![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Then we mustn't forget that there were other, older forms of antisemitism in Europe. Antisemitism that was based on race became a topic of public discourse in the second half of the 19th century, but before that Jews underwent many forms of persecution for refusing to accept Christianity. The difference between the two was that by conversion Jews could avoid the worst of the non-racial antisemitism. (Though not completely and not at all times. At times when the inquisition was strong converts were suspect as ones who might revert so they were subject to much scrutiny. Those who were thought to have reneged on their conversion ended up very badly.) No behavioral choice could avert race-based hatred.
Another form of antisemitism was based on the involvement of individual Jews in whichever social or economical idea one found distasteful - capitalism, socialism, communism - you name it.
So if we are supposed to equate the objection of some wizards (in canon these are supposed to be the purebloods and possibly also the half-bloods in Slytherin House) to the inclusion of Muggle-borns in wizarding society with the race based antisemitism - then perhaps the attitudes towards Muggle-borns in other parts of wizarding society are the equivalent of other forms of antisemitism?
After all, Muggle-borns come from a different cultural background. Sometimes they bring with them strange customs, fashions and technology. Sometimes they bring strange ideas, such as wanting to free house-elves. The way the more 'inclusive' segments of the wizarding world treat Muggle-borns is to pressure them to assimilate completely, distance themselves from ties to the Muggle world, its people, ways and ideas. Nobody wants takes Hermione seriously about house-elves until she comes around to accepting Kreacher's servitude, first to the Blacks, then to Harry.
So if Slytherins want to exclude Muggle-borns for their blood and some extremists want to kill them for it, how closely do wizards in general resemble in their attitudes to Muggle-born the older European antisemitic attitudes? Was there a history of occupational restrictions on Muggle-borns? Is that why back in the 1940s lack of known wizarding ancestry was considered a hindrance to a political career? Is that why with the exception of Dirk Cresswell we do not know of Muggle-borns with careers? (What would be the equivalent of money-lending as an occupation where Muggle-borns denied access to other occupations might concentrate?)
How much social ostracism of Muggle-borns exists (or existed a few generations previously) in the general wizarding world (ie not just within Slytherin circles)? Is that why Muriel believed Kendra would deny being a Muggle-born? Or why to both Muriel and Augusta Hermione's blood status is the first thing to mention about her? (Does Augusta sometimes say 'some of my best friends are Muggle-borns?')
And what would the equivalent of blood libel and accusations of host desecration be?
If we are to draw parallels, why not all the way?
Another form of antisemitism was based on the involvement of individual Jews in whichever social or economical idea one found distasteful - capitalism, socialism, communism - you name it.
So if we are supposed to equate the objection of some wizards (in canon these are supposed to be the purebloods and possibly also the half-bloods in Slytherin House) to the inclusion of Muggle-borns in wizarding society with the race based antisemitism - then perhaps the attitudes towards Muggle-borns in other parts of wizarding society are the equivalent of other forms of antisemitism?
After all, Muggle-borns come from a different cultural background. Sometimes they bring with them strange customs, fashions and technology. Sometimes they bring strange ideas, such as wanting to free house-elves. The way the more 'inclusive' segments of the wizarding world treat Muggle-borns is to pressure them to assimilate completely, distance themselves from ties to the Muggle world, its people, ways and ideas. Nobody wants takes Hermione seriously about house-elves until she comes around to accepting Kreacher's servitude, first to the Blacks, then to Harry.
So if Slytherins want to exclude Muggle-borns for their blood and some extremists want to kill them for it, how closely do wizards in general resemble in their attitudes to Muggle-born the older European antisemitic attitudes? Was there a history of occupational restrictions on Muggle-borns? Is that why back in the 1940s lack of known wizarding ancestry was considered a hindrance to a political career? Is that why with the exception of Dirk Cresswell we do not know of Muggle-borns with careers? (What would be the equivalent of money-lending as an occupation where Muggle-borns denied access to other occupations might concentrate?)
