sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2007-06-26 12:18 pm
sistermagpie) wrote2007-06-26 12:18 pm
Where's the bigotry
I feel like I haven't posted in forever. I was away for a while for my brother's wedding, which was really fun. Although he's not too much like the character as a type, if I were to describe how my family feels about my brother, I think it's probably something like the way Neville fans feel about Neville...and his new wife's family and friends seem to feel the same way about her, so it was a pretty happy wedding.
Also, got an OUTSTANDING on the Level 3 WOMBAT--woo-hoo! I got O's on the second two and EE on the first one which was supposed to be the easiest. This is just like in high school when we'd get assigned summer reading and I'd get really into it and then get a bad grade when we were tested because they'd ask questions about ridiculous minutia in the story that I never remembered. The second two WOMBATs were about things I actually thought about. Anyway it’s pathetic how validated I feel about a pretend grade. But then, I was just as eager to find out Harry's OWL results and those were somebody else's pretend grades.
I'd wanted to post something before I left on this conversation I was reading on a list...I'm having trouble making it coherent, but figured I ought to throw it out before DH if I was going to throw it out at all. Especially after![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jlh posted about the anniversary of The Loving Decision, which ruled that a state (in that case, Virginia) could not nullify a marriage on the basis of race. I recommend the post. In it she also brought up the more fandom-related point of how difficult it seems it is to talk about race in fandom, and this other conversation was also about race in HP as related to real life racism. Specifically, this was about
Snape's Worst Memory.
In this scene Snape calls Lily Potter a Mudblood, and there was disagreement over whether this made him a racist or not at that time in his life. Iow, it wasn't a disagreement over whether Snape could have by now changed his views in canon and no longer have the beliefs he did then when he used the word, but whether his using that word showed he was an actual racist in the moment--or was he only angry and so saying the worst thing he could think of to hurt Lily. Iow, he didn’t "really believe" in Pure-blood supremacy. His being a Half-blood and identifying himself as such, in fact, made any claims that Snape was ever really racist suspicious. He couldn't really believe in the inferiority of those with Muggle-blood, and people offered their own experiences with times when they or someone they knew used a racist term for that reason but not because they really felt anything negative about the other person’s.
This view kind of surprised me, and I realized it came down to having fundamentally different ways of understanding bigotry. My own interpretation of that scene in canon is that Snape was a kid who got into a racist organization and however he privately understood blood distinctions in the WW, at a point in his life racist rhetoric gave him something he wanted and he supported it. This scene, in terms of the story, is showing us that Snape is moving down that road, the one we know will eventually end in his being a DE. His use of the term Mudblood is a big signpost—only three students I can think of ever use it: Snape, Tom Riddle, and Draco Malfoy.
Here’s where I think there’s a difference in understanding racism. If Snape isn't really a bigot because he doesn't really believe, bigotry is therefore judged by what a person believes deep down—not his actions or words. If Snape calls someone a Mudblood that doesn't make him a bigot unless "deep down" he believes that Purebloods are superior. The Malfoys, otoh, are real bigots because they are Purebloods who say they believe in the superiority of Purebloods and it’s believed that they do, deep down, see Muggle-borns as inferior.
But defining racism that way, I think, and by focusing on whether a person really is or isn’t a racist, can be misleading. It also handily discounts the experience of the person on the receiving end of the offensive behavior. It essentially says that I, as a white person, can use racial slurs and yet not be a racist. The racism is not defined by my actions or the other person’s experience, but by what I am deep down. Essentially, my action of calling someone a slur doesn’t matter because it’s just superficial, it’s not the way I really feel. I am only racist when I say I am by declaring that I really believe the other person is inferior. The other person can’t judge me accurately because they only have their actions. All the power lies with me, the racism is there when I, a member of the dominant group, say it is and not when a member of the other group says it is.
And yet it's in the superficial world, the one where people act—not the world deep down inside ourselves—where racism manifests itself. It's really only of limited importance to others what I personally believe--what matters more when it comes to making a society more equal for everyone is what I do or say to support or inequality, right? If I can do things that support or seem to support racial inequality without it being racism, how do we talk about racism at all?
