WW Racism? (was: Re: A Gay Potter Character?)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 178284

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Dave:
> > I agree that Jo's main goal is to use symbolism (anti-Muggle,
> > anti-Muggle-borns, &c.) to protest RW bigotry.
> > 
> > On the other hand, in OoP, Draco's worthy-of-Don-Imus remark about
> > Angelina's dreadlocks makes me wonder if racism and other types of
> > Muggle bigotry are wholly absent from the WW.
> 
> Magpie:
> That's not Draco's remark, but Pansy's, iirc. Regardless, I've 
> always thought that line *didn't* indicate that. If Wizards don't 
> see our races as being important--and the inclusion of Blaise I 
> think indicates they don't--then why is Pansy's remark racist? It's 
> racist for us because Angelina's braids (it's Lee who has 
> dreadlocks) are tied up with her being black. If for Pansy Angelina 
> might as well be white then she's just making fun of her hair and 
> not liking her braids is no different than calling Hermione's hair 
> bushy. 
> 
> If JKR meant it to be taken that way, I think that's a bit sloppy. 
> Because there's nothing inherently racist in disliking a hairstyle. 
> It's racist to dislike or put down a hairstyle because you associate 
> it with a race. Imus using the phrase "nappy headed" being a good 
> example, with all the history those words imply. "Nice braids--not!" 
> without the history/social context is just "nice braids--not!" You 
> can't have it both ways within the same canon.
> 
> -m

Montavilla47:
Yes, that taunt is kind of odd.  It's tempting for us to see it as
a racist remark, because of real world racism.  But, in fifty years
would anyone get that vibe?  Probably not.  However, a girl 
laughing at another girl for her hair is eternal--so it does
help move the story away from a specific period in time.

My main reaction to Pansy's taunt was, "Geez, Pansy.  Is that
*all* you can come up with?"  Seriously.  It just makes 
Pansy seem really unhip.

On the whole,  I like the way JKR used the Pureblood/
Half-Blood/Muggleborn prejudice to explore bigotry
without tying it into a specific RW model.  If I have a 
problem with what she did, it's that, like magic, it 
seemed to shift to fit the contrivances of the plot.

So that it seems like the Death Eaters look down
on both Muggleborn and half-bloods in OotP and 
the HBP.  But, when that would be problematic to
our view of Snape in DH, the half-blood prejudice
disappears and the Muggleborn prejudice is 
blamed on the Muggleborns "stealing" magic.

Because there is a racial mix of students at 
Hogwarts, and because the only mildly racial
insult could just as easily be based on... hairism...
I can safely say that race (as Muggles see it) is
not an issue in the WW.  Moreover, I have a handy
WW metaphor for racism that I can use to stand
in for RW racism when it comes to looking 
at bigotry.

But other forms of bigotry cannot be explored 
at all within the confines of the books, since we 
have no defined  gay or lesbian characters in the 
WW. 

With the revelation of Dumbledore's sexuality, 
it's almost impossible to determine how that 
actually impacted his character, since we have no 
point of reference, other than Rita's insinuations,
which are not about Dumbledore being gay, but 
about him being... something bad... with Harry.

Likewise, since none of the characters in the WW 
ever seem to attend church services or pray, it's 
impossible to explore religious bigotry.  Unless I 
want to see Dumbledore as a stand-in religious
figure and Voldmort as a stand-in Satanic figure.  
Which may help explain why readers tend to cate-
gorize  "good" and "evil" in Potterverse as the 
equivalents of "DD's Man" and "Death Eater."


Montavilla47