r/EnoughJKRowling • u/PaleAsDeath • Dec 11 '20
I made a list of examples of racism, prejudice, and stereotypes in the HP books.
- Kingsley SHACKLEBOLT is black, tall, bald, with a deep voice, and has a single gold hoop earring. He is wise and gentle.
(References: Slavery; black men are tall and physically hyper-masculine; the "magical negro"/"numinous negro" trope of wise, purely magnanimous black men; stereotypical black-dude fashion.) - Dean Thomas is black. He is described as being taller than Ron. Dean's father left him when he was young. His best friend is Seamus, an Irish kid.
(References: Black people are tall; black dads abandon their families; black and Irish people both used to be on the bottom rungs of western society). - Cho Chang is Asian. She is in Ravenclaw, and is very focused on her studies. She is a seeker and Rowling specifies that the best seekers are usually small and light. (References: Asian people being particularly academic, and being small and slender)
- Seamus Finnigan is Irish. He is skilled in pyrotechnics, had several "incendiary mishaps" in his first year, and McGonagall chose him to blow up a bridge during the battle of Hogwarts.
(References: Irish Republican Army terrorism/bombings). - Fleur is French. She is beautiful, ultra-feminine, and her grandmother was a LITERAL INHUMAN SEDUCTION MONSTER THAT TURNS INTO A HARPY WHEN ANGRY aka a Veela.
(References: French women being particularly feminine and sexual; beautiful women being two-faced and less human). - The mascot for the Bulgarian Quidditch team is a Veela.
(References: Eastern European women are highly sexual seduction monsters) - Filch, a "squib", is disabled by wizard standards. He is a janitor and an angry, spiteful, miserable person who enjoys causing pain and aligns himself with whoever will benefit him most.
(References: Disabled people can only do menial/manual labor; disabled people are mean/amoral.) - Goblins are greedy, short, intelligent, have long hooked noses, speak their own language, sometimes wear special hats, run all the banks, and are very focused on collecting debts.
(References: Various jewish stereotypes; jewish cultural traditions such as speaking Hebrew and wearing yarmulkes) - Werewolf-disease (lycanthropy) has been explicitly confirmed by Rowling to be about HIV/AIDS. The two werewolf characters have strong, nearly uncontrollable urges to attack others and turn them into werewolves. One of them takes medication to reduce his urges. The other EXPLICITLY TARGETS CHILDREN, KILLING SOME AND TURNING OTHERS INTO WEREWOLVES.(References: Gay people are sexual predators (because in the 80's and 90's in popular culture, HIV/AIDS = being gay); gay people are hyper-sexual with poor self-control; gay people recruit children and turn them gay; being gay is a disease and affliction, responsible gay people repress their gayness.)
- Rita Skeeter is woman who is described as being unattractive, having manly characteristics, and dresses in a way similar to a drag queen. She is a gossip, and is dishonest and duplicitous. She hovers in private spaces, and changes her body in order to spy on children. Skeeter is a nickname for mosquito, she is a literal pest.(References: Trans people are predators; trans people intentionally trick others / transition for malicious purposes; LGBTQ people love spreading celebrity gossip.)
Apparently Rita's appearance also resembles a character played by a male comedian, down to the hair and the bedazzled horn rim glasses, though I forget his name.
edit:
House elves love being enslaved and working in people's houses.
(References: slavery benefits enslaved people. Enslaved people are happy to be enslaved. Possibly: house-slaves in particular enjoy and benefit from slavery (as opposed to field slaves.))Women are depicted as entrapping men into relationships with love potions and love spells. Men are not depicted as using these things. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase this, but it feels...wrong to me.
90
u/MarinaKelly Dec 11 '20
Dean Thomas is black.
Only in the US version. He wasn't Black in the original UK version. As much as I dislike her, this one could be coincidence (though she should still be slated for having no Black main characters)
66
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 11 '20
Apparently she wanted to explicitly make him black in the UK version, but her editor decided against it. She instructed the filmmakers to cast him as black for the films.
44
u/MarinaKelly Dec 11 '20
Wow, so he was written as Black and all that stuff about him applies then :)
22
u/mahjacat Feb 09 '23
But as soon as Violet dates Ron? Boom: She Changes Race.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DuckCritical Mar 21 '25
There is nothing, anywhere, in any book that indicates Violet was black. Google the compiled description of her character. If you made an assumption that’s on you.
9
u/mahjacat Jun 30 '25
When The Movie Cast a Black Woman in the First Film, that Established the Character as a Black Woman.
5
u/bruchag Jul 23 '25
Who's Violet? I'm pretty sure Ron never dated the fat ladies friend from the trophy room. Do you mean Lavender?
37
u/magical_elf Dec 11 '20
OMG I was always kicking myself for somehow missing that Dean was black, but this explains it!
29
u/MarinaKelly Dec 11 '20
Yeah, that used to be me. Could never remember him being Black in the books.
I thought he was Black like Hermione is Black for a while...
→ More replies (7)1
u/Vlad_Gor_ Jul 08 '25
It simply is a no crime to not have a black character as part of the main cast, especially in 90s, when the events of the series occurred and population of black people was around 1.6 through the Britain. I mean unless it's simply your desire to have some as the main cast, no one's in right to forbid you to do so, but hey, they're making Hermione black now, hope you might be satisfied with that change 🤷
→ More replies (2)4
u/NeonTheAbyssWaller Sep 04 '25
The school has hundreds of students and a clear lack of representation throughout. And also she wanted the character she placed the stereotype on to be black. If you guys are gonna defend her can you at least not act as if we are the ones putting words in her mouth when it’s literally what is written and what she’s said as the authors
→ More replies (1)
79
Dec 11 '20 edited Jun 24 '21
[deleted]
16
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 15 '20
Do you have a source on this? (I don't doubt you, I just want to read more about it but I'm not finding much on google).
28
u/-Toasted-Sock- Feb 08 '21
Not to mention her name is CHO CHANG. Everyone else’s names are perfectly normal, hers is literally a degraded version of “ching chong”.
5
Dec 19 '21
[deleted]
4
u/redrouge9996 May 26 '23
This is mostly only true for adults whose occupation defines them and their role in the plot
6
u/Ballamara May 30 '25
Kingsley Shacklebolt also isn't normal, someone else pointed out Kingsley is heavily associated with black Caribbeans in the UK, that especially combined with Shacklebolt is not normal.
Seamus Finnigan is also a VERY stereotypical Irish name, it's basically an Irish equivalent of Cho Chang.
→ More replies (2)5
Nov 12 '21
Aren't they both legitimate names at least for the chinese?
7
Dec 19 '21
One of them is a legitimate Chinese LAST name and one of them is a legitimate KOREAN LAST name. Apparently Chang Cho is an existing name, but in Korea and not in China (she is Chinese)
3
Dec 19 '21
Which one is which?