This actually brings up another Slytherin character in HP that's debated as being bigoted or not--Slughorn. In his first scene Slughorn has this exchange with Harry:
Now, to me what Slughorn is doing here is very recognizable from our own world. He's stating flat-out that everyone knows Muggle-borns are a bit challenged, though he has a list of exceptional Muggle-borns that he's placed in positions that show how not prejudiced he is. Not that these people in any way disprove that Muggle-borns are inferior--they just show how it's "funny how that sometimes happens." He still knows everyone's lineage by heart.
To me, Slughorn's pretty sinister. He's teaching the kids at what seems to be the one school in the country, and he blatantly favors some students over others, those he thinks have a chance of bringing him glory. Sure if you're a Muggle-born star who catches his attention he'll put you in the club too--as a credit to your race. But the average Muggle-born would be more likely than the average Pureblood (who is assumed from the start to have more potential) of being neglected and discouraged by his teacher. A teacher who takes pride in having a hand in putting people into positions of power. Hasn't this attitude caused a lot of damage in the real world?
Whether or not Slughorn believes "deep down" that Muggle-borns are inferior, he certainly seems to have better expectations for Pure-bloods--it's not exactly a surprise that he seems to have mentored most of the Death Eaters we know. (And I'd be surprised if this sort of thing wasn't ever discussed at Slug Club meetings.) Not that Slughorn's beliefs really seem to be in question at all--he says flat-out that he believes Purebloods are superior, and yet I rarely hear him linked to characters in canon widely considered to be bigots. In fact, I've far more often heard the idea that Slughorn could be prejudiced described as a myth since he puts Hermione and Lily in his club. (Which is exactly his own defense of himself—only I thought JKR was there parodying the "I have [insert minority group] friends!" attitude.)
This seems to again go back to a view of racism based on motivation, with that motivation needing to be strictly logical as well: if Snape is a Half-blood he can not be a bigot because his father is a Muggle and that would make him inferior. If Slughorn puts Muggle-born Hermione in his Club he can not be a bigot because a bigot must shun all Muggle-borns. Yet in the real world both these things happen all the time--one can be behave in racist ways and still have blood ties to the group you despise. One can behave in racist ways and still like individuals of that race.
On the level of just what the author meant by having Snape use the word, I think if she has a character use language marked as Pure-blood supremacists in the text, she's telling us that character supports certain attitudes we've seen. When Blaise Zabini's calls Ginny a "blood traitor," for instance, I think she's showing the same thing. (And yes, I have heard Blaise's blood-traitor, too, interpreted as not really showing us that he "really believes" any of the things Malfoy does.) My point here isn't to prove that Blaise is a big bigot, just to show that same attitude about racism, that what matters is the characters specific motivation behind the language he's using, and not the fact that he's using the language.
But the question is—why does motivation matter, if it does? Obviously it matters in understanding the character, which is always good. But in understanding bigotry, how different is it for a character who's considered not to be a bigot to use a slur (like Hagrid calling Filch a "sneakin' Squib") from a bigoted character (say, Malfoy calling Hermione a "Mudblood.")
That's where I think the analogy to the real world gets important, because the same idea applied there. "I just used the word to hurt the other person—I didn't really believe it." I just wonder if that distinction isn't a whole lot more important for the person using the slur than the one hearing it. I mean, I'm sure that anyone in a minority group makes distinctions in dealing with people who are in the majority--Bob said something stupid the other day, but he just doesn't get why it was stupid vs. Joe's a member of a white supremacist group and I stay far away from him.
But if we only make that distinction, I think we avoid what connects Bob and Joe. Rather than racism being something that someone is or isn't all the time, it seems to me it's more like something that's just there for a person in the dominant group to choose to use or benefit from it or not, if that makes sense. Becoming aware of power imbalances amongst people in a society is a part of growing up. And while I suspect members of minorities may become aware and more sophisticated about these things sooner, children of the majority also go through their own understanding of it—and sometimes that means testing out that power they have. I think that testing and understanding is part of what racism is.
For instance, when someone says they used a word when they were a teenager because they knew it would hurt the other person and not because they were racist it begs the question: why did you know that word would be so hurtful? Because, obviously, it comes with a whole history of power imbalance behind it. It's not just like saying you don't like blonds to a person with blond hair. (JKR plays with this, imo, with things like Pansy's remark about Angelina's hair and Blaise being black—she’s removed the racial divisions we know from her story at the level at which the characters operate, but of course not on the level at which the reader operates.)
