Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
The very essence of POEdom, then.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Harry Potter, Book 8 title candidates?
- Thread starter Gawdzilla Sama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harry potter
The very essence of POEdom, then.
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
Wait, what? The books were too long so she left out the plot thread in which she cast sentient beings as willing slaves? Is that the best you've got? That's a terrible defense.
Perhaps it is because they are more familiar with human boys, the most likely candidates to sneak into the Forbidden Forest. (The name alone...)
Also, as the three are together she would be representative of them.
Where did JK say anything about rape?
Never, as I recall. She just implied it. Which I think you know, and are just trying to win an internet debate with me. It would be easy to win; I don't have the source material and read it a long time ago. If this is really, really important to you I suppose I could go check it out of the library. Or, if you stop tying to win a debate with me, you could just go back and read it. I remember when I read it thinking, "wait, what?" and going back and realizing that was what was happening. In what scenario other than sexual assault would it be so important for Hermione to establish that she's a child, not an adult? You can put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la she never said raaaaaaaaape" if you want to, but I'd prefer you dealt with me in a sincere manner.
Okay, how? Tell me how the school culture isn't one of constant bullying that isn't stopped by any authority figures, and how it isn't that the good kids just learn to let it roll off their backs? I'm willing to have my mind changed, if you can change it. Magic aside, I remember that school as being a terrible place to be.
Fair enough. If I only thought it was boring we wouldn't be having this conversation. Boring is the least of my beefs.
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
Mark Corrigan, Gawdzilla, I want to ask you a question in all seriousness. Have you ever read any appologist literature for slavery? (I can't imagine you would have, Mark, what with living in the UK. Why would it come up?)
There's a charming book written for children in 1882. It's called Diddie Dumps, and Tot and was reprinted in 1963 (I don't think THAT'S a coincidence; I'll get to that in a minute) just in time for someone to give it to my mother. I came across and read it in the late 80s or early 90s. I was disgusted and sort of horrified.
The author begins her preface by saying "I know not whether [slavery] was right or wrong (there are many pros and cons on the subject); but...surrounded by negroes from my earliest infancy, "I know whereof I do speak;" and it is to tell of the pleasant and happy relations that existed between master and slave that I write this story..."
She goes on, in her preface, to mourn that the little white children no longer get to have Mammies and Uncles, that "no hireling can ever be to the children what their Mammies were, and the strong tie between the negroes and "marster's chil'en" is broken forever."
The book tells the story of the three daughters of a plantation owner, their three personal slaves, and the mischief they get into with other slaves, etc. We discover that the father on this plantation is a kind, caring, generous master, and all his slaves love him and like being his slaves. We discover that this kind master thinks it's just terrible that other masters are cruel to their slaves, but also thinks that slaves who run away are foolish and need to be counseled in wisdom. His slaves all agree with this. To this end, he negotiates the return of one of his neighbor's slaves--but advises that neighbor not to punish the prodigal slave. He buys up a sickly "yellow" slave and her son, just to nurse them back to health and set them free. (Awwwww.) We learn that everyone on this plantation gets along famously, because they all know their place. The father/master figure at the top, then the wife, then the Mammie and a few other house slaves (sort of, until the children don't want to do what they say, and they can't do anything about it), then the white children, then everyone else.
In other words, we find that it wasn't SLAVERY that was so wrong and bad; it was just that some cruel masters were ruining it for everyone; if the masters would just be nice, like the one in the story, no black people would have wanted to be free, no awful war would have been fought, and white children would still have the benefit of Mammies.
We also learn that the slaves on the plantation thought that offspring of white masters raping their black slaves are: "dey ain't white, an' dey ain't black, an' dey ain't nuffin'; dey's des de sae kin' er folks ez de mule is er horse!"
and that (according to the slaves on this plantation) that black people deserve to be slaves: they are black and slaves because the first black man was lazy and went to sleep in the sun instead of working like the first white man. So when he woke up he was all burnt black, and god punished him for his laziness by giving him to the white man. So now the worst thing for a black man to be is lazy; because it's going against what god wants. (But it's okay because if the master is good, then why would they be lazy or unhappy?)
In the last chapter, she tells about what happened after the war. The brave master goes off to the terrible war and dies. His widow goes "simple" after hearing about his death and ends up in a mental institution (that war was just terrible; doing those things to these nice people!) Also, the plantation burned down and now all that good land is just lying there useless 'cause there aren't any slaves to work it. I'm quoting this part, it's just too good:
"And at the quarters, where the happy slave-voices used to sing "Monkey Motions", and the merry feet used to dance to "Cotton-eyed Joe", weeds and thick underbrush have all grown up, and partridges build their nests there; and sometimes, at dusk, a wild-cat or a fox may be seen stealing across the old playground."