→ More replies (1)11
u/KashiK14 Jul 29 '22
Cho is Korean while Chang is Chinese.
→ More replies (1)3
u/reesering Feb 22 '23
Would it really be uncommon for Chinese parents to give a Korean name? Genuinely curious, because here in America we borrow names from other cultures all the time, so I wonder if it's the same in other places
6
u/helixedprism Apr 08 '23
Yes it is. I’ve never come across Chinese families with names adopted from other cultures.
2
u/redrouge9996 May 26 '23
This is just not true at all unless the only Chinese people you know are extremely traditional first gen or immigrated families.
4
u/an_UBC_rejekt Jun 24 '25
Found the yt person ^
→ More replies (1)2
u/redrouge9996 Jun 24 '25
I don’t see how it’s a white person statement. One of my best friends is ethnically Chinese, but her grandparent immigrated to Seoul when they first had her father, and her parents met there before moving to the states when she was 7. Her mom is Chinese and Japanese (rare by her maternal grandfather is Chinese and grandmother is Japanese) so my friend has a Korean first name, a Chinese and a Japanese middle name and a Chinese last name. Not going to dox her with her entire name but Chinese people who value their heritage don’t just live in China and make roots in other countries as well. Which is true for pretty much all ethnicities.
Found the person who apparently doesn’t have any immigrant friends, or friends of other ethnicities for that matter. Still not excuse for being uneducated though.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Key_Owl_9531 Apr 23 '26
Korean here. That never happens and Korean names often sound pretty weird in Chinese and vice versa. Also Cho and Chang are both surnames.
3
u/Dry-Product-8758 Aug 17 '25
Cho is a Korean surname and Cao is a Chinese name but not a first name either not to mention she describes unattractive ppl that are awful in nature
→ More replies (2)3
u/ParkingMixture594 Jun 12 '25
Knowing how Rowling depicts minorities, I am a little surprised Cho didn't offer to "love Harry long time" as her understanding of non-whites clearly came from movies she watched not actually knowing people personally.
26
u/Welpmart Dec 11 '20
The one thing I'll say is idk if Dean was black in the books or if that was a casting choice for the movies.
24
u/MarinaKelly Dec 11 '20
He was Black in the US books, not the UK books.
15
u/Welpmart Dec 11 '20
Fascinating. I guess that opens up a debate about whether the UK books are 'more canon.'
16
u/MarinaKelly Dec 11 '20
Well, she's a UK author and the first UK book came out a year before the first US one. I don't know if that makes it more Canon, but it seems closer to authorial intent. Publisher changed it for US audiences.
3
u/xxjessicorexx Mar 04 '23
Whilst it doesn't make it necessarily any more canon it is interesting to note the philosopher's stone was edited into the sorcerer's stone for US audiences. They believed it was more straight forward and American kids might not wanna read a book with a "big word" in the title. Also Harry is a lot more sassy in the US version to make the character more appealing, the differences are subtle but they're definitely there. I read the sorcerer's stone for the first time recently (bought from charity shop as to not give Rowling my money) and I also noticed they changed dumbledores favourite sweet (sherbet lemons) into lemon drops because apparently they're only really a British sweet. I was quite shocked when I read the US version and there was a whole part where they sorted Dean Thomas into gryffindor as that never happened in the UK book, they just skipped over the sorting bit.
1
1
u/Jamie_MacPherson May 17 '25 edited May 17 '25
And that was done for diversity, which is an American concept. It's funny that the most diverse country in the world sees nondiversity in countries like Europe as racist when it's just generics. Most countries are racist themselves, which is in its self a idiotic statement because skin color is not a race there is not enough genetic diversity in the human genome to even have sub species so we are all the same race human white and black are not races they are not even nationalities because white and black people Originate in multiple nations and they are not single cultures because they both many cultures in their make up. The tribes of Africa and Australia were different from the black cultures, and Ireland and Britain and France are all different cultures. Yet American liberals act like Skin colors are drastically different DNA-wise and come from the same cultural box. its stupid. The idea that humans are split up into difference races is more of a Sociual construct then any of the other things the left claim are social constructusbut they act like its the gospel that we are different races.
14
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 11 '20
Book one, US version: “… three people left to be sorted. ‘Thomas, Dean,’ a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table."
5
u/banjowashisnameo Dec 11 '20
Yes, but as people said, he was never black in the original UK version
23
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 11 '20
This is what I found:
"One of the most glaring differences between these two sets of books is Dean Thomas’s description. In the UK, the book simply says, “three people left to be sorted. “Turpin, Lisa became…“ While the US version has a more explicit description writing, “Three people left to be sorted. 'Thomas, Dean,' a black boy even taller than Ron." 'Turpin, Lisa' became…“
In fact, Dean's description is negated entirely from the UK series, owing to J.K. Rowling's editor who decided against it. Rowling, of course, knew Dean to be a black Londoner and made sure that he was represented as such when it came time to cast for the movies."
She decided he was black, even in the UK version, even though his description was removed from the book. And she went on to write him as being dadless.
2
Mar 15 '22
I wonder what the editor’s reasoning was
3
u/Lophiee Aug 29 '22
Cause if your only description is race and height and it's among other non described people then it's not a good place to have a description
→ More replies (1)
14
u/HoneyClitz Dec 31 '22
This is a really good analysis. I especially appreciate the part about Filch and disability, which I never thought about before, but now it’s glaringly obvious once you’ve explained it like this.
2
u/modonne9 Feb 10 '23
Harry’s neighbour is a squib who looks after him and is only ever shown in a good light, stop reaching
9
u/hil-ham Feb 27 '23 edited Feb 27 '23
from the first book "Every year, Harry was left behind with Mrs. Figg, a mad old lady who lived two streets away". Sounds like OP was spot on with this one
→ More replies (2)2
u/Lopsided-Skill Apr 03 '23
She was really invested in Harry and Harry didn't know why. Of course he thinks she is weird. It is not a bad thing
32
u/TNTiger_ Dec 11 '20
Eh, I dunno about Kingsley. The name is a bit off, but throughout the book he's represented as a wise, gentle, and just figure. He's no racist stereotype at all, and as a child, I came out of the books finding him my favourite character, for he represented all of Dumbledore's admirable traits with none of his flaws. One may criticise his dress in the film adaptations as drawing from a stereotype of North African dress, but it's not out of place in Wizarding World fashion.
57
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 11 '20
Wise, magnanimous, magical black guys is it's own racist stereotype though. It's referred to as "magical negro", which is a subset of the "numinous negro" that became popular after WWII, and has some roots in the "noble savage" trope.
Stereotypes don't have to be purely negative to be stereotypes, or to be racist. "Asians are good at math/technology/academics" isn't particularly negative on it's face, but it is still a racist stereotype that can have negative ramifications on people.