I think that distinction gets made a lot in the HP-verse because the universe is so based around power. This is why I think the twins giving Dudley a ton-tongue toffee is Muggle-baiting whether or not they did it "because he's a Muggle." By using magic on him they're using the inequality against him, just as one does if they call a minority a slur. It's just curious that there too it's the same disagreement over how the thing is defined: is it the motivation of the twins that makes it bad, or their actions in the context of the society? I think it's the latter, and I think that's also true of Snape in his early life.
Also, got an OUTSTANDING on the Level 3 WOMBAT--woo-hoo! I got O's on the second two and EE on the first one which was supposed to be the easiest. This is just like in high school when we'd get assigned summer reading and I'd get really into it and then get a bad grade when we were tested because they'd ask questions about ridiculous minutia in the story that I never remembered. The second two WOMBATs were about things I actually thought about. Anyway it’s pathetic how validated I feel about a pretend grade. But then, I was just as eager to find out Harry's OWL results and those were somebody else's pretend grades.
I'd wanted to post something before I left on this conversation I was reading on a list...I'm having trouble making it coherent, but figured I ought to throw it out before DH if I was going to throw it out at all. Especially after
jlh posted about the anniversary of The Loving Decision, which ruled that a state (in that case, Virginia) could not nullify a marriage on the basis of race. I recommend the post. In it she also brought up the more fandom-related point of how difficult it seems it is to talk about race in fandom, and this other conversation was also about race in HP as related to real life racism. Specifically, this was about Snape's Worst Memory.
In this scene Snape calls Lily Potter a Mudblood, and there was disagreement over whether this made him a racist or not at that time in his life. Iow, it wasn't a disagreement over whether Snape could have by now changed his views in canon and no longer have the beliefs he did then when he used the word, but whether his using that word showed he was an actual racist in the moment--or was he only angry and so saying the worst thing he could think of to hurt Lily. Iow, he didn’t "really believe" in Pure-blood supremacy. His being a Half-blood and identifying himself as such, in fact, made any claims that Snape was ever really racist suspicious. He couldn't really believe in the inferiority of those with Muggle-blood, and people offered their own experiences with times when they or someone they knew used a racist term for that reason but not because they really felt anything negative about the other person’s.
This view kind of surprised me, and I realized it came down to having fundamentally different ways of understanding bigotry. My own interpretation of that scene in canon is that Snape was a kid who got into a racist organization and however he privately understood blood distinctions in the WW, at a point in his life racist rhetoric gave him something he wanted and he supported it. This scene, in terms of the story, is showing us that Snape is moving down that road, the one we know will eventually end in his being a DE. His use of the term Mudblood is a big signpost—only three students I can think of ever use it: Snape, Tom Riddle, and Draco Malfoy.
Here’s where I think there’s a difference in understanding racism. If Snape isn't really a bigot because he doesn't really believe, bigotry is therefore judged by what a person believes deep down—not his actions or words. If Snape calls someone a Mudblood that doesn't make him a bigot unless "deep down" he believes that Purebloods are superior. The Malfoys, otoh, are real bigots because they are Purebloods who say they believe in the superiority of Purebloods and it’s believed that they do, deep down, see Muggle-borns as inferior.
But defining racism that way, I think, and by focusing on whether a person really is or isn’t a racist, can be misleading. It also handily discounts the experience of the person on the receiving end of the offensive behavior. It essentially says that I, as a white person, can use racial slurs and yet not be a racist. The racism is not defined by my actions or the other person’s experience, but by what I am deep down. Essentially, my action of calling someone a slur doesn’t matter because it’s just superficial, it’s not the way I really feel. I am only racist when I say I am by declaring that I really believe the other person is inferior. The other person can’t judge me accurately because they only have their actions. All the power lies with me, the racism is there when I, a member of the dominant group, say it is and not when a member of the other group says it is.
And yet it's in the superficial world, the one where people act—not the world deep down inside ourselves—where racism manifests itself. It's really only of limited importance to others what I personally believe--what matters more when it comes to making a society more equal for everyone is what I do or say to support or inequality, right? If I can do things that support or seem to support racial inequality without it being racism, how do we talk about racism at all?
This actually brings up another Slytherin character in HP that's debated as being bigoted or not--Slughorn. In his first scene Slughorn has this exchange with Harry:
"Your mother was Muggle-born, of course. Couldn't believe it when I found out. Thought she must have been pure-blood, she was so good."
"One of my best friends is Muggle-born," said Harry, "and she's the best in our year."
