This thread is a focused discussion group. Please see the first post below for the current topic and upcoming book discussions. While natter will inevitably happen, we encourage you to treat this like a virtual book club and try to keep your posts in that spirit.
By consensus, this thread is reopened specifically to discuss Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It will be closed again once that discussion has run its course.
***SPOILER ALERT***
- **Spoilers for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows lie here. Read at your own risk***
Of course, once you come to the place where you ascribe hard and fast positive and negative personality traits to equivalently sentient creatures, tolerance of diversity can take a nose dive.
Yeah I think that is the problem. You have a fictional species who really is, as a species or culture, money grubbing and (maybe-only hinted) out to take over the world. The stereotype actually is correct for them. That is going to be congruent with some ethnic stereotype in a lot places. And the thing is it was not neccesary for the plot. Why not just have Gringotts be a money grubbing hostile institution, rather than have its actions representative of an entire species? (The series is quite specific in several places that Goblins in general are like than, rather than just Gringotts.)
I have no idea if goblins were used to parallel Jews beforehand, but aren't those all longtime attributes?
Of Goblins? I do think there was some conflation of demonized images of Jews and demonic creatures. That is, people projected onto Jews a lot of debased, subhuman myths and that imagery was entwined in Western culture for a long time.
It also goes to the way Wagner portrays dwarves in his Ring Cycle, it's loaded with Jewish stereotypes.
Why not just have Gringotts be a money grubbing hostile institution, rather than have its actions representative of an entire species? (The series is quite specific in several places that Goblins in general are like than, rather than just Gringotts.)
The Goblins were among the other magical creatures in conflict with the Wizards for generations. That the Wizarding world isn't a fairy tale utopia is an important part of the books.
Yeah, but the wizards' flaws are not inherent. Why make a conflicting species whose flaws are?
All the non-human species have inherent flaws. Elves are obsequious, Centaurs are arrogant, werewolves are murderers.
The Goblins were among the other magical creatures in conflict with the Wizards for generations. That the Wizarding world isn't a fairy tale utopia is an important part of the books.
Yes, but the bank could've been run by a consortium of Goblins and Wizards etc. Whereas banking was exclusively the provenance of Jews for a long time because of Christian laws about usury. So by making the Goblins the bankers, and attributing to them key elements of the Jewish stereotype she's reinforcing the equation of Goblins = Jews.
The Wizards say these things about any number of species. The prejudices and sterotypes and rights involving Centaurs, House Elves, Giants... its all over the books.
So by making the Goblins the bankers, and attributing to them key elements of the Jewish stereotype she's reinforcing the equation of Goblins = Jews.
Or possibly Chinese if you're Jamaican.
The Wizards say these things about any number of species. The prejudices and sterotypes and rights involving Centaurs, House Elves, Giants... its all over the books.
They don't just say these things. In many cases, within the universe of the book it is true. Humans have flaws as individuals or organizations. Other species have flaws as species. Fits what I said about good intentions, but hasn't really thought about diversity. Why not have a particular tribe of centaurs be ultra-proud and touchy rather than all centaurs? Why have all (or all but one) house-elves be willing, nay enthusiastic, slaves? And so on....
The world is from the POV of the wizards, not an omnitient unbiased entity.