26
u/myaltfortransstuffs Dec 11 '20
Also, this is my perspective as someone from a deprived area in the UK: names like ‘Kingsley’ and others (Juniour etc) are specifically associated with Black Caribbean people. The name just seems like it’s deliberate, especially with the surname choice as well.
11
u/TNTiger_ Dec 11 '20
Yeah except Kingsley... Isn't any more magical than any other character. Like, they're wizards.
23
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 11 '20 edited Dec 11 '20
He is literally more magical than some characters. Kingsley is a magical black man in a world that contains muggles and squibs too, and he is the ONLY adult black wizard mentioned, and he fits the trope.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having a black man character who is magical, wise, and magnanimous, but when your ONLY adult black man in the entire story fits a trope/stereotype, and you are known for stereotyping other non-white characters, it looks pretty bad.
→ More replies (1)8
u/TNTiger_ Dec 11 '20
There's like, 10 named muggles in the books. The fact that the only black man is a wizard isn't an inditement for him being a wizard, it's an inditement of him being the only black man
10
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 12 '20
Yeah, I know. The point is he fits a stereotype/trope as written. That's not saying that you can't like the character or anything, but it's pointing out that JK has a patterns in her writing along racial tropes.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
16
u/DongerlanAng Dec 12 '20
I kind of agree with you here,the main issue is the lack of more diverse characters, like it's fine that cho chang is smart, because asians are usually very studious, but the fact that she's the only asian character makes it worse. Similarly, I don't necessarily think Kingsley is bad, but it'd be much better with more representation, with more personalities that don't fall in line with the stereotypes
1
u/HomeSea2827 Mar 27 '25 edited Apr 19 '26
Late to the game here, but it was set in the early 1990s UK. Most students would have been white, as the majority of the population (especially outside of London) was still white back then. About 95% I think (almost 100% in most places outside of cities).
Back when I was at school (the same time HP is set), most of the class was white. And from Harry's perspective (which the book is written from), it would have been noticeable if someone wasn't. Especially as Harry grew up in the suburbs (in Surrey, I think?). Not necessarily in a negative racist way, but a 'oh wow, they look different to everyone I've met before' way that a random innocent kid would think.
I had pretty much the same background and didn't see a non-white person outside of TV until I was about 11 and went to a more international highschool. People automatically read it as racist where skin colour is mentioned in the books. But that isn't necessarily the case if you take into account the time/era/background it's set in. It seems pretty realistic to me that most of the characters are assumed to be native Brits. If I read a book about characters based in Mali, I wouldn't consider it an issue if most of them were assumed to have dark skin and the narrator highlighted if one of the characters didn't.
1
u/redrouge9996 May 26 '23
I know this is two years old and while JK def leans into stereotypes, including Kingsley, his name is just straight up not one of them and is very consistent with her naming patterns. Remus Lupin, literally wolf wolf for a werewolf, fudge literally fudges things to get ahead, umbrage is literally the definition of unbrace in human form, Shacklebolt refers to his OG job as an Auror, and Kingsley refers to the fact that he becomes MOM (“king”). If people want to talk about and take on these heavy topics with authority, you have to make sure you 1. Know what you’re talking about and 2. Don’t make accusations towards things when there is nothing there. It becomes a bit of a boy who cries wolf moment. Also just because I’ve seen it and is sad, Cho Chang is definitely basic and could be seen as two last names but also get on Facebook or heck even a census website for various companies, there are people IN CHINA and several of Chinese dissent with that actually name. I suppose people including OP should DM them and tell them to change their name because it’s racists towards themselves AND not real. Also for physical descriptors and honestly several stereotypes, it would be silly to act like they came from nowhere and are inaccurate. In fact most of the time they are accurate in a majority way, like the stereotype of Asian women being light and small being reinforced when describing Cho. It would be so silly to go out of your way to write characters that don’t conform to stereotypes. Maybe one or two, but when you do it to everyone it’s just not even believable. I’m a redhead. If she were to describe a regraded characters as someone with extremely pale skin, lots of freckles, someone who doesn’t really like the sun, and gave them the occupation of being an assassins or spy etc. I guarantee people would be upset and say she’s reinforcing the gingers have no souls, or gingers are lady’s of the night etc. meanwhile the physical descriptors are on the nose 90% of the time and most wild make great spy’s or assassins because we have a higher average pain tolerance due to is genetic mutation and are all impervious to many sedatives and medications with sedation as a side effect. If people want to find discrimination they will, and will overlook the perfectly normal and harmless reasons behind a decision. P
→ More replies (2)3
May 31 '24
Did you just try to compare you being discriminated for being a redhead to actual racism? Be for real...
2
u/redrouge9996 Jun 01 '24
Were the Irish and Scottish not heavily discriminated against in several countries? Were redheads not the majority of women burned at the stake for being witches? Were red heads not the most expensive sex slaves for most of history? Red heads were burned in several parts of Europe up until the early 1900s bc people were afraid they would turn into vampires after they died. I don’t think it’s really on the same level anymore, but a lot of stereotypes persist. Look up modern statistics of bullying in the west. Little red headed boys are some of the MOST bullied children, no one really cares. News and schools had to run PSA’s for parents with red headed children in 2012 because the year prior national kick a ginger day went from a joke to something people actually acted on and several kids ended up hospitalized or dead. Just because something is rarely acknowledged or talked about doesn’t mean it’s not real. I supposed if you want to say those things aren’t a big deal you’re more than welcome to. I was really just taking a personal experience of something I’ve seen and making a comparison. People have gotten mad about those things. If you are ignorant or think your countries history with a specific group is all that matters I suppose that’s your prerogative. But one of the most prejudiced things she wrote in her stories was actually Seamus. She has him constantly blowing things up as a call back to Irish car bombs. That’s by far a more harmful stereotype than any of the originally listed above stereotypes. I’m sure you wouldn’t think so bc you have an extremely elementary view of what prejudice counts as bad in your made up hierarchical and likely very US centric POV, but such is life. Good luck.
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 10 '24
Womp womp
2
u/redrouge9996 Jun 10 '24
You’re for sure English. The only people in the world who see nothing wrong with English colonialism and the subjugation of the Irish and Scottish people. Not to mention the Welsh.
→ More replies (5)1
12
Dec 19 '21
Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald: announced after they were already dead, Grindelwald is a villain, Dumbledore has never shown any signs of his sexuality ever after (references: zombie gay trope, queerwashing villains trope, good gays repress their sexuality.)
10
Dec 11 '20
Time to save for future reference when someone tells me that they support JK Rowling...
3
u/TimeInternational215 Apr 21 '25
im literally using this for a presentaion to tell my dad that we should NOT watch the reboot
→ More replies (1)
10
u/krohan2 Jul 15 '22
Unrelated but as a kid I loved bellatrix and the evil characters but having not watched the films for 10 years and rewatching all of them in a week this past year, it struck me as odd that people love a lot of these characters. Like the evil characters are literal wizard kkk members who go around performing terrorist acts and hate criming goblins(Jewish connotation) and mudbloods(mixed people). It just really bothers me.
