The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names I was already turned off

    Do the books glorify that, though? I seem to remember that only the blatantly evil characters thought like that.

    Granted, the last 3 Harry Potter books I read were all Methods of Rationality, so perhaps my understanding of canon is too good.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I admit it’s been a long time and I only read the first book, but I seem to remember everyone used the term “muggles.”

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Like @mellowwheat said, the main character is a “half-blood” and the chosen one; one of the friends is “muggle-born” yet one of the most powerful magic users in recent memory; and the other friend is a “full blood” wizard who still kinda sucks.

        Even the core three characters are supposed to be allegorical for “racism doesn’t mean shit.” I honestly don’t know how JK went from writing fiction that could be interpreted as pro-trans (at least from the standpoint of the movies), into doubling down on bigotry. I guess it was Twitter after all.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I guess, but the impression I got from the book I read was that those terms weren’t considered offensive enough for even the good characters to stop using them. Maybe I’m misremembering or maybe that gets addressed in a future book?

          • Zahille7@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Tbh I’ve only watched the movies so I can’t say for the books, but the movies definitely gave me that vibe. Well, any of them after the first one. And from what I remember, the main “good guys” only use the “no-no human words” a few times at the beginning of the series, whereas they’re mostly used by the bad guys throughout the whole thing.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              In that case, it’s hard to know whether that is Rowling and I have a poor memory about this or that the movie’s screenwriter made revisions on that front. I think either is a possibility at this point. I’d love someone else to chime in who is more familiar with the books.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I think thats the script writers, if memory serves right muggle is pretty inoffensive in the books partly cause the bad guys have their own term “mud blood” for those who are born to non magical parents. Honestly I think at worst its comparable to how people said “negro” in a non racist way back during and before the civil rights era here in the US. But I legit dont know if Rowling meant for those undertones, im not familiar enough with British civil rights history.

                Also Rowling may have been aluding to that for all I know cause the wizarding world is pretty explicitly backwards, serisouly they cut themselves off from the rest of the world sometime in the 1800. One of the secondary protagonists dad is a magical ATF agent who tracks down enchanted mundane artifacts that re-enter the non magical world.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Muggle isn’t considered offensive within the world, it’s just the British term for a non-magical person. Wizard/witch for those with magic, muggle for those without (in America we call them No-Maj, which is fucking awful)

            Some of the bad characters will say it in a sneering or mean-spirited way, but they often don’t use it at all and go instead for subtler terms like “those lesser than us” or “the filth” and similar

            The only term in the series that’s considered “offensive” is mudblood, which is basically a mixed race slur (it’s a wizard/witch born to one or both muggle parents), and it’s very much addressed as not OK to be said and why it shouldn’t be said and how much it can hurt people (from Rowlings fave character, no less!)

            It’s insane to me that the person who wrote that into book 2 went on to be a fucking TERF

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The main character is “half-blood” and his main sidekick is “muggle” herself, so I’d wager not so glorified. Of course, there’s an undercurrent of racism there, because the bloodlines really really matter. But this is fantasy fiction so I don’t how much of a sin it is. Bloodlines mattered in Tolkien too.

        I’m not sure if that last sentence is against or for my argument.