How much social ostracism of Muggle-borns exists (or existed a few generations previously) in the general wizarding world (ie not just within Slytherin circles)? Is that why Muriel believed Kendra would deny being a Muggle-born? Or why to both Muriel and Augusta Hermione's blood status is the first thing to mention about her? (Does Augusta sometimes say 'some of my best friends are Muggle-borns?')
And what would the equivalent of blood libel and accusations of host desecration be?
If we are to draw parallels, why not all the way?
-Lasair (lasultrix on livejournal)
First, and most important, the Muggleborns are not Jews. The Muggles are, and EVERYONE is prejudiced against them. The Muggleborns are the Conversos.
Second, there is altogether too much Anti-Semitic imagery focused on Slytherin house and (especially) the goblins. You ask "What would be the equivalent of money lending as an occupation where Muggle-borns denied access to other occupations might concentrate?" Well, the goblins are the money lenders! They are also described as small, sallow, ugly, clannish, cruel and duplicitous. It's outrageous, really.
There are many reasons why Rowling's attempt to refight WWII in the Wizarding World, with Voldemort as Hitler, doesn't work. This is one of them.
Supposedly Slytherins have always been against including Muggle-borns, but only they were in that position - one House out of 4. But Muggle-borns have been part of the wizarding world since the founding of Hogwarts! So why don't we hear of Muggle-borns in prominent positions all over the wizarding world (past or present)? Unless there were other forms of prejudice an exclusion that were acceptable in the other houses, because they were not framed in terms of 'blood' but 'customs', 'culture' and so forth.
Lucius Malfoy's "job" was to lobby on behalf of his own interests, or Riddle's when he was around. Riddle's "job" was being a Dark Lord.
There's also Macnair, who was presumably intended as a Slytherin (although we weren't told he was one, were we?), and he was an executioner working for the Ministry. Crouch Sr. may well have been a Slytherin, although Fudge and Umbridge were probably Hufflepuffs.
But we know nothing about the careers of the Crabbes, the Goyles, the Parkinsons, the Notts, the Zabinis, or the Gaunts.
I'm not saying that this is significant, though. It's more that we tend not to hear about people's careers, because the main characters are still students.
Lynn
The thing is, when I read fiction, particularly the first time, I often don't read very critically. When I first read books 1-5, I really saw things from Harry's perspective, the way JKR apparently wanted everyone to see things. But even so, my first reaction to hearing the Sorting Hat's description was:
"Hey, the Slytherins' virtues sound like the nicest things antisemites say about Jews. I want to like these people."
Yeah, the second part is a weird reaction, but they were so clearly being set up to be villains that aligning their virtues with the things antisemites say made me automatically sympathize with them. (I'm Jewish, btw.)
Not only are the Slytherins described as ugly, the statue of Salazar in the Chamber is described as "monkeyish." I.e., less evolved.
The Slytherin equivalent of the blood libel/host desecration can be found in the Dark Arts and interest in them. The Chamber of Secrets and the monster left there to attack children also strikes me as particularly parallel to the blood libel.
Not to mention the fact that Harry, by dying to save his friends/the world and coming back to life again, is unfortunately (for so many reasons) presented as paralleling Jesus. And who kills him? The character the books present as the epitome of Slytherin. Ick.
Lynn
Well, not consciously so, because
All that makes me very uncomfortable in a set of books that's ostensibly about "the good guys" battling "the racists". But, honestly, I just think Rowling didn't think this out. To be more specific, I think the anti - Catholicism is semi-intentional (on an unconscious level, because of Rowling's own experience with living in a fascist country). But the anti-Semitism, though also clearly there, is unconscious and unintentional.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. What's crystal clear, if you really look, is that the native English are set against the foreign Interlopers - whether Mediterranian types like Salazar Slytherin, anti-Semitic stereotypical types like the Goblins, or French/Norman types like the Malfoys. For that matter, Grindelwald is a foreigner. It's all xenophobia, plain and simple.
My two cents.
Re: Well, not consciously so, because
The French/Norman names of several DE families (Malfoy, Lestrange, Rosier) probably *are* deliberate, to reinforce the idea that they're aristocrats. Probably not deliberately *xenophobic*, though.