Man, that's sad! Are you, like me, wiping a tear away at the thought of the good old days?
She tells of one slave who has gone into politics and is in the Legislature, and who makes speeches denouncing Southern whites, "all unmindful of his happy childhood, and of the kind and generous master who strove in very way to render his bondage (for which that master was in no way to blame) a light and happy one." That snakey ingrate! How dare he? What a jerk. She's kinder to another former slave, who has nothing whatever to do with politics and stayed uneducated. He's not a vicious turn-coat, after all, and it's not his fault the war came and unfairly freed him.
My mother got this book when she was 8 or 9. It was reprinted in 1963-- and I don't think it's a coincidence. Those darned uppity black people were being all mean and stuff to white people--but this book would show white children that there was a time when the races got along wonderfully and peacefully, you know, back when everyone knew their place. The forward, written by the lovely woman in charge of the reprint, states "To serve adverse criticism upon the moralities of the administrator-planter for his maintenance of slaves reflects judgement based on often sanctimonious and always inadequate retrospection." (Nice euphemism for "slave-owner", there, don't you think?)
So here's the deal. I read whichever one of those books deals with the house elves and it sounded JUST LIKE this sort of applogist-lit-for-kids. I distinctly remember thinking about Diddie Dumps and Tot and getting so very angry when the issue was just dropped. To wit: It's not the slavery that's the problem; it's the mean masters. Slaves who work for good masters don't want to be free at all, and it's unfair to make them be free if they don't want it. Slaves who do want it are suspect (and probably have something psychologically wrong with them--Drapetomania, don't you know.) People who agitate for emancipation are busy-bodies, whiny, insufferable.
You know what? The US didn't amend the constitution to read, "hey, everyone who wants to be can be free but if you like your slavery--good on you! You can stay a slave." Slavery is either a thing that's okay in society or it isn't. Rowling is arguing the WRONG side of this, and when you defend her awful ethics you have to tie yourself in knots to do it. Would it really be a shining beacon on a hill if the Emancipation Proclamation had instead been the Better Treatment For All Slaves Including the Abolition of Beatings Which Break the Skin Act?
Now, an interesting story could be written about a species that wants to be slaves. Deep Space Nine already did it, in fact. But that isn't what Rowling is doing. What Rowling did, whether she saw it or not, was slavery apologist ********.
There's a charming book written for children in 1882. It's called Diddie Dumps, and Tot and was reprinted in 1963 (I don't think THAT'S a coincidence; I'll get to that in a minute) just in time for someone to give it to my mother. I came across and read it in the late 80s or early 90s. I was disgusted and sort of horrified.
The author begins her preface by saying "I know not whether [slavery] was right or wrong (there are many pros and cons on the subject); but...surrounded by negroes from my earliest infancy, "I know whereof I do speak;" and it is to tell of the pleasant and happy relations that existed between master and slave that I write this story..."
She goes on, in her preface, to mourn that the little white children no longer get to have Mammies and Uncles, that "no hireling can ever be to the children what their Mammies were, and the strong tie between the negroes and "marster's chil'en" is broken forever."
The book tells the story of the three daughters of a plantation owner, their three personal slaves, and the mischief they get into with other slaves, etc. We discover that the father on this plantation is a kind, caring, generous master, and all his slaves love him and like being his slaves. We discover that this kind master thinks it's just terrible that other masters are cruel to their slaves, but also thinks that slaves who run away are foolish and need to be counseled in wisdom. His slaves all agree with this. To this end, he negotiates the return of one of his neighbor's slaves--but advises that neighbor not to punish the prodigal slave. He buys up a sickly "yellow" slave and her son, just to nurse them back to health and set them free. (Awwwww.) We learn that everyone on this plantation gets along famously, because they all know their place. The father/master figure at the top, then the wife, then the Mammie and a few other house slaves (sort of, until the children don't want to do what they say, and they can't do anything about it), then the white children, then everyone else.
In other words, we find that it wasn't SLAVERY that was so wrong and bad; it was just that some cruel masters were ruining it for everyone; if the masters would just be nice, like the one in the story, no black people would have wanted to be free, no awful war would have been fought, and white children would still have the benefit of Mammies.