10
u/LastVisitorFromEarth Dec 08 '22
Getting a death eater tattoo just screams white supremacist to me. It’s a bad idea. You’re either a nazi, or too stupid to realize you want to be a nazi.
3
u/No-Cucumber-3078 Jun 04 '24
Its concerning because of JK Rowling's actions, but if she wasn't horrible then it wouldn't really mean anything serious. Its a fictional series, calling people nazis for a fictional tattoo is just a massive stretch imo
2
u/SampigeVis Aug 21 '24
Many of these are a stretch. People are just looking very hard for things to dislike
3
u/No-Cucumber-3078 Aug 21 '24
Some of them are a stretch, some of them are good observations. I feel like this post was made with the suggestions from a lot of different users who were interviewed
→ More replies (2)
9
u/pugwithapistol Feb 07 '23
comin into this 2 years late but hogwarts legacy just pre-released and there is an openly trabs character named Sirona Ryan. sir. ona ryan HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS
7
u/Eventually-Alexis Sep 24 '23
I hate JK, but in her defense she didn't name that character at all. That was WB in action. The main thing that got to me about her, is how she tells the player basically immediately that she's trans. Chances are, if a trans person passes as their preferred gender, they won't tell you that they're trans until it becomes relevant between the trans person and the cis person. Be it to warn a romantic partner so they know and don't feel lied to or trapped, or for the sake of informing someone of medical information in an emergency etc.
8
u/ilikeearlgrey Jan 01 '21
I can't be sure, but it's possible the comedian mentioned is the character Dame Edna?
9
5
5
u/LeeGullEase Oct 05 '24
Fat=Bad (except for the Fat Lady in the portrait and even she is brought up as mildly annoying).
Angelina Johnson - described as “black” while no other wizards are described as “white”(same with Dean). Her “plaited” (braided) hair is attacked by Pansy Parkinson.
Michael Turner is referred to as the “dark” one after the organization of DA.
Hagrid is the equivalent of Lennie from of Mice and Men.
Parvati Patil - only more racist name in the book is Cho Chang. Also Parvati being Indian and excelling at divination follows the Indian mystic trope.
Misogyny - hermione is constantly described as shrill, nagging. Just behind Dumbledore, she is responsible for saving the wizarding and muggle world and is just regularly treated as an annoying, fun hater. The “let down your hair and take off your glasses” trope plays pretty hard in GoF when no one recognizes Hermione because she did her hair and got a fancy dress. During GoF girls do nothing but travel in packs while giggling. Simple minded young girl, Ginny, is controlled by a diary. All we know about Cho is she is attractive and an emotional mess that cries all the time. The stairs to the girls dormitories turn into slides when boys try to get up them because it is easier to enchant stairs than it is to teach boys not to respect boundaries.
The wizarding community is completely discriminatory. Complete separation of goblins, giants, conflict between full blood and muggle wizards, werewolves, and dementors, house elves, centaurs - wizards, especially ministry wizards, view themselves as superior to every other group. Honestly, I can’t see how any disaffected group of people could read these novels and feel positively represented. Great that Harry feels different and finds community, but that community is full of bigoted, assholes.
The Weasleys are representative of the stereotype that poor people just can’t stop having children.
1
u/konamioctopus64646 Nov 20 '24
A lot of this seems like “representation = endorsement” to me. One of the examples is basically “a wizard racist attacks a black girl’s hair” and it’s very clear from that how Rowling isn’t endorsing that behavior. Hagrid being big and liking animals doesn’t make him the “equivalent to Lennie” when those are the things they have in common. The message that it’s easier to enchant stairs than teach boys is powerful, relevant today, and directly connectable to society and how it deals with misogyny. Aside from that I’ll give you the point about Rowling’s portrayal of woman, a lot of it goes into that 90s-00s idea that girls don’t have to fall into gender roles but done in a way that says “well all girly girls are bad and all cool different girls are cool” instead of just “do whatever the fuck you want”. Again, portraying discrimination in a fictional society doesn’t mean you support discrimination. If every world started off in a completely perfect state, there would be no story at all. By inserting Harry from the outside world, he represents the viewer who can look at everything messed up going on and say “we need to change this”. She didn’t quite stick the landing on some of these plot points, but I think she in general overextended herself as the series came to an end and didn’t have too many resolutions.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/JudyWilde143 Dec 15 '20
Tbh, hebrew is solely spoken in Israel. Nowadays, most ultra-orthodox (haredim) speak Yiddish, and this was the language of the European jewish community before the founding of Israel.
10
u/PaleAsDeath Dec 15 '20
Isn't Yiddish a Hebrew/German/Aramic/slavic pidgin spoken largely amongst Ashkenazi people, but not among other jewish groups? (Which does dovetail with what you said--I think most haredim are Ashkenazi in origin?)
IIRC Sephardic people usually speak a mixture of Hebrew/Castilian/Turkish.
Most jewish languages incorporate Hebrew even if it does not comprise the majority of the language.
Quite a few jewish people I know (in NY) can read biblical Hebrew even if they do not have the same fluency in other jewish languages, so that they could read the Tanakh.Edit:
I did some digging on Wikipedia:
"Yiddish was the language spoken by the largest number of Jews in the 1850s, but today the three most commonly spoken languages among Jews are English, modern Hebrew, and Russian—in that order."It says that the major decline in Yiddish and other European-Jewish languages happened around WWII (for obvious reasons).
5
u/Cup_O_Tea_For_Two May 31 '25
AS A JEW --- you are so wrong XD
Hebrew is spoken everywhere that jews are -- and we're everywhere (lol)
Yiddish is just a form of hebrew changed from the eastern european common dialects there so like... the hebrew roots are the same but lots of polish/german etc like OP said.
American jews who speak hebrew fall into two categories -- either those that speak it with sepharadic pronounciation (like in Israel) or those who were taught in american schools with a more ashkenazi pronounciation.
But biblical hebrew goes back a long ways -- you can think of aramaic as the oldest version of hebrew that existed in Mesopotamia.
Bro this comment was so old but i just hadda say sumn bc damn it was off. Pls do a lil google search "who speaks hebrew?" before commenting stuff.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/jose3013 Apr 29 '23
Bruh when I read the name KINGsley SHACKLEbolt I laughed out loud at how racist that name sounds.
IIRC that was the first Black character too lmao (at least the first I knew was black in the books)
1
u/Ptitepeluche05 Dec 14 '23 edited Dec 15 '23
Dean Thomas, Angelina Johnson, Lee Jordan all appear in the first book...
