Jewish Goblins?

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 81847

Goodness.  I don't have time for a lengthy
reply right now, but what I said before
apparently needs some reiterating.

Here's what I said, quoted in Laura's last
message:

> > The point, as I read it, is not that the 
> > Goblins are supposed to *represent* Jews, 
> > but that the *discrimination* against the 
> > Goblins is reminiscent of a certain brand 
> > of anti-Semitism -- demonizing ... an 
> > entire group because some members are 
> > successful in business or, particularly, 
> > in finance.<snip> 
> > In this sense, [Nemi]'s point is similar 
> > to the prior thread discussing how various 
> > brands of "otherness" in the books can be 
> > analogized to the otherness felt by members 
> > of the gay/lesbian community (see post 
> > # 77983 and its progeny).  Neither claim 
> > requires JKR to have intended any precise 
> > symmetry, much less that she have "indulged
> > in" a stereotype.  

Nemi later agreed with this summary.

Laura's reply:

> Sigh.  I must say that the timing on this 
> discussion is most unfortunate, coming 3 days 
> before the celebration of the New Year and 
> the succeeding holidays.  

I don't understand why you say it is unfortunate.  Actually, this week
ought to be a good time for calm reflection.  I really hope this
wasn't some sort of veiled accusation of insensitivity on my part or
Nemi's, which would itself be a bit offensive.

> I agree that JKR is trying to make a point 
> about prejudice in the RW.  She does so most 
> effectively without having to resort to 
> caricatures.  

Again, __no__one__said__there__was__any__caricature.  Except for the
quizzical subject line (go back to the first line of Nemi's first post
for the disclaimer on that), no one has said anything that could be
fairly read as "Goblins represent Jews," or "Goblins = caricature of
Jews."

> Nemi is suggesting (if I'm reading the posts correctly) 
> that the goblins, due to their money-handling ability and the wary 
> distance wizards keep from them, are reminiscent of the Jews in 
> Europe.  Matt suggests that this is part of JKR's anti-prejudice 
> subtext which reminded some readers of anti-gay prejudice in the RW. 

Well, you're not reading my post correctly, that's for sure!  Go back
to the part you quoted above (I've omitted ellipses for clarity):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The point is not that the Goblins are supposed to *represent* Jews,
but that the *discrimination* against the Goblins is reminiscent of a
certain brand of anti-Semitism -- demonizing an entire group because
some members are successful in business or finance.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is how allegory works.  It is, if properly executed, gentler than
symbolism or metaphor.  Rowling's Goblins do not represent Jews any
more than (to pick a relatively well-known example) Melville's Billy
Budd "represents" Jesus.  But I think it is no accident that we can
see echoes of various types of RW discrimination in the Potterverse. 
(Half-breeds, anyone?)

Laura continues:

> The comparison would be correct if JKR had included a 
> character with stereotypical gay or lesbian traits but 
> had not identified that character as such.  

No, not really.  That sort of portrayal (see, for example, prior list
discussions re: Prof. Grubbly-Plank) is just pure representation, not
symbolism and surely not allegory.

> I would respectfully suggest that the reading Nemi 
> and Matt propose is both overly simplistic and overly 
> specific.

Well, there's *something* going on here that's overly simplistic, but
I don't think it's what *I* wrote!  :)

> As for Matt, I think you're doing a disservice to JKR 
> if you think she would try to make a valid point in such 
> an insensitive way.  If she had created a magical race with 
> stereotyped characteristics of African-Americans, Asians, 
> Arabs or gays or lesbians, her readers would have jumped 
> on her, and deservedly so.  She is, I believe, addressing 
> bigotry in general and not any sort in particular.  

Of course she's addressing bigotry in general.  But unless this is
just a continuation of the same line of misunderstanding, I can't see
why you'd accuse Rowling of insensitivity in including parallels or
analogues to real-world discrimination -- especially this particular
one.  "Never forget" is not just a historical slogan.  Discrimination
*exists*, and to pretend it does not is to mask it and thereby to
perpetuate it.  Rowling's treatment plainly acknowledges and plays off
of the bigotry her readers can see in the real world, and not just its
most overt forms.  It's there in the focus on lineage, the mistrust of
foreigners, the isolation of the half-blooded.  

Moreover, does it really matter what Rowling intended?  As I've said,
I think the allegory is there by design, but even if it were not
consciously done, it would still be worthwhile to draw parallels
between characters/situations/relationships in the books and in the
real world.  One of most wonderful things about literature is that, by
exploring such themes and connections, we can learn things that never
entered the author's consciousness.  It wouldn't be much fun reading
Shakespeare, or Aristophanes, if their works spoke only to their
worlds, and not to ours! 
 
> I think that because of the way she portrays 
> prejudice-she shows it from the point of view of the 
> holder of the prejudiced belief rather than the 
> victims of the beliefs.  

Well, actually, we mostly see it from the point of view of a teenager
who is still learning how things work in his strange world, trying to
separate characteristic from stereotype and judgment from prejudice,
and doing a pretty creditable job of it.  Although, like all humans,
an imperfect one.

-- Matt