We also learn that the slaves on the plantation thought that offspring of white masters raping their black slaves are: "dey ain't white, an' dey ain't black, an' dey ain't nuffin'; dey's des de sae kin' er folks ez de mule is er horse!"
and that (according to the slaves on this plantation) that black people deserve to be slaves: they are black and slaves because the first black man was lazy and went to sleep in the sun instead of working like the first white man. So when he woke up he was all burnt black, and god punished him for his laziness by giving him to the white man. So now the worst thing for a black man to be is lazy; because it's going against what god wants. (But it's okay because if the master is good, then why would they be lazy or unhappy?)
In the last chapter, she tells about what happened after the war. The brave master goes off to the terrible war and dies. His widow goes "simple" after hearing about his death and ends up in a mental institution (that war was just terrible; doing those things to these nice people!) Also, the plantation burned down and now all that good land is just lying there useless 'cause there aren't any slaves to work it. I'm quoting this part, it's just too good:
"And at the quarters, where the happy slave-voices used to sing "Monkey Motions", and the merry feet used to dance to "Cotton-eyed Joe", weeds and thick underbrush have all grown up, and partridges build their nests there; and sometimes, at dusk, a wild-cat or a fox may be seen stealing across the old playground."
Man, that's sad! Are you, like me, wiping a tear away at the thought of the good old days?
She tells of one slave who has gone into politics and is in the Legislature, and who makes speeches denouncing Southern whites, "all unmindful of his happy childhood, and of the kind and generous master who strove in very way to render his bondage (for which that master was in no way to blame) a light and happy one." That snakey ingrate! How dare he? What a jerk. She's kinder to another former slave, who has nothing whatever to do with politics and stayed uneducated. He's not a vicious turn-coat, after all, and it's not his fault the war came and unfairly freed him.
My mother got this book when she was 8 or 9. It was reprinted in 1963-- and I don't think it's a coincidence. Those darned uppity black people were being all mean and stuff to white people--but this book would show white children that there was a time when the races got along wonderfully and peacefully, you know, back when everyone knew their place. The forward, written by the lovely woman in charge of the reprint, states "To serve adverse criticism upon the moralities of the administrator-planter for his maintenance of slaves reflects judgement based on often sanctimonious and always inadequate retrospection." (Nice euphemism for "slave-owner", there, don't you think?)
So here's the deal. I read whichever one of those books deals with the house elves and it sounded JUST LIKE this sort of applogist-lit-for-kids. I distinctly remember thinking about Diddie Dumps and Tot and getting so very angry when the issue was just dropped. To wit: It's not the slavery that's the problem; it's the mean masters. Slaves who work for good masters don't want to be free at all, and it's unfair to make them be free if they don't want it. Slaves who do want it are suspect (and probably have something psychologically wrong with them--Drapetomania, don't you know.) People who agitate for emancipation are busy-bodies, whiny, insufferable.
You know what? The US didn't amend the constitution to read, "hey, everyone who wants to be can be free but if you like your slavery--good on you! You can stay a slave." Slavery is either a thing that's okay in society or it isn't. Rowling is arguing the WRONG side of this, and when you defend her awful ethics you have to tie yourself in knots to do it. Would it really be a shining beacon on a hill if the Emancipation Proclamation had instead been the Better Treatment For All Slaves Including the Abolition of Beatings Which Break the Skin Act?
Now, an interesting story could be written about a species that wants to be slaves. Deep Space Nine already did it, in fact. But that isn't what Rowling is doing. What Rowling did, whether she saw it or not, was slavery apologist ********.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Elipse, I have a dozen books on my shelf about the slave trade, from journals of slavers to magisterial works. I've advised the US Naval History and Heritage Command on this subject.
You need to get a grip, dude(tte).
You need to get a grip, dude(tte).
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
I should mention that other slavery appologist literature makes the same cases; I just used DD&T because I own my mother's copy and also it's specifically meant for kids, just like HP.
The Northern abolitionists forced the South to change, Mark. They forced the black people who were content to be slaves (and I am sure there were many of them) to be free. Furthermore, after the North did that, they (to our nation's shame) quickly lost interest in the plight of the newly freed blacks, and let the South go all to hell in whatever way it wanted to. The Northern abolitionists were the Hermione here, Mark. And the South characterized the North in the same way that Rowling characterizes Hermione. Loudmouth, busybody, insufferable, obnoxious, and off-putting.
