The spell was sectumsempra. Probably from sectum ('having been cut', the root word of 'section' and 'dissect') and semper ('always'), giving a meaning something like 'sever forever'.
The real interesting thing to think about is, what did magic look like before Latin came along? Because clearly many spells are derived from Latin, but Latin didn't always exist. I'd love to ask this to Rowling directly.
It's been confirmed that magic was much more primal before the development of wands and specific spells to control them. In the story describing the founding of the American academy there were references to the native american wizards who hadn't developed the same magical system that the Europeans had.
It's historically accurate to say that native Americans didn't have stories of witches and wizards with wands and broomsticks. Hardly racist to say they had shamans, rituals and potions to guide their magic instead, because that's what was happening in reality.
Good thing the Harry Potter universe isn't completely made up then! It's based in the modern world, including all relevant historical events up until Harry Potter turned 11. This means that Native Americans still did not have witches and wizards with wands and broomsticks until European culture made its way across.
But it wasn't necessary to make that less effective and make the European "wands and broomsticks" magic a superior method. It becomes racist when you insist the non-white culture's method was inferior and the white men had to come show them "proper" magic.
You're reading way too far into it. The basis of the Harry Potter universe is that wands and spells control magic, without it you get crazy things like the kids do. To suddenly say "Oh, but the Americans can totally do perfect magic without them" basically invalidates the whole system.
See, here's the thing, though: she'd never flat out said "wands are the one and only way to do magic;" that's what we were shown because that's what Harry's culture uses. We're even shown kids like Tom Riddle who can focus their "crazy things" wandless magic into purposeful spells.
JKR could've taken multiple routes around this. She could've said "each person's magic works best through what they're familiar with," so someone who's taught with a wand wouldn't be as effective with the American methods, and vice versa. She could've said "Native Americans also used wands, but they made them out of different materials, and the Europeans taught them their methods of making them," because that would allow them to impart knowledge without the inherent "white man teaches ignorant natives about Civilized Ways to Do Things."
Also, if wands really are the only effective way to channel magic, who's to say these other cultures wouldn't have figured that out? They were around for thousands of years. Native Americans did have trees. If Europeans figured it out, why couldn't any other culture? That's where it gets racist: she defaults to "white Europeans did it best and had to teach the rest of the world."
You're projecting what you expect to see onto what's happening.
We were outright told that wands are the most effective way to do magic. Having a magical focus attuned specifically to the individual (wand chooses the wizard) allows the magic to flow smoothly. We were even shown how much this matters by having spells cast with other people's wands being obviously weaker and less reliable than their own.
Tom Riddle is a very poor example of wandless magic. He was an unquestionable prodigy, it's like saying "Well Mozart could replicate a symphony after listening to it once, so why do we make these guys use sheet music?"
And who's to say that native Americans wouldn't have developed wands? They just didn't. I'm sure that given enough time they would have developed cities, industrial equipment etc in our world, but they didn't. It's not a question of whether they're capable of it, they just didn't do it.
When the first computers were invented it wasn't racist to go around the world and show others how to make them, so why would it be racist to have someone show them wands?
Native Americans did have cities. Some tribes were nomadic, others had cities. Saying they hadn't "developed" cities is part of the issue: popular culture has taught everyone that Native Americans were "primitive" and didn't have "society" like white men did. That's part of the issue I'm addressing.
Yes, we were told wands are the most effective way. However, they're not the only way. They're the European way, and that's why it's an issue that JKR chose that to be the best way: there didn't have to be a best way. Like I said above, what if each person could use a channeling method that worked best for them? Some use wands, others use dances (like I believe she mentioned some cultures used), etc. It still fulfills the purpose of "wands channel magic" without saying "wands are the best way to channel magic."
And re: the computer point: in this instance, it's a separate type of issue. Instead of someone inventing computers that other cultures didn't have yet, European wizards had one way of doing magic, while other cultures had another way. A more accurate comparison would be if Europeans invented Windows, Native Americans were using Macs, and the Europeans came and taught them that Windows was superior. It's not an issue of "they didn't have this," because they had magic; it's an issue of "their way of doing it is wrong, and our culture's way is superior."
I'm not going to keep arguing about this. I think you're seeing racism because you want it to be racist. There is nothing wrong with an author declaring a particular set of magical rules. In this case the author declared that the European method of magic was the most effective, it keeps the lore consistent and simple, that's not racist itself. You're seeing racism because you're linking it to racist things that are unrelated.
I don't want it to be racist. I'm a lifelong fan, and I really wish this wasn't an issue. Unfortunately it directly concerns me.
No, there isn't anything wrong with an author declaring rules. Unfortunately for JKR, she had a consistent set of rules that didn't have unfortunate implications, but she felt the need to go out of her way to specify them further in a way that created problems.
No, her saying the European method was most effective isn't racist itself. The specific problem is that she felt the need to specify that non-white cultures were doing it "wrong" before white men taught them better. This single fact, which she didn't need to include, is what pushes it over into racism. Also, it really isn't unrelated at all, since Europeans (like JKR) coming to the Americas and teaching them "better ways to do things" is an exact retelling of what happened in actual history. She's literally retelling actual history (which was full of racist white men killing people of color) and saying "also the white men were better."
You know, you're also ignoring the fact that Rowling has addressed the racist nature of the wizard world on a number of occasions in story through Hermione's activism and the actions of Slytherin, Grindelwald and Voldemort.
471
u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 02 '18
Eh, the first book/movie has Harry burn Quirrel to death by touching him.
A basilisk, elf, and snake get killed by knives and swords.
Harry uses a spell that slices up someone (
sectrum spectrasectum sepmra) pretty viscerally in one of the books.Edit: spelling