"Funny how that sometimes happens, isn't it?" said Slughorn.
"Not really," said Harry coldly.
Slughorn looked down at him in surprise. "You mustn't think I'm prejudiced!" he said. "No, no, no! Haven't I just said your mother was one of my all-time favorite students? And there was Dirk Cresswell in the year after her too - now Head of the Goblin Liaison Office, of course - another Muggle-born, a very gifted student, and still gives me excellent inside information on the goings-on at Gringotts!"
He bounced up and down a little, smiling in a self-satisfied way, and pointed at the many glittering photograph frames on the dresser, each peopled with tiny moving occupants.
Now, to me what Slughorn is doing here is very recognizable from our own world. He's stating flat-out that everyone knows Muggle-borns are a bit challenged, though he has a list of exceptional Muggle-borns that he's placed in positions that show how not prejudiced he is. Not that these people in any way disprove that Muggle-borns are inferior--they just show how it's "funny how that sometimes happens." He still knows everyone's lineage by heart.
To me, Slughorn's pretty sinister. He's teaching the kids at what seems to be the one school in the country, and he blatantly favors some students over others, those he thinks have a chance of bringing him glory. Sure if you're a Muggle-born star who catches his attention he'll put you in the club too--as a credit to your race. But the average Muggle-born would be more likely than the average Pureblood (who is assumed from the start to have more potential) of being neglected and discouraged by his teacher. A teacher who takes pride in having a hand in putting people into positions of power. Hasn't this attitude caused a lot of damage in the real world?
Whether or not Slughorn believes "deep down" that Muggle-borns are inferior, he certainly seems to have better expectations for Pure-bloods--it's not exactly a surprise that he seems to have mentored most of the Death Eaters we know. (And I'd be surprised if this sort of thing wasn't ever discussed at Slug Club meetings.) Not that Slughorn's beliefs really seem to be in question at all--he says flat-out that he believes Purebloods are superior, and yet I rarely hear him linked to characters in canon widely considered to be bigots. In fact, I've far more often heard the idea that Slughorn could be prejudiced described as a myth since he puts Hermione and Lily in his club. (Which is exactly his own defense of himself—only I thought JKR was there parodying the "I have [insert minority group] friends!" attitude.)
This seems to again go back to a view of racism based on motivation, with that motivation needing to be strictly logical as well: if Snape is a Half-blood he can not be a bigot because his father is a Muggle and that would make him inferior. If Slughorn puts Muggle-born Hermione in his Club he can not be a bigot because a bigot must shun all Muggle-borns. Yet in the real world both these things happen all the time--one can be behave in racist ways and still have blood ties to the group you despise. One can behave in racist ways and still like individuals of that race.
On the level of just what the author meant by having Snape use the word, I think if she has a character use language marked as Pure-blood supremacists in the text, she's telling us that character supports certain attitudes we've seen. When Blaise Zabini's calls Ginny a "blood traitor," for instance, I think she's showing the same thing. (And yes, I have heard Blaise's blood-traitor, too, interpreted as not really showing us that he "really believes" any of the things Malfoy does.) My point here isn't to prove that Blaise is a big bigot, just to show that same attitude about racism, that what matters is the characters specific motivation behind the language he's using, and not the fact that he's using the language.
But the question is—why does motivation matter, if it does? Obviously it matters in understanding the character, which is always good. But in understanding bigotry, how different is it for a character who's considered not to be a bigot to use a slur (like Hagrid calling Filch a "sneakin' Squib") from a bigoted character (say, Malfoy calling Hermione a "Mudblood.")
That's where I think the analogy to the real world gets important, because the same idea applied there. "I just used the word to hurt the other person—I didn't really believe it." I just wonder if that distinction isn't a whole lot more important for the person using the slur than the one hearing it. I mean, I'm sure that anyone in a minority group makes distinctions in dealing with people who are in the majority--Bob said something stupid the other day, but he just doesn't get why it was stupid vs. Joe's a member of a white supremacist group and I stay far away from him.
But if we only make that distinction, I think we avoid what connects Bob and Joe. Rather than racism being something that someone is or isn't all the time, it seems to me it's more like something that's just there for a person in the dominant group to choose to use or benefit from it or not, if that makes sense. Becoming aware of power imbalances amongst people in a society is a part of growing up. And while I suspect members of minorities may become aware and more sophisticated about these things sooner, children of the majority also go through their own understanding of it—and sometimes that means testing out that power they have. I think that testing and understanding is part of what racism is.