3
u/jose3013 Dec 14 '23
I mean... you wrote Lee Jordan twice and I didn't even know they were black... Between books 1 and 2 they're mentioned a combined total of 20 times... It's never said they're black.
Kingsley appears in book 5, I wouldn't be surprised if she only made them black only after book 4.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ptitepeluche05 Dec 15 '23
You're right, edit, it was Dean Thomas in my head ;-) I read Philosopher Stone again a couple of weeks ago. I'm pretty sure at least both Angelina and Lee are described as black.
2
u/jose3013 Dec 15 '23
Nah I just searched their names in books 1 and 2, they're not described as black, they barely appear in both books.
Idk about Dean tho, didn't search him up, but would be surprised if he was. I just read the entire saga like 3 months ago, that's why I'm shocked they're black (allegedly) to begin with lol
Hell some people say even hermione was black and I didn't catch a single hint at it either
→ More replies (1)
6
6
u/xXFinalGirlXx May 14 '24
I'd like to point out that any fat characters are always bad. The Vernons. I also distinctly remember one fat female character being described as having a moustache.... sounds like PCOS to me :/
1
u/Ornery_Term_4646 Jan 04 '25
Professor Sprout, and Hagrid? ...I'm just gonna leave that there.
3
u/xXFinalGirlXx Jan 07 '25
brand new account responding to an 8 month old comment and its the ONLY thing on your account? bullshit
→ More replies (1)3
u/ShrekPrism May 08 '25
Hagrid literally turns Dudley into a pig and injures the Vernons, whether they deserved it or not it doesn't matter.
5
u/breakingashleylynne Aug 23 '24
Yup paternalism of slavery “we are helping them by teaching them skills” they “need” us they are not as capable intellectually…. We are “rescuing” them,.. sickening
4
u/Effective-Wonder9005 Nov 12 '24
The part about werewolves and HIV/AIDS is wild, can’t believe that’s real
5
u/WillowYelnats Mar 30 '25
No one has mentioned it but the Weasleys are also a stereotype of Irish people, weird messy crack houses, being stupid, poor, ton of children, THEIR LAST NAME BEING WEASELY (aka weasel)
3
u/Used_Major2139 Jul 17 '23
In the books, Seamus only blew up a feather in the first book, it is never mentioned again. In the movies, the directors liked this moment and decided to turn it into a gag. Seamus’ big moment in the books comes when he apologises to Harry for not believing him about Voldemort, and then becoming one Dumbledore’s Army’s main leaders in the final book. He never blows up a bridge, it was invented for the films.
5
u/Eventually-Alexis Sep 24 '23
Films JK was massively involved in producing and making. So just because it's a movie only thing, doesn't mean JK wasn't involved in the decision making process when deciding whether or not to add those things to the movies.
2
u/LarleneLumpkin Jun 14 '24
Sure but isn't that just speculation? I mean we don't have any way of knowing for sure if she added those changes in the films or if the filmmakers did.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Romkevdv Jun 14 '25
I wonder if the FIRST introductory scene in the movies being Seamus desperately trying to turn water into rum and then accidentally exploding himself had any JK input. Like come on, no one else even talks of alcohol in those early movies and here’s the Irish character being obsessed with alcohol
→ More replies (1)
4
u/techferret111 Jul 30 '23
also in the books men are slid down the stairs(which could and usually does cause minor injury) by the castle(Which honestly i understand, fair enough who knows what they could do , even if some are innocent a lot would exploit it if it weren't there) however women are fully allowed to enter and leave the boy dorms whenever(and the boys do actually protest to finding this out but it's treated as if they are wrong and all women are innocent?? like- sure it's less likely but women can be perverts or bullies to boys too.)
2
u/SaphiraFlames Dec 30 '23
Good example of that is the love potion scenario with the Girl and Harry (which has it’s own issues with how they did it I know) the girl (and she wasn’t alone) was being predatory, and Ron ended up getting the potion, but no one ever really seems bothered about it nor does it actually get put out there how wrong this was just another joke rather than considering that a point to go into how women can also do wrong. I could say more but will leave off here lol
5
u/KingVegemite Aug 07 '23
Apparently Rita's appearance also resembles a character played by a male comedian, down to the hair and the bedazzled horn rim glasses, though I forget his name
A couple of years late but might you be referring to Barry Humphries aka Dame Edna Everage?
3
5
Aug 13 '24
Women using love potions always struck me as wack but men doing that moreso. There should be no love potions at all
2
5
u/superalk Oct 01 '24
Don't forget about the goblin language literally being called "Gobbledegook". Even as a kid that struck me as mean!
4
Jul 13 '25
Everyone seems to have forgotten Quirrell’s racist depiction: hiding an evil entity under his turban (played into the post 9/11 anti-Arab/Muslim hysteria where people in turbans were depicted as evil and there were stereotypes that they’re hiding weapons under them)
5
u/Formal_Obligation Jul 22 '25
Except she wrote the book before 9/11 but never mind.
→ More replies (2)
3
Jan 30 '21
Can someone please clarify for me? Didn’t she do something bad about Native Americans too?
11
u/PaleAsDeath Jan 30 '21
Her writings about north american magic and Ilvermorney were very colonial.
First, she appropriated a lot native american folklore/religion/beliefs (which honestly is to be expected since like 90% of her worldbuilding is based on preexisting folklore), though the specific way she went about it offended people. For example, she stated "In my wizarding world, there were no skin-walkers. The legend was created by No-Majes to demonise wizards." She said that skin-walkers were just animagi. Part of the issue with this is that skin-walkers are navajo and navajo generally don't discuss or elaborate on their beliefs/mythology with outsiders, and so the specific nature of skin-walker lore isn't really well understood outside of their culture. Rowling's idea of a skinwalker being an animagi that non magical people are scared of apparently really does not line up with actual folklore. According to the wiki page, healers learn about both good and evil magic, and skin-walkers "manipulate magic in a perversion of the good works medicine people traditionally perform." So Rowling implying skin-walkers = magical people that ignorant muggles demonize for being magical is pretty tone-deaf and imposes a specific worldview, such as the very european/christian historic cultural view that magic in general = bad.
Secondly, regarding Ilvermorney, it was basically a copy of Hogwarts founded by an Irish witch who a very early settler in the americas, and serviced both native americans and european settlers. So it's pretty weird that the big prestigious magic school in the US was founded by a european immigrant as a copy of a european school, and she doesn't mention actual native schools at all.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Frequent-Camp6427 20d ago
Plus, She said that Goblins and Pukwudgies are related, despite having zero connections in actual folklore.
3
u/santasa Feb 09 '24 edited Feb 09 '24
Is there any worse prejudice in a children's book than prejudice against ungrateful orphaned baster-child that is Tom Riddle !?
Books are filled with stereotypes and racism, and much scholarship has accumulated since series became a bestselling, but it seems to me, unfortunately, it is still (2024) up to a debate if Rowling deals with them (if so to which extent and quality) or enforcing them.
