 
references to race, and took immediate offense.  While the legacy of 
empire is a very sensitive topic, I am learning, it can be discussed 
rationally by looking at textual evidence.

Recapitulating my original points:

1)  There is evidence that the conception of JKR's wizarding world 
was not unaffected by empire.  One such evidence is the fact that the 
only two black characters have European and not African names.  
Another is that the minorities found in the stories happen to be 
children from various groups that were from the periphery of the 
original empire.

2)  I do not think that the wizarding world in these books is a 
utopia from racial or religious prejudices.  I did not say wizards 
were prejudiced.  I do think that the wizarding community seems to be 
tolerant of Muggle differences such as race and religion (and perhaps 
even sexual orientation).  However, as the author herself is a 
product of post-imperial Britain, the work is not completely free of 
the legacy of empire.  Consider the continued primacy of Britain in 
this wizarding world.  Consider the wizarding world orientation that 
GoF gives us.  Consider the presentation of the indigenous Africans 
that were mentioned at the QWC.

Okay, because I know how you guys are, let me take the time out to 
issue a 

!!!DISCLAIMER!!!
I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN THESE BOOKS.  I LIKE 
THE BOOKS JUST THE WAY THEY ARE--AND I WOULD NOT CHANGE A SINGLE WORD 
OF THEM FOR ANY REASON (well, other than certain potentially pre-ship 
instances in GoF :P).
</DISCLAIMER>

Having said that, it is fun for me to dissect the books in this way.  
I do notice little things that some people definitely wouldn't notice 
because you just wouldn't think to notice such things... which is 
fine.  It is not a bad thing, people.

It is interesting for me to read the books, especially GoF, through 
the same theoretical lens that I use while doing my critical work on 
19th and 20th century Britain (that of postcolonial theory and 
criticism), and to figure out exactly how JKR is condemning evil and 
teaching tolerance in her stories.  I agree wholeheartedly that most 
of her work is done through normal fantastic means, through the 
instances of the house-elves, werewolves and giants, and the 
continued persecution of the Muggle-born.  This is all well and 
good.  But one critique that several prominent children's lit 
scholars, including the *very* influential Jack Zipes, have leveled 
against the Potter books is that they are indeed racist, sexist, and 
like much post-1945 British fantasy presents a neocolonial 
orientation of the world that reveals disturbing trends in children's 
fiction.  Zipes, while he is to be admired, is absolutely *wrong* in 
this case... as is bell hooks, as are several other prominent 
scholars who do not love Harry the same way as you and I do.... but 
the critiques that I am making are the ones that they make.  To me, 
it's important to first admit things like I've mentioned above before 
we point out the very important message that JKR is conveying to her 
audience, and how it is being conveyed.

For after all, when I read fantasy, I take the magic of the 
fantastic, the lessons that I learn while journeying to other realms 
and other worlds... and I draw real-world connections.  Listen to 
JKR's interviews.  This sort of critical work is not anathema to this 
author.  It is very important to her.

Again, I think JKR is just great... listen, I love these books as 
much as you do.  So when I toss out the fearsome "r" word, please 
don't jump to conclusions.  This is valid analysis, not a diatribe on 
contemporary politics.  (I save those for OTC.)

I'll deal with Pip in a separate post... got to grab a book first. :-D

--Ebony