Are you really saying you think it'd have been better if we had taken the Ron or the Harry approach to the issue of slaves in the US? The House Elves aren't in their own country--they live and are slaves in the wizard's culture. It's far more like US slavery than people from the US going into (say) Africa and trying to change the culture.
Maybe I'd buy it if she showed Harry really, actually giving a damn or approaching the issue the way she wants people to approach it. But she doesn't. It doesn't get treated as important at all, in fact. It's sort of chilling, actually, the way she drops in the apology for slavery and then gets back to business as usual. (Draco's a jerk, there's something going on that Harry probably should mention to an adult but doesn't bother, Snape sucks, AAAAAH VOLDEMORT!)
The Northern abolitionists forced the South to change, Mark. They forced the black people who were content to be slaves (and I am sure there were many of them) to be free. Furthermore, after the North did that, they (to our nation's shame) quickly lost interest in the plight of the newly freed blacks, and let the South go all to hell in whatever way it wanted to. The Northern abolitionists were the Hermione here, Mark. And the South characterized the North in the same way that Rowling characterizes Hermione. Loudmouth, busybody, insufferable, obnoxious, and off-putting.
Are you really saying you think it'd have been better if we had taken the Ron or the Harry approach to the issue of slaves in the US? The House Elves aren't in their own country--they live and are slaves in the wizard's culture. It's far more like US slavery than people from the US going into (say) Africa and trying to change the culture.
Maybe I'd buy it if she showed Harry really, actually giving a damn or approaching the issue the way she wants people to approach it. But she doesn't. It doesn't get treated as important at all, in fact. It's sort of chilling, actually, the way she drops in the apology for slavery and then gets back to business as usual. (Draco's a jerk, there's something going on that Harry probably should mention to an adult but doesn't bother, Snape sucks, AAAAAH VOLDEMORT!)
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
So are the arguments the same, or are they not?
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
Gawdzilla, since you already know about appologist arguments, you can forget my little primer on them above. Just tell me how you think the arguments for slavery were different than the arguments put forth by Rowling. Telling me to get a grip doesn't really tell me where you 're coming from. You could mean
"get a grip: the arguments are totally different."
or
"get a grip: this isn't an important part of the books."
or
"get a grip: it's just a kids' book."
or
"get a grip: you care too much about something I don't care about."
I can't tell what you mean.
"get a grip: the arguments are totally different."
or
"get a grip: this isn't an important part of the books."
or
"get a grip: it's just a kids' book."
or
"get a grip: you care too much about something I don't care about."
I can't tell what you mean.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Any choice I make might result in a reply from you. I gave up being stupid in 1972.
elipse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,470
I admit I don't know you, but I'm not sure what egregious error I committed that would account for you writing me off entirely. I hope you reconsider.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
I'll watch.
Zax63
Illuminator
I've read the books a few times and listened to the audiobooks many more and the thought of gang rape never crossed my mind until I read it here.
From the battle scene itself:
Drive off - not we brought her here so you could have your way with her.
As for the slavery aspect, you have certainly given me something to think about and I have to admit it that simply dropping the topic was a bad idea. I suspect Rowling was being influenced by the movies by that time and I think they ignored the topic completely. The movies used house-elves as little as possible, probably due to the high cost of CGI. I recall Rowling saying that the movie makers intended to cut Kreacher completely from Order of the Phoenix and she had to step in and tell them he becomes very important to the story later on.
Sorry, elipse, you are not remembering correctly. The reason why Hermione wanted to be seen as a child was established earlier in the book when Hagrid, Harry & Hermione were returning from seeing Grawp.elipse said:
From the battle scene itself:
It's actually Harry's age they question, not Hermione's.
Drive off - not we brought her here so you could have your way with her.
They, meaning Hermione & Harry. No where do they focus on just the women and ignore Harry.
This is Hermione's only attempt to reason with the centaurs. She claims innocence, not age, as a reason not to hurt them. I'm sure someone could argue that innocence = virginal = under age but her next sentence shows that she is talking about causing no harm to the centaurs.
As for the slavery aspect, you have certainly given me something to think about and I have to admit it that simply dropping the topic was a bad idea. I suspect Rowling was being influenced by the movies by that time and I think they ignored the topic completely. The movies used house-elves as little as possible, probably due to the high cost of CGI. I recall Rowling saying that the movie makers intended to cut Kreacher completely from Order of the Phoenix and she had to step in and tell them he becomes very important to the story later on.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg