More about the wizarding world and empire...

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 50918

Tom:

>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.

Eloise:
There, I think you have a point. Although there are a number of Hogwarts 
professors of whom we know nothing as yet.

As for the Ministry, well, that, I'm afraid *is* reflection of RL in Britain 
today. We do have very few senior civil servants, judges, MPs, etc from 
ethnic minorities. And I'm sure that the reasons for that in RL are not ones 
which JKR sees as happening in the WW.

Tom:
>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.

Eloise:
Well, I don't think we could have had *two* Gryffindor champions, really.
And you know, I think JKR is a bit over a barrel here. If it *had* been a 
black student selected, given the small number we know of at Hogwarts, you 
can bet there would have been those who would have accused her of tokenism.

Tom:
>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?

Eloise:
We, of course, got over that particular prejudice over here, having had a 
woman Prime Minister who did not shrink from taking us to war!


Tom:
>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. 


Eloise:

Thank you for your sympathy. ;-)

This, as it happens, is the inverse of the argument I use when defending 
Americans from the charges of ethnocenticity (well, that's how *I* term it) 
frequently levelled at them from over here, which I explain as being 
partially because you are in a similar position of power to that which we 
once occupied, when we must have displayed similar attitudes.

Tom:
>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.

Eloise:
I'm sorry, as  Brit I have never got that feeling from reading JKR. I suppose 
that just means you believe that I have a nostalgia for the empire I never 
knew. I don't believe that.

JKR's portrayal of females has been criticised. I've criticised it. It's been 
discussed at length on this list and having recently been through a whole, 
long thread on gender, I would say the jury is out on that one. On the matter 
of race, JKR reflects the situation in Britain today. Now, I agree that with 
hindsight, it would seem probable that a greater proportion of ethnic 
minority wizards would have achieved prominence, given that JKR appears to be 
trying consciously to convey a Potterverse where racism based on colour 
doesn't exist and there is only one school, so that poor education is not 
part of the formula.

However, this also assumes that the racial mix of the wizarding population is 
as great as it is in the real world. I am far from clear what would cause 
large scale population movement in the WW, whose economy is surely different 
from ours and which already has its own underclass in the Elves, so has had 
no need to encourage cheap labour to enter the country from abroad - which, 
of course ultimately was the reason for much immigration into Britain.

Tom:

>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.

Eloise:
But what I don't get is what the point of this is. Ebony says she wouldn't 
change the books, yet speaks of "the pernicious legacy of empire" which 
sounds very critical. At least, it does to me.
How do you write a book which reflects the reality of life in post-imperial 
Britain, without reference to this? 

If it is merely an observation - that Britain still shows signs of its 
imperial past - then I'd say, of course, naturally it does. And it would do, 
no matter how perfect our political stuctures, how equal our opportunities. 
It would show, merely by the presence of the Dean Thomases and Angelina 
Johnsons, which was where this started, IIRC. But there seems to be something 
pejorative about the observation, as if by reflecting the reality of having 
citizens of West-Indian origin, JKR is somehow, if unwittingly, *condoning* 
imperialism. I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you.

Of course, if we had *no* imperial past, then we would also have a much less 
racially mixed society. And Dean and Angelina probably wouldn't be at 
Hogwarts at all.

Tom:
>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.

Eloise:
Which is what I said in my last post in essence.
As I am personally sure that Western European magic cannot be the only 
tradition of magic, I would expect immigrants who had kept to their own 
traditions to send their children home to school.
It has always struck me as a very imperialist idea that Hogwarts magic is the 
only, or the best kind of magic and I don't think that is really implied..

Ebony:
>   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 sorry, Ebony, I thought I did quite directly answer this in my last post. 
Though it's not my field really, so perhaps it wasn't quite on the level you 
wanted.
I should add, of course, that these are groups who often have a claim (or 
certainly used to have a claim) to the right of abode in Britain, not that 
this would probably worry wizards.

I'm trying to hear what your saying. But basically I have a problem making 
the logical leap from saying that because JKR reflects the legacy of RL 
empire in her works, as a consequence of anchoring them in reality, we can 
imply that her WW has a similar history.

And I don't think her using of the pure-blood/ Muggle born divide is simply a 
diversion of the race issue. I think it is, as I said before, an attempt to 
make it a much bigger issue and one with which all her readers, white as well 
as non-white can identify.

~Eloise