The name "Grindelwald" is probably deliberately German to increase the implicit WWII reference.
I also suspect that some of the anti-French xenophobia with respect to Fleur and Madame Maxime is probably deliberate, and present partly because it's easy to defend as "just for laughs," and partly because being mildly anti-French isn't seen as particularly problematic. (At least here in the US; I don't know about the UK.)
If JKR wasn't so focused on telling rather than showing, I think she'd have been able to recognize the xenophobia. But since she seems to equate establishing a fact about the Potterverse with telling us about it in so many words, she may be unable to see what she wrote.
Happy Rosh Hashanah!
Lynn
Re: Well, not consciously so, because
Shana Tova to you too!
Re: Well, not consciously so, because
Re: Well, not consciously so, because
Re: Well, not consciously so, because
http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/28
But I don't think calling it unconscious is a complete description of what happens in the HP world. Because it was Rowling's deliberate choice to paint Slytherin House as almost entirely evil and Gryffindor as almost entirely good,because she really does believe the values these Houses represent predispose people holding them one way or the other. She really does believe that bravery and boldness are the defining good traits one should aspire to - in all the manners her Gryffindors express them, including idiotic humiliating 'pranks' and thoughtless daring actions that endanger everyone who gets caught in them or happens to be nearby. And she really does believe that ambition is the root of all evil, even if it is the ambition to make something of oneself. And that sensible self-preservation is just as bad.
That she then goes on to describe her 'good guys' as members of the ethnic, religious and cultural group she identifies with and the 'bad guys' as 'others' is probably the non-conscious part.
However I was beginning to have fun with the idea that the HP story is a work of propaganda about the history of the British wizarding community (no wonder it doesn't make much sense once one starts looking closely) and wondering if we could take similar cases in our world to uncover what was 'really' going on.
Interesting idea. Do tell... :)
Lynn
This is how I decided to read the series, shortly after I recovered from the DH shock. It can still be fun that way, especially because of all the naughty blunders in which the Gryffindors show their true colours. Seen as propaganda it is one of the most clumsily written I've ever come across and I've read the real thing - [i]brrrgh[/i].
e.g. Dumbledore's comments in Beedle are just great from this POV :). Mary and I are in friendly disagreement about this ever since.
May I humbly point anyone who's interested to our http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/viewto
The point in question is: there's a difference between "I want to like these people" and "I like these people."
I didn't like the Slytherins when I first read the book; as I said, I really saw things from Harry's perspective. But I did want at least some of them to turn out likable. It was pretty clear from the beginning that the Slytherins were being presented as the villains, so much so that I didn't think they were getting a fair deal from the author, and I wanted them to.
I sympathized with them more than I might have otherwise, because the author also appeared to be associating them with a mild antisemitic stereotype, even in that book. Not usually a sympathetic thing, but the primary stereotype I saw in the first book was cunning, and I see cunning as a positive trait, even if it's part of those stereotypes.
The connection between cunning and evil was uncomfortable, however. It felt like the Slytherins were getting hit with elements of a stereotype my ancestors have been hurt by, and even though their description as "cunning" was presumably true and not all that terrible, setting them up as all bad guys looked like a nasty stereotype. It was frankly improbable at the beginning of the series. I mean, a full quarter of the Wizarding World is supposed to be bad? Basically, the "cunning" description drew my attention to the "evil" part as a stereotype, even though "evil" is obviously not something tied to antisemitic stereotypes in particular.
Keep in mind that there wasn't any mention of blood purity or racism in the first book, beyond one line by Draco Malfoy. Even that comment comes across as prejudice based on culture rather than race, and looks like a throw-away line until you get to the second book. And while the Slytherins were clearly being set up as the bad guys in the first book, at that point most of the Slytherins' villain status was set to "jerks," not "genocidal maniacs." (Voldemort being an exception as an evil maniac from the beginning.) First impressions are important.
