Expanding on what Victor said, I thought JKR did a good job in the last book of explaining how the Goblins are not money-grubbing from their point of view. They just have a different way of looking upon trade.

Warning: tangential nit-picking ahead.

If I say retrievers are all about their toys and herders are all about controlling others, it isn't a stereotype--it's a basic trait of their p species.

Retrievers and herders are the same species. They're dogs. The tendencies described are, in fact, breed stereotypes. They're usually based on genetic tendencies all dogs share, but that have been enhanced in one group by human manipulation or genetic isolation. There are plenty of retrievers out there who are more interested in people than toys and plenty of herders who are deeply ball or frisbee obsessed.

Breed specific legislation (think Pit Bull laws) is based on such stereotypes, which means those laws won't do what they're intended to do. Since dogs aren't sentient, it's obviously not a good comparison, but the discussion of non-human legislation in the Potterverse reminded me of this.

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 know this far back but I wanted to point out that institutions inherently don't operate with human intentions. Enron wasn't an inherently wrongheaded institution... institutions aren't operativces and shouldn't be afforded the same privileges and individuals. Rather, it's the beings that make individual choices for the institution that are evil, grubbing, hostile, good intentioned or kind, or at least that's what some economists like Robert Reich argue. Therefore Gringotts can't act a certain way. Just the goblins who run it.

ut I wanted to point out that institutions inherently don't operate with human intentions. Enron wasn't an inherently wrongheaded institution... institutions aren't operativces and shouldn't be afforded the same privileges and individuals. Rather, it's the beings that make individual choices for the institution that are evil, grubbing, hostile, good intentioned or kind, or at least that's what some economists like Robert Reich argue. Therefore Gringotts can't act a certain way. Just the goblins who run it.

But institutions are a set of roles and the people who fill them. The roles are important; because people will act in ways when filling a role that they would not outside it. Also, in general, people behave differently in groups than they do as individuals.

This is by the way irrelevant to my point. If I accepted your argument, then mine would simply be rephrased to say that she could have had the money grubbing be a characteristic of the goblins within Gringotts, rather than a characteristic of all goblins.

And this leads to why I'm a bit uneasy about this in relation to HB. Contrary to what I said the other day, Rowling has been quoted as saying she regards the series as a "prolonged argument for tolerance". Having species have genetically embedded cultural characters, when it is almost inevitable that they will be read as analogies to human races, ethnic groups, and nations is deeply problematic. It puts forward the message: be tolerant and accepting but it is ok to prejudge based on race. I'm certain that was not JKR's intent; but if the book is (in addition to other things) a "prolonged message" then it is fair to worry about the content of that message.

Having species have genetically embedded cultural characters

I'm not convinced that that's what she has presented. What we have seen are the expectations that Wizards have of how the various species will behave, but we also have examples of individuals defying those expectations: Dobby, the centaur who taught Divination, Grawp to a certain extent, Lupin. We didn't meet a lot of goblins, but mostly what we know about them is that they view the world differently than wizards do and that leads to misunderstandings.

I am troubled by the lack of visible queerness in the Potterverse, more so in the student population than with Dumbledore. Harry knew a lot of kids at Hogwarts, statistically some of them would be gay. It would have been easy to, say, have a Gay and Lesbian Alliance be one of the groups angry at Umbridge when the clubs were dismantled.

It would have been easy to, say, have a Gay and Lesbian Alliance ...

Hmm. The Potterverse is (intentionally I think) a deeply reactionary universe. Part of the intent (I think) is to take certain flaws in our own universe and exaggerate them . So a Gay and Lesbian alliance would be unlikely. But I'm sure there are other ways it could have been handled.

However:

what we have seen are the expectations that Wizards have of how the various species will behave, but we also have examples of individuals defying those expectations: Dobby, the centaur who taught Divination, Grawp to a certain extent, Lupin.

But house-elves really are willing slaves. Dobby is the only exception in response to really extreme abuse. Firense is nearly killed by other centaurs for daring to help humans, and still seems to otherwise fit the Centaur stereotype. And Dobby remains servile even after he is freed. It is more about other races being good in their own way than transcending stereotypes.

In a way I'd compare it to some of the Shadow stories where the Shadow has all these people who fit racial stereotypes working for him - but they are good stereotypes. The black couple are good with razors and use them against the bad guys. The Asian guys use their sneakiness against the the bad guys. So it maintains stereotypes and prejudgement, even while there is a kind of tolerance and acceptance mixed in. I don't think on balance the message is a good one.

That's not how I see it. Dobby chooses to help Harry after he's freed out of gratitude rather than obligation. For a House Elf that is a huge difference. Firenze chooses ostracism and physical abuse because he thinks centaur ways might be wrong. They're small steps, maybe, but enormously important. That even one member of the species can act differently than they are stereotyped demonstrates that the stereotype is not a universal truth.

And with that in mind, maybe Harry's self-sacrifice - allowing his own death - is the way he transcends humanity's/wizardkind's basic flaw(s) of selfishness and self-centeredness.

I don't see the different species as analogous to races or ethnicities in our world, either. I can see how you can read it that way, but it didn't occur to me. At all. But that's just me.

I don't see the different species as analogous to races or ethnicities in our world, either. I can see how you can read it that way, but it didn't occur to me. At all. But that's just me.

Same here. I read the blood status thing as clearly meant to reference racial issues in our world, but I saw the other species as other species. There were a few times that I saw some parallels, but I didn't at all see it as making any kind of point about our world, since the house elves wanting to serve doesn't say anything at all about any humans, it just says something about house elves. (Personally, I read SPEW as perfectly in line with the way many young teenage girls become very into animal rights.)

Better explanation of what my point was re: institutions vs. individuals.

“Companies cannot act with criminal intent because they have no human capacity for intent,” Reich says. “Arthur Andersen may have sounded like a person but the accounting firm was a legal fiction. . . how can any jury, under any circumstances, find that a company ‘knew’ that ‘its’ actions were wrong? A company cannot know right from wrong. A company is incapable of knowing anything. Nor does a company itself take action. Only people know right from wrong, and only people act. That is a basic tenet of democracy.”

Sure, you can say that Goblins, and only those Goblins, in Gringotts are greedy. But your original statement actually pinged me because the whole giving institutions rights and responsibilities is also reflected, in some ways, with people's anti-ministry stance (Ministry as being ineffectual or Ministry as being outright evil).

Blah blah blah. I personally don't read the non-human species as anything other than non-human species, not as analogs to any particular ethnic group. If you believe Goblins are a stand in for jews, then who are Centaurs a stand in for? And house elves?

If you believe Goblins are a stand in for jews, then who are Centaurs a stand in for?

JKR has stated explicitly that the centaurs are "wild nature" - pure Pan figures of anarchic, sexual energy.

So, in her mind at least, they have a specific metaphorical function. Which is why it is the Centaurs which drag Umbridge away.