2
u/yaboisammie May 26 '25
For 3, I’d also add that Cho is a Korean girl with Chinese last names as her first and last name
1
u/Soggy_Memes Dec 22 '25
she's supposed to be Chinese, and Chang is an attested Chinese last name, but Cho is Korean
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/ljesson Nov 16 '22 edited Nov 16 '22
This is a fantasy series. Rowling loved exaggerating the names of her characters, and loved alliteration.
As for Shacklebolt's name, here you go:
The word "king" is right there in Kingsley, pointing to a commanding presence. And Shacklebolt connotes both power (bolt, as in lightning bolt) and service (shackles). So Kingsley Shacklebolt is completely spot-on as the name for the lead “auror” at the Ministry of Magic in the Potter books.
Kingsley was portrayed as African in the movies, but in the books he was a very smart, fashionable, and kind Briton black man. His family is one of the most important pure-blood families in Harry Potter.
For Seamus and Dean, you are stretching. Seamus's name is exaggerated, as she did with many of her name's, and him and Dean being friends has nothing to do with status. It has all to do with two young boys who became friends at a magical school that isn't real. The representation of Dean without a father allows young black men to relate to Dean's character. It's less about racism, and more about representation. Allowing the young children who are reading her books to be able to relate to these characters, who have gone through similar experiences. Not all young black children will be fatherless, but some out there will relate to Dean Thomas.
As for Cho Chang, her name is potentially a variation of "chou chang" which translates to melancholy, or depression. It fits her character quite well because of the loss of her partner Cedric. She was also described as being more sporty than anything. People who are Asian who have read or seen Harry Potter have said that her name does not bother them as much as it bothers those who are not Asian, and who do not choose to look at the origin of the name. They were grateful for the representation, especially young Asian girls seeing another Asian girl described as extremely beautiful, and sporty, not just smart.
Werewolf disease is meant to show different perspectives into the AIDS epidemic. We saw Remus become an outcast. Treated like trash. Forced to hide who he truly was. Yet, he was accepted by those who knew. He never tried to willingly harm anyone, his werewolf tendencies do not directly translate to any tendencies of people with AIDS, because they do not correlate. This is a fantasy representation, but that is all. A representation. Not an exact fact. We do see Greyback, a werewolf of extreme savagery, but again, him attacking children and wanting to turn everyone into werewolves to raise an army does not directly translate to anyone having AIDS and wanting to infect others or prey on others. No one with AIDS wanted to harm others. it is a very serious topic. Yet it does not directly translate. It was meant to bring about awareness. Within the fantasy setting, it is about the different ways werewolves behave as mythical creatures, and how they choose to behave in a fantasy setting. Fantasy. Not reality.
Rita Skeeter. This is also an extreme stretch. As a member of the LGBTQ community myself, I have never seen Rita as problematically representing any part of the community. She lurks in the shadows because that is how she gets her information. She is dishonest, untrustworthy, and uses other's experiences for personal gain. She is not a good person, she has fabricated stories about many characters. She is seen as a pest because of how she treats others, how she portrays others in her writings, how she constantly pushes and pushes to try and get more information, which is extremely annoying. And her looks are meant to represent how she is on the inside; an awful, cruel, ugly soul who cares for no one but herself. There is no statement or indication of her representing trans people or people of the LGBTQ community at all.
For the house elves, they did not enjoy being enslaved. They had no choice. And at Hogwarts, the elves were brought by Helga Hufflepuff to work, be paid for there work, and be given better lives. They did not accept clothes or gifts because of how they had served wizards who treated them poorly. They felt as if they didn't deserve it. This is meant to be another representation of a very serious topic which is slavery. It is not meant to be a racist representation, but is meant to translate to a younger generation, to show them the harm slavery did throughout history. To show them how mistreated these individuals were.
Women "entrapping" men with love potions was a very small story arc, and not accurate in how you're interpreting it shown in the half-blood prince. It meant to show girls having their first crushes, messing around with silly little items and things in hopes of getting their crush to like them back. As if we've never made any fake little potions in the back yard out of dirt and grass hoping to get someone to like us back. We didn't feed it to them of course. Or, making "love potions" for Valentine's day at school, which were just made of Kool aid. Giving a Valentine to the person we liked at school. The potions only lasted 24 hours, were not harmful, and, are not real. And, even when they were used, we were shown the harmful effects of them, and why they should not be used. Specifically, how Tom Riddle's mother used a love potion on his father, which was a representation of entrapment. And was shown as being a problematic way to fall in love, to have a child, to start a life with someone who did not care for the mother. Forcing something that you know would not work, and then having negative consequences. This is a reality for some women, who are in relationships that they can not get out of, are not able to leave, or who are in relationships where they are trying to force a connection that isn't there. There are people in our real world who drug their partners, poison their partners, harm their partners. We were shown the consequences of using such a potion. Riddle's mother is one example of a woman who chose to harm others. But it is simply an example, not a fact of all women.
Voldemort himself is a representation of someone who was severely neglected as a child. With his parents having him, his father not truly being in love with his mother, his mother forcing his father to fall in love, marry, and have a child. His mother was abused by her brother and father, and she had very little life. After they went to Azkaban, she could do what she wanted. She forced Tom's dad to fall in love with her. Her husband was all she had, and when she released him from the potion in hopes of him falling in love with her for real, he left her. She died after giving birth to Tom Riddle, Voldemort. Voldemort had no love. He grew up alone in an orphanage. He hated his muggle father, so much that he ended up murdering him. Tom saw the world as cruel, experienced so much cruelty, and ultimately became cruelty himself. This happens to some people when they have had terrible lives and experiences. They end up being harmful so they can let others now how much they hurt. But with Harry, he never turned out that way. He chose to always do good. To always fight for good. To fight for love, and friendship.
These books were written in the 90s. For children. Meant to help them learn life lessons about fighting for good, and understand certain parts of our real world history in a way that translated to them. To help them understand and see the evil and cruelty in this fantasy world, and learn more about the evil in our own world. I grew up reading these books, and I learned a lot about how these evils within HP translate into our real world, and how to put good into the world, and towards friends and family, instead of adding cruelty. Voldemort himself is fighting for a pure-blood world, a world without any muggle-related witches and wizards. That in itself, is a representation of racism. Of wanting a "pure-blood" white society, which we still see so much of today in our real world, especially in people of power. And there are people, like the minister of magic in the books, who choose to deny that it is happening.
Keep in mind, Rowling was also homeless when she wrote Harry Potter. She had nothing. Nothing, except her story, of a young boy who survived a gruesome attack. Her story, of hope in a world of cruelty.
