More about the wizarding world and empire...

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50877

First off, this is an INCREDIBLE thread.  Let's 
keep it going, eh?  Now, a few points (just a few):

Ebony writes:
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. 

I respond:
I know that JKR wrestles with constant accusations of 
the Potterverse lacking adequate female role-models.  
And although I love Hermione, and I adore McGonagall, 
Hermione is really a bit of that girl who overcompensates 
by study-study-studying (probably pressured by her
parents, if she's like my friends were) while the guys 
in the class lounge around and loaf and still 
manage to pass.  In fact, the trio resembles my childhood 
friends uncannily.  And McGonagall does seem a bit 
repressed, right down to her blanket adoration of and 
subservience to Dumbledore's authority? 

And the other female characters are fairly stereotypical 
and undeveloped - and perhaps (heartbreakingly) the best 
example of this is Mrs. Weasley the good-cook/homemaker, 
whom I love to death, but she is fairly run-of-the-mill 
as far as the stereotypes go.  Cook, clean, raise the kids 
while Arthur's off at work.

And can you name a high ranking ministry official who's 
a woman?  Can you name even any ministry official who's 
a woman?  The *only* female ministry official I can name 
is Bertha Jorkins, and she's hardly a trend-breaker.

GulPlum wrote:
"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."

I respond, re: GulPlum and Zipes:
I think the operative words up there are "appears to 
be."

I also think that Zipes has, to some degree, a point 
with the racism, too.  Can you name one Ministry official 
who's from a racial group other than white? Crouch, Bagman,
Fudge - all affluent white males. Can you name one 
Hogwarts professor who's from a racial group other 
than white?  Nope. Neither can I. Not one.

Along these lines, I thought it was pretty sad when 
Cedric got selected by the Goblet of Fire over Angelina. 
Sure, sure, it serves a plot device, I know, but didn't 
anyone else see the "privileged white kid gets selected 
over black girl" thing, or was that just me?  Really 
too bad - I was rooting for Angelina. And you know, we've
gotta give JKR some credit - Ron and the Gryffindors all
root for her because she's a Gryffindor. Race has nothing
to do with it.

And so, I would submit that all of this does represent 
an UNDERLYING premise about the role of race and sex 
in a post-colonial world where, for all of our muggle 
legal advances, certain basic assumptions really haven't 
changed.  

As an example, my mom and grandmother assured me most 
violently at Christmas that they didn't think that a 
woman *could* be president of the U.S. in this 
dangerous day and age.  Get that: not even "should," but
"could." *scoffs*  Of course, I was shocked, but how 
do you argue with WOMEN who trounce the very lessons 
that THEY taught you to believe?

So, it would appear that the specter of empire and the 
throwback to old prejudices is *definitely* included 
(whether JKR intended it or not) as an assumption in 
her creation of the British WW.  You know, I really 
enjoyed someone's observation in another thread to the 
effect that JKR was implying that the British WW holds 
currently the place in the magical world that the 
British empire held in the muggle world a hundred years 
ago. And I see some credence to that. In a way, it's an 
inborn defense, a way of asserting relevance in a world 
in which the Brits are really either subsumed into the 
whole of Europe, or coined as America's lackeys. In fact,
just read a poll in the NYTimes yesterday that Blair's
taking heat for just that criticism. Tough place to be in,
really. 

And so she creates this world in which the Brits are 
tip-top, kings of the mountain. It's got a beautiful 
sort of nostalgia to it, really. But JKR's attempt to 
divert the prejudicial issue into something a little 
more fantastic, like bigotry against mudbloods, 
werevolves and giants, really doesn't overthrow the 
point that the assumptions are *still* built-in.

Ebony writes:
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.

Ebony, I could not agree more with you.  Right on the 
head of the nail.

OH - and something else that crossed my mind: What if 
the native African wizards who immigrated to the UK 
send their kids BACK to their roots for study? That 
might explain why we have no Odunbakus at Hogwarts.
Just an idea.


-Tom, who realizes that he really didn't even begin
to tackle the entirety of the subject, but figured 
he'd throw in his own two cents and comment some 
more later on.