See why I didn't go into all of this the first time? ;)
Lynn
Not only that, but that entire families grew up with expectations of which Hogwarts House they should be in. With that in mind, it's surprising that Hogwarts is so small: from my reckoning, there are five boys in Gryffindor in Harry's year, perhaps ( we're never told who is in the girls, apart from Hermione, Lavender and Parvatti) maybe five girls in that year. Multiply that by the number of years, and we get seventy children per house, average. If that holds true, multiply it by the four houses, and you get under 300 students all up!
Even allowing for reduced numbers of children after the war (and after most wars you find the numbers of children actually *increase*) and for the fact that the magical gene seems to be on the wane, that is still a vanishingly small number to have such a disproportionate influence on people's careers and lifestyles after leaving school.
And on the subject of children, apart from the Weasleys, how is it that so many of the wizards are one-child families? Could they not manage more? There are very few characters with brothers and sisters in the series (apart from the aforementioned Weasleys, who seem to breed like bunnies). Those who have managed to achieve siblinghood in canon are: Dumbledore; Fleur; Lily; Colin Creevey; Hagrid (eventually); Uncle Vernon; and the entire tribe of the Acromantulas. Hardly representative of real life!
Alison
Alison
After leaving boarding school if one spends time in a mixed environment some of this might become somewhat relaxed, but we know wizards don't go to college. Those who enter private business or those who work from or at home don't have the equivalent of a peer group after school, their culture will be their House culture. Those employed by the Ministry (or St Mungo's or Hogwarts or any other large employer if there is one) may modify their values according to those present at their work place. And if certain Ministry departments attract mainly alumni of one Hogwarts House that House's culture would be dominant in that department. So maybe a Hufflepuff Auror like Tonks might acquire some Gryffindor tendencies if most Aurors are Gryffindors. And if Arthur were not stuck in his tiny office he might have leaned more the Hufflepuff way.
As for preferring one's own House for one's children - anyone who comes from a school with a 'history' is familiar with the phenomenon: parents who want their children to attend their old school, regardless of the child's inclination.
Population numbers: It is canon that there were over 100 students sitting the DADA OWL with Severus. Even if those were actually the OWL and the NEWT students combined that's a lot more than in Harry's year (40 students, of which 25 remained in DADA for NEWT, maybe 26 if we add Hannah who left school early in the year). I think people delayed having children when the war intensified. This would be followed by a baby-boom after the war. So the lean years would be Harry's, Ginny's and the one following hers with the boom starting at the tail end of the year after Ginny's (those who were 5th years at the time of DH). The year Sorted in GOF (and was 4th year in DH) should be absolutely huge (don't ask me how the teachers managed).
Confirmed onlies: Harry, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Draco, Tonks, James, Tom Riddle. The rest are a matter of speculation.
Although I'm not sure what to think of what that interpretation would mean for the text. If it's like Jews are being persecuted by others' stereotypes of them, that could be interesting.
It's just that, because we're dealing with real stereotypes here, and because it isn't acknowledged in the text, the Slytherins = evil Jews subtext would still be kinda creepy, and so it would be almost like Jews getting punished for their own... whatever. I don't know, but I think this interpretation is as creepy as it's anything else.
Even aside from that, the trouble for me is that I can empathize with the Slytherins because of the antisemitic imagery, but although I sympathize with the Muggles and Muggleborns, I sympathize with them as a fellow Muggle and as a fellow person, respectively. They face racism, but it just doesn't feel the same.
Lynn
Oh, yeah. I could see why you'd conveniently leave out the family that could define Aryan in looks as you try so desperately to make this cock-eyed argument work.
JKR definitely intended the Death Eaters to be considered Nazis, of course. She didn't mean to be subtle about it, from the Malfoys' appearances right down to the salute at the beginning of DH.
Now, it seems like a complete contradiction, to say that these characters could be made to strongly resemble the Nazis, and yet subtly embody several antisemitic stereotypes. I wish it were, but it unfortunately isn't. I don't know how common this is these days, but a few years ago, when there was a lot more violence in Israel/Palestine, Palestinian protesters often carried signs saying "Jews = Nazis," to condemn the Israeli's behavior as strongly as possible.
Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that JKR intended anything like that at all. I don't believe she intended it for a second. But authors do sometimes end up implying things that they never intended.
So, it doesn't reassure me to know that the Death Eaters/Slytherins are presented as Nazis. That doesn't, unfortunately, take away from the ways in which Slytherins match antisemitic stereotypes; it actually makes it worse for me.
And although the Malfoys could indeed define Aryan in looks, Lucius' behavior does match a certain Jewish stereotype. He's the filthy rich one who uses his money to control the government.
Lynn
That isn't the only reason I've given, however. And Lucius' wealth and political influence certainly didn't strike me this way on the first read. Looking back over the books, however, there are repeated elements that do conform to antisemitic stereotypes. Lucius' wealth and political influence is one element, but only one.
Are you the same anonymous person I replied to in this thread of comments? If so, are you tacitly acknowledging the point that a group of characters could, theoretically, be made to resemble both Nazis and antisemitic stereotypes?
As for the last paragraph: the stereotypes exist, unfortunately. They are blatantly untrue. Are you genuinely suggesting that I wish to present them as true? Just in order to make a point in a discussion of the Harry Potter books -- or do you believe I have a more sinister agenda?
In any case, I decline to continue this discussion further with you; debating is fun, but ad hominems 1) are not fun, and 2) provide nothing to debate. This post is here primarily for the other people reading the comments.
Lynn
If we're talking abou the Deatheaters, the first thing I thought of when reading the books and learning more about them and Voldy would be Hilter and the Nazis. So no, I didn't equate their behavior and how they handle power as being similar to harmful stereotypes of the Jewish. Deatheaters operated as a hate group, so that's who I associate them with. I am aware of the stereotypes of Jewish people in regards to money. I still don't associate that with hate crime organizations that enforced blood purity and genocide.
Honestly, I don't think the WW is supposed to be an exact paralell to real life history. HP is not a complete thought out world, not because JKR isn't a good writer, but because it would be impossible for her to create a complete world. If you look at all the history books we have about events, and even the different groups of people we have in our own countries, it would be impossible for one person to think of an entire world in it's completion. But the point of it all was that prejudice and genocide is wrong. It's wrong when Muggles persecuted Wizards/Witches during the Middle ages, and it's wrong with Wizards/Witches persecute Muggles as what happened in HP.
As for your second set of questions, I did not mean to attack you personally. But when I find something being said that I find ignorant and offensive, I will say something. I was not trying to imply that you yourself believe these stereotypes of the Jewish to be true. But I found yours and others comparisons of Deatheaters embodying Jewish stereotypes to be very wrong and inaccurate. It's the same as when some have claimed that the treatment of Slytherin house and it's students is racism. To compare elements of a fictional story to real life situations is a good thing and helps us understand things better. But we have to becareful with how you do that so you don't end up making innacurate comparisons end up offending somebody.
~RavenStar84 @ Livejournal
~RavenStar84 @ Livejournal
Thank you. (Although if you don't mean to offend people, think about how you use the word "ignorant.")
I didn't say the Death Eaters match antisemitic stereotypes in the book, I said that Slytherins do. I don't consider those groups one and the same, but if you do, I can see that that would affect how you interpreted what I wrote. Please understand that I don't mean it that way. I can't think of anything about the Death Eaters, as Death Eaters, that reminds me of antisemitic stereotypes.
However, Slytherins are described, as a group or individually, as cunning, hook-nosed, clannishly unwilling to marry outside their own group, wealthy, and controlling the government. Seeing an antisemitic stereotype isn't the only possible interpretation there, obviously. You can see that as a list of utterly unrelated characteristics. But some people do see the stereotype, even though the Slytherins have other characteristics that don't mirror the stereotype.
I'm not saying that Slytherins are victims of antisemitism. We see them hated due to prejudice towards Muggleborns, but they face no consequences related to the antisemitic stereotypes some of us see, like real-world victims of antisemitism would. Muggles and Muggleborns do face racism. But contrary to what the OP said, I don't find that the racism they face is similar to antisemitism, even if the Death Eaters are paralleled with Nazis. I don't mean it's any less (or more) severe; it's just a different kind of racism. And if you'd like to argue that the racism that Muggles and Muggleborns face *is* like antisemitism, specifically, go for it. I'd enjoy reading it.