For instance, when someone says they used a word when they were a teenager because they knew it would hurt the other person and not because they were racist it begs the question: why did you know that word would be so hurtful? Because, obviously, it comes with a whole history of power imbalance behind it. It's not just like saying you don't like blonds to a person with blond hair. (JKR plays with this, imo, with things like Pansy's remark about Angelina's hair and Blaise being black—she’s removed the racial divisions we know from her story at the level at which the characters operate, but of course not on the level at which the reader operates.)
I think that distinction gets made a lot in the HP-verse because the universe is so based around power. This is why I think the twins giving Dudley a ton-tongue toffee is Muggle-baiting whether or not they did it "because he's a Muggle." By using magic on him they're using the inequality against him, just as one does if they call a minority a slur. It's just curious that there too it's the same disagreement over how the thing is defined: is it the motivation of the twins that makes it bad, or their actions in the context of the society? I think it's the latter, and I think that's also true of Snape in his early life.
This is going to be incoherent
Re: This is going to be incoherent
Re: This is going to be incoherent
Re: This is going to be incoherent
But that also makes it much harder to find a really logical thought process behind the racism, because I don't think there always is one. It can just be a feeling.
Re: This is going to be incoherent
I think racism, or at least the potential for it, is a completely natural extension of evolution and a near-hard-wired part of our brains. If we look at the early history of humanity I believe there was a huge incentive for thinking in what amounts to an "us vs. them" way: being more sure of passing on genes. If one identifies strongly with one's tribe or other group, and acts to protect and defend the group, one creates a situation where the group has more resources and collectively has a better chance of passing on genes. It's logical, as well, because in a small tribe or other group one probably was related to most everyone, at least to a degree. Hard-wire that fierce protectiveness over millions of years and you the precursors to things like racism and nationalism.
The same intrinsic part of our nature that makes racism possible is exactly what politician prey on as well. Bush's "If you're not with us your against us" is an extremely powerful statement for that reason. It's the same attitude that gave rise to the Holocaust. There's a fundamental fear of being excluded from one's group because, in a hind-brain way, it means maybe not passing on genes.
/evolutionary pop!psychology
I tried to keep this brief. In no way am I justifying bad behavior, or worse, but I do think it's folly to ignore the less than noble parts of ourselves.
Re: This is going to be incoherent
True. And if those Others have the same motivation for attacking and conquering Us, then We've got to fight really hard, not allow them any quarter, and Protect Our Own!
The "For us or against us" quote is exactly this. America isn't a homogenous society, so maybe 'racist' isn't the right word here. It is an example of a society closing in on itself and repelling a threat. Wartime mentality automatically goes to the For or Against, no in-between. And America was stated as being the target, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. It was understandable at that time, IMO.
It isn't just the passing on of genes, as societies progress. It's quality of life for one's progeny. It's not being slaves to Other. It's being Top of the Heap, which we see in the WW's "Fountain of Magical Bretheren". Muggles are magicless, yet they've harmed witches and wizards from what we've been told; Squibs are a shame; Muggle-borns are inferior and not expected to do much with themselves; house elves are only fit for slavery; giants ought to be erradicated (this might have some actual back-up); centaurs are somehow lesser (and they think witches and wizards are), and so on.
But, yeah, in the WW, like in every other society, the way to ensure the continuation of that society is to produce offspring. And it somehow muddies the gene pool to allow all of those other, inferior (and dangerous!) folks into the mix.
Re: This is going to be incoherent
In the HP-verse, we have all of the issues of bigotry surrounding muggles vs. wizards, muggleborns vs. purebloods, non-human magical creatures vs. wizards, etc. and yet (just like in real life) the culture itself is supporting the us vs. them dynamic with the individual houses, points and house cup competion, quidditch teams, the Tri-Wizard Tournament, etc. -- all totally sanctioned and socially acceptable.
Re: This is going to be incoherent
Regarding the WW world it is interesting that although wizards seem to be more powerful, having magic at their disposal, it's the Muggles who I see as a threat, i.e. witch burnings etc.
In both cases it seems to me the knowledge and use of technology - steel against bronce, muskets against arrows and so on - is the one defining advantage that has given whites as well as Muggles the edge over non-whites as well as wizards.
Re: This is going to be incoherent