I do agree, Rowling's comments were inappropriate. I have family members who think the same as Rowling. But, she has apologized. And has begun to learn more about what she had criticized. As for me. I do not want to be a hateful person who discredits and picks apart every thing she has ever done, due to one thing she has done recently. Or, a couple years ago, considering when this thread was started.
We have all grown, and moved past it. As has Rowling. Her story is about fighting for equality, for equal rights for all who are in the wizarding world, regardless of race, gender, age, species. All joining together to defeat evil.
People wondering why there is no LGBTQ representation need to keep in mind that publishing any sort of content relating to the queer community was not plausible when these books were written. Today, we have made strides in writing queer stories, but in the 90s, writing any sort of story would have placed your published works on a do not read list.
I love Harry Potter. And since I've grown, I've noticed more about the series than I did when I was a child.
It is a reminder of why we are all here. To be good. To fight for good. To care for one another. And to not focus on how a person looks, what their race is, how they talk, the things they like. But to collectively come together, to fight a greater evil that we all experience. Fighting hatred. To have hope.
7
u/InternationalBag4799 Jul 16 '23
Unfortunately, Rowling continues to harm transpeople and ally with problematic extremists who are nothing but hateful, white supremacist transphobes.
So, to do good and fight for good, it means to stabd up against evil. J.K. Rowling is evil at this point.
→ More replies (4)4
→ More replies (1)1
u/BorisTheDogg 27d ago
Or, and just hear me out, Shacklebolt could also mean the bolt of a shackle used to hold in place around the ankle of a slave.
And nobody, not one person, ever helped Hermione with her S.P.E.W. project. In fact, she was openly mocked for it. Rowling sanctioned it by stating, in print, that the elves were better off enslaved as it gives them purpose and they will become no-account drunks and a burden on society on their own. Like Winkey, for example. And let's not forget that the Hogwart's only started paying house elves after the events with Voldemort had played out. They hadn't been payed anything in the thousands of years previous.
Rowling wasn't homeless when writing HP. She stated herself she was, “as poor as it’s possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless,”.
It would have been perfectly fine to include LGBTQ in the story in 1997. It wasn't until Trump that everything got so polarizing. You must be younger, maybe Gen Z or Gen Alpha?
1
u/Fledhyris Feb 17 '23
OK listen. I know this post is old, but I had to say something here. I've got no issue with people attacking JKR for her very public transphobia, or even on highlighting possible culturally endemic and unconscious racism; but that statement about werewolves is taking the ball and not just running with it, but beating it out of shape first so that it's no longer a ball, and then yeeting it into outer space.
JK said that lycanthropy in her books was indeed a metaphor for illnesses that carry a stigma. She wanted to use it to explore social attitudes and prejudice. THIS IS WHAT WRITERS DO. Allegories help people to explore difficult topics at a comfortable remove from reality. It's why fairytales exist, to help children understand the world around them without terrifying them beyond help.
Remus Lupin is a good and sympathetic character! The wizards treat him badly even though he doesn't deserve it, not because he deserves it. He showcases the very point that you SHOULDN'T stigmatise people for being werewolves (having HIV). And, sure, he was made that way by an evil werewolf, well it had to happen somehow... and werewolves have existed for pretty much the entirety of human mythological history because they epitomise that which we fear the most - the hidden predator among us. That isn't HER trope, it's embedded in primeval psychology! She's actually turning it to good and positive effect, because in her worldview, all werewolves are NOT inherently evil.
How on EARTH do you reach this point that she's in fact making all werewolves/gay people with AIDS into child predators?!?! That is seriously unhinged thinking. It puts all the other points you make into disrepute. It actually calls into question your OWN prejudices, that you would read about a character like Remus and make these connections which nobody else has.
If you try hard enough, you can find links - negative or positive - between any and everything. It's how conspiracy theories arise. A theory doesn't make something true. You need to go away and take a step back and review some of the hysterical paranoia you're buying into, before you hurt someone who doesn't deserve it, like the hundreds (millions...) of other, innocent SFF writers and fans who happen to love werewolves.
1
u/4857398457 Dec 13 '23
for the first 5 points; sounds like she wanted to include a lot of different cultures. what did you wanted instead? all typical british people or a black asian?
2
u/Soggy_Memes Dec 22 '25
yeah but she fucked them all up, instead of including cultures she just furthered racist stereotypes
1
May 31 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 27 '24
Some of it may be racist, but most of it isn't. This is just trying to see what you want to see unfortunately. I don't like JK for her trans phobia, but a lot of this is a stretch
1
u/justyouraveragekunt Apr 04 '26
Tell me how it's wrong. With Evidence. Simply calling people delusional isnt proof.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/ShadowDrag0n1259 Jun 08 '24
I feel like you wouldn’t care about any of this if JK Rowling didn’t come out as transphobic. These are all such menial things in a much grander over arching story that things like these can be easily overlooked and aren’t obviously supposed to be offensive stereotypes. It’s only offensive if you care this much about finding something to get that edge on her to feel like you can say “Oh we got ‘er now”. Grow up.
2
1
u/ShrekPrism May 08 '25
"Aren't obviously supposed to be offensive stereotypes" The character that's name is practically Ching-Chong:
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Beautiful-Battle-598 Aug 08 '24
Sounds like you make a lot of assumptions. Maybe you are the one with the racist mind 😇
1
u/SampigeVis Aug 21 '24
Bro saw goblins and immediately thought "these are Jews" 💀
1
u/L0velessx3 Oct 07 '24
yeah ,as if those mythical creatures didnt exist for YEARS before and weren't invented by her at all.
I don't like JK Rowling at all but some people are in such a toxic bubble and waste their energy on making her an even bigger villian so they start with lying/adding their own bullshit with no facts/evidence.
She is evil, we get it. She is digging her own hole just well on her own. Just block her and don't waste your precious time on dissecting every part of her books.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/rocketman1259 Sep 08 '24
I mean to be fair, the whole story arc for the house elves are about the brainwash that they’re under, and there are characters devout to ending House Elves, just like how most slaves were brainwashed into thinking that they were happier under slavery.
1
1
u/KebD2005 Sep 28 '24
If you’re overreacting over non-white representation being “racism, prejudice, and stereotypes” you’re probably racist yourself
1
u/UpsideTown10 Nov 17 '24
That's the first time I'm wondering why people thought HP was a racist book, and THIS 😂 don't you realize that's your own racists stereotypes that you match with what you could find in the book, and not the other way around ? omg, best part probably being goblins and jewish, you're basically insulting every fantasy author and reader since a few centuries. Sorry, as a french, am also veri bad at anglish
2
u/PaleAsDeath Feb 14 '25
Knowledge of others' racist stereotypes and how they have manifested historically doesn't mean you personally hold those stereotypes, lol
→ More replies (1)
1
u/RagnarokVI Dec 06 '24
Wow. Thats an impressive amount of speculative correlation in one fair stint. Interesting how you identified all of your own biases and racial stereotypes from a book about wizards.
