More about the wizarding world and empire...

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51012


I WROTE (in a previous post):
In a secular society, you are just as likely to
have immigrants as you are to have third, fourth,
fifth and so forth generations of immigrants, some
with adapted names, some with their native names.

PEN ASKS:
I'm not sure what being secular has to do with it. Could you explain?

I REPLY:
I guess I'd have to say that, from my perspective, a 
secular society would seem more likely to invite 
immigration than a non-secular society. At least, I'm
hard pressed to name any non-secular societies that
ostensibly do encourage immigration. Re-patriation 
*maybe*, but that's not really the same thing.


PEN WROTE:
Actually, you are a heck of a lot *more* likely 
to come across Potters, Grangers, Patils and 
Changs (I exempt Malfoys from that list) in Britain 
than to find Costas, Menendezes, Nkrumes, Vladoviches 
and Muhammeds.

Surnames over here, while they are becoming 
more varied, are still a *lot* less varied 
than surnames in the USA. I like reading the end 
credits for American TV programmes - compare the 
range of names from those to the names at the 
end of a British programme. What a contrast.
END QUOTE.

I REPLY:
I hadn't really thought of it that way before. I 
suppose that, once again, this is a great example of 
me making cultural assumptions. From my perspective, 
I was pretty much brought up to believe that the 
Western European nations were just as diverse as 
the United States, with the two differences being: 
1) different cultural cross-sections, based more 
   on colonial associations, but still largely
   reflecting immigration, and 
2) less haughtiness about the melting-pot idea.


I WROTE (same earlier post):
Although frankly (and the reason I said it was a feeble
defense,) I'm not sure that exonerates her... she could
be putting more of an effort in to, y'know, indicate
diversity at the school.

PEN ASKS:
Why?

I REPLY:
Three snipped quotes first:

Tom (ME):
<snip>
...Rowling ...attempts to divert our attention 
from muggle problems and onto parallel wizard problems, 

Eloise:
She is dealing with RL problems by metaphor, not 
simply trying to divert attention. IMHO.

Ali wrote:
<snip>
In Harry's class, 25% of the named Gryffindors 
belong to an ethnic minority group. In Britain 
as a whole, the figure is c.8.8%, and roughly 11% 
for children. This indicates to me that JKR has 
attempted to emphasise racial diversity.
<snip>

I CONTINUE:
I read the seeming lack of a major minority 
(heh-heh, major minority) presence in Hogwarts 
to indicate that it is sort of like an uppity 
magical prep school, and believed that Rowling 
was using WW prejudice against giants, say, as a 
way to discuss the issue without using our regular 
muggle biases. IMO, a diversion from the reality 
of the situation. But I like Eloise's "metaphor" 
better. ;-)

Second, I was not aware that the UK's diversity 
was along the lines that Ali provided above, having 
(again - shame on me) made a cultural assumption 
that the UK and most of the Western European nations 
had a similar racial mix as the United States.

But, I'm glad to have learned that this is not 
the case. As Ali points out, in fact JKR could 
be perceived, from the British standpoint, to 
be emphasizing diversity. In such a case, I can 
comfortably reverse my claim that she's not doing 
enough. 

By American standards, and if she were an American 
author, I'd hold that her inborn prejudices are 
transparently visible due to the seemingly (again, 
only by American standards) superficial mention 
and underdevelopment of all of the minority 
characters. But if Hogwarts could in fact be 
perceived as *more* diverse than the U.K. as a whole, 
then I readily admit that I was wrong, and instead 
think she should be lauded for her attempt at 
representing diversity in the school.

-Tom