Despite this thread, I don't actually see this as a major thing in the books. I don't see these books as an exact parallel to history, either. Like Tolkien said, applicability, not analogy.
Both of us are offended by the idea that Slytherins might have traits found in antisemitic stereotypes. It's just that you believe that the offensiveness rests in what I'm saying, and I believe that the offensiveness rests in an inadvertent subtext in the books.
So, I'm sorry that my interpretation offends you, although I hope that my differentiation of Death Eaters and Slytherins makes it at least a little less offensive to you. Other than that, the offensiveness apparently lies in the fact that you think I'm wrong about an interpretation that deals with a sensitive topic. Well, I think I'm right, just as you think you're right. So how do you suggest I avoid offending you?
Lynn
...That and their pure blood, but the Weasleys are purebloods without being aristocrats. Or at least, readers who believe the Weasleys are gentry fallen on hard times generally feel they have to make a case for it.
We also only have one Slytherin known to have a hooked nose (although that one feature is mentioned often). On the other hand, the only known Slytherins who are blond are the three Malfoys and Slughorn, but people are quite willing to take that as a sufficient evidence that Slytherins are Aryan types.
And yet there are plenty of Slytherins who aren't blond: Bellatrix and Regulus have dark hair, and Andromeda's hair is light brown. Millicent Bulstrode's hair is presumably black, since Hermione confused her hair with her cat's hair in CoS, and half-turned into a black cat when she used it in Polyjuice potion. Zabini is black, so his hair is -- most likely -- not blond. Not to mention Tom Riddle and Severus, who have black hair.
Does this mean that it's wrong to associate the Slytherins with an Aryan appearance? In real life, it unquestionably would (although in real life, it would be even more bizarre for a group to all be bad people because of their dorm). Since this is a book, I would say that because the Malfoys are relatively prominent Slytherin characters and their blondness is often mentioned, the books provide a vivid image of blond Slytherins, and that image has meaning. Likewise, Severus is another prominent Slytherin character, and his hooked nose is also frequently mentioned, giving us a different, also vivid image.
Lynn
But the Malfoys have a French surname and Latinate first names. I think Mary has it right - they are presented as usurpers - unauthentically English, pretending to be the real thing (even living in a place associated with old English magic), as opposed to the Weasleys and Potters.
movie canon originally
The PS description of Draco is simply "pale, pointed face" and "pale boy". No mention of "tall" nor of "blond" nor of "sleek" hair nor of "straight nose".
The CoS description of Lucius is "the same pale, pointed face and identical cold grey eyes" and the US edition calls his hair "usually sleek". Still no "tall and no "blond" for either Malfoy male. No "straight nose" either.
In fact, JK uses a very round comparison to describe Draco's nose during the firework incident: "his head drooping with the weight of a nose like a small melon..." A straight nose would not look melon-like however large it grew.
It's not until PoA that we actually discover what colour hair Draco has ("silver-blond"). He has a "pale, pointed, sneering face", but still no "tall" and no "straight nose".
Finally in GoF we're told that a Malfoy is tall - but only Narcissa, there's still no mention whether Draco and Lucius are. She's also blond and it's hinted but not explicitly stated that Lucius is too:
"A pale boy with a pointed face and white-blond hair, Draco greatly resembled his father. His mother was blonde, too; tall and slim..."). This is also the first book in which Draco's hair is described as "sleek". And our first straight-nosed character finally appears: Cedric Diggory...
So it's not until GoF that *any* Malfoy has been given an "Aryan in looks" description, and it's still only one Malfoy out of three.
It becomes two out of three in OotP, when Lucius is described as a "tall man with sleek blond hair and a pointed, pale face." Draco also has "sleek blond hair", but no mention of his height, and still no "straight nose".
It's a pity you didn't check the text before commenting.
duj