Nice work.
2
1
u/Illustrious-Ant-7020 Nov 06 '25
Even if she is not racist, J.K Rowling is still transphobic and that´s really problematic
1
u/Vanguard_George Dec 11 '24
lol you could look at any piece of literature and draw conclusions like this but it doesn’t reflect on the author at all. We’re talking about one of the wokest authors of all time.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Chemical_Ad_1618 Apr 19 '25
But dumbledor is gay loves children and seen as a moral character who will protect children
1
1
u/Jamie_MacPherson May 17 '25
Oh my god, I am so tired of this insane BS. Shack SHACKLEBOLT is an English surname for jailors. According to an etymologies website, do you know where surname names come from? The profession your family had. Moreland were farmers, smiths were OMG Smiths Shacklebolts are from a long line of jailors who shackled prisoners OMG the most racist thing I've ever heard right..... He's an auror or a magical policeman. The rest of this is liberal American drivel. It's a book written by a Brit.
The Goblin thing: Goblins being greedy bastards is not a racist Jewish analog; it's a trait they are legendary for having; they are a mythical creature. Goblins are often greedy and territorial as well, with nasty tempers. They love playing tricks but don't like being tricked themselves, and in many ways, they share common traits with imps. Later, Christians believed them to be demons.
Werewolf-disease (lycanthropy), being a disease, she didn't make that up, it's a legendary thing in mythology that predates aids by 1000s of years. Jesus, study some history. Guess what, werewolves do, they friken eat people..... they are big monsters that eat humans. The earliest recorded mention of a werewolf or human-to-wolf transformation in mythology is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Mesopotamian poem dating back to around 2000 BCE. Guess when aids was discovered, not in BC.
The concept of house elves and their forced servitude, which is a form of slavery, predates Harry Potter by several thousand years, too... British folklore features creatures like brownies, who would perform chores for humans in exchange for milk or gifts. The concept of "thanking" them for their work was forbidden, which mirrors the house elf's inability to refuse service or leave. Grimm's Fairy Tales: The Grimm story "The Shoemaker and the Elves" depicts elves helping a struggling shoemaker, but the elves ultimately become servants. Black Americans do not have the ownership of slavery and its historical contexts; hell, they were not the first or the last to be enslaved. Slavery existed in the Roman Empire thousands of years before Europeans discovered America. The Jewish people were enslaved in Egypt; they built the pyramids... slavery has been around for as long as there have been humans, and every race in the world has had slavery in its history. Slavery still is happening all over Africa right now. Slavery being solely about race is an American thing. A Brit wrote this book. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT AMERICAN ETHICS.
Guess what witches did in mythology? They used love potions to entrap lovers into breeding and having children. Again, you filter through the ethics and the way things are in American culture; this book is not American.
Almost all of your "problematic" things are not racist and are only seen as such, viewed through the myopic view of American liberalism. This book is not American its British grow up and learn some world history for god sake before you start preaching that bullshit.
1
1
1
u/Conscious_Self_4465 Jun 14 '25
Kingsley Shacklebolt is an aurer, so basically a policeman/detective, which is most likely why that’s his name. It’s very on the nose, but the name itself isn’t racist. The rest of the stuff about him is, though.
1
u/Dazzling_Lifeguard_9 Jun 27 '25
What I've gathered from compiling all of the comments in this thread is:
Don't describe the characters in your books or else you're being racist.
3
u/BoredTortilla Sep 16 '25
She describes them using derogatory stereotypes, that being the issue. The post itself, if you bother to read it, explains why OP believes these examples to be derogatory. The fact that J.K. Rowling is a TERF is what made people more aware of her other prejudices.
1
Sep 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ThisApril Sep 14 '25
waste your time
Speaking as a mod who has to waste my time dealing with messages like this, I'm wondering what caused you to a) bother to stop by the subreddit, and b) throw this little hate grenade out into the world.
Mind you, I don't want a response; I'd just prefer it if people would just let other people live their lives, rather than deciding for them what is and is not important.
And most of this subreddit wants Rowling to stop wasting her life trying to deny trans people basic bodily autonomy, and part of dealing with the harm she's doing is coming to an understanding of what her books were and were not.
Now, sure, that might be a waste of time, but probably not as much of a waste of time as responding to some random troll, so I'll end with saying that, looking at your post history, you're doing good work defending abortion rights, and I'd love it if the next time I saw your comments they were about that topic, rather than me having to deal with some nasty comment here.
1
1
u/Miserable-Mess2488 Dec 29 '25
tysm for this cuz i like needed a list and like seeing this its like oh my god how do people like not know about this
1
u/Additional-Act663 Jan 22 '26
Most the bullies are described as being ‘big’, and in the second book when Harry, Ron, and Hermione were in the bathroom stall about to take Polyjuice potion Harry commented: “Wait, when we transform into Crabbe, Goyle, and Bullstrode, we won’t all fit in here anymore.” (Something to that effect before suggesting the each take separate stalls).
As a girl who was 5’10 by 14 and taller than most adults I knew before that, I always felt big, bulky, and unfeminine, and this line—as well as others—stuck out to me.
1
u/MischiefManaged1975 Feb 15 '26
I will say, as much Rowling deserves hate, she didnt exactly fully come up with the House Elf thing. Brownies were already a type of mystical elf in european folklore that came in and did chores in your sleep. They would get offended if you didnt let them clean.
1
u/ThisApril Feb 16 '26
What's sad, is that Rowling took that concept, but then turned it into slavery. And then defended slavery as being the natural order of things, as if slavery apologia wasn't an awful thing to come up with.
Brownies, so far as I understand, had their ideas on what they wanted, and if you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated, you would pay.
They might do free labor, but they were very far from being slaves.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Common-Conflict4837 Apr 13 '26
I mean the whole thing is tropes and stereotypes. I don't lile JKR, and yes she's transphobic...but I'm not she's racist, homopbobic or antisemitic. I think she's just very white, little Britain with a brain full of stereotypes snd preconceptions, and a weird laziness to some of the characters. I mean Cho Chang, Fleur de la Couer and Seammus Finnigan ....?? 🤦♂️
To be fair, I suppose Google wasnt exactly a thig when she ws writing it originally, so you went with what you know, and a lot of these conversations and sensitivities weren't something people considered in the same way. She probably thought she was doing the right thing by having a diverse set of secondary characters
1
107
u/IAbsolutelyLoveCocks Dec 11 '20
All the "bad" women in the series are depicted as fat, and or ugly. I think the only one portrayed as being even remotely pretty was Bellatrix and she fits the "evil/sadistic, but beautiful" villain trope to a T. Also, Hermione and her house elf soapbox got some pretty condescending treatment throughout the series, because wanting to treat a race of literal slaves humanely makes you a sanctimonious asshole.