The way the Harry Potter fandom (and the reading community at large tbh) casually overlook the myriad of disturbing and offensive content in these novels is shocking to me. Especially given how many professed fans of the series are grown adults.
(Spoilers for themes, plot, and worldbuilding of Harry Potter)
!The slavery apologia is by far the most disturbing content in Rowling’s work. I cannot believe a novel that was published in the year 2000 has extended passages of characters lifting arguments in favor of slavery verbatim from real world historical arguments that slave owners and racists used to justify holding human beings in chattel slavery, while at the same time continuously ridiculing Hermione as hysterical SJW for trying to advocate for the rights and freedoms of enslaved peoples. And yet the fandom will talk circles around you about how because the enslaved group (house-elves) are a fantasy race, that makes it totally acceptable to enslave them and repeat real world arguments that were made when holding African peoples in bondage in the Americas.!<
!The way people uphold Rowling’s books as radical anti-prejudice tomes of social justice while completely sweeping under the rug the ways in which she characterizes non-human creatures with vile racist caricatures is awful. House-elves are basically walking Uncle Tom stereotypes who love to be abused and mistreated slave workers. Goblins embody all of the horrid tropes of antisemitism with their huge noses and disfigured faces, associations with banking and wealth hoarding, and constant description as conniving and greedy. And the centaurs are coded as indigenous peoples who engage in capturing humans who stray onto their protective lands to meet violent and lurid fates.!<
!Rowling certainly isn’t a stranger to other forms of prejudice in her writing either. Her fatphobia is well documented in both Harry Potter and her later adult novels, which obese individuals being dehumanized in cruel and corpus descriptions of their bodies and attitudes. Rowling’s well documented transphobia is on full display with villainous character of Rita Skeeter, who’s constantly described as ugly, mannish in appearance, and with other non-traditionally feminine characteristics that are meant to make the reader feel put off by her.!<
!The series in general does not hold up to a feminist reading either. Women and girls in the series receive constant scrutiny and ridicule for both the crime of being ugly, and the crime of being too pretty/overly concerned with their appearances. The text in general heavily emphasizes parenthood (and especially motherhood) as the best and most righteous path for someone to follow, and indeed most of the characters we are meant to view as good who survive the series end up married with children. Though this heteronormative and judgmental outlook on gender and family isn’t really much of a surprise given what we know now about Rowling’s own personal believes on those things.!<
It’s just all so awful, and it pains me to see so many readers simultaneously try and tout themselves as politically enlightened and socially accepting while turning a blind eye to all the terrible content in this series that’s meant for children.
Chattel slavery involves the use of slaves as investment vehicles. This is distinct from the more common form of personal slavery as it encourages treating slaves as commodities rather than people. When the U.S. was founded the expectation - by both slave-holders and non-slave-holders alike - was that the issue of slavery would largely just resolve itself. However, the use of slaves as security for loans and the elevated value of slaves due to the abolition of the slave trade made slavery itself so critical to the economy of the South that it would require a massive effort.
The house-elves in Harry Potter were not chattel slaves. Arguably they weren’t slaves at all and using that term is inappropriate because it was part of the house-elves intrinsic nature rather than a condition imposed on them. Dobbie was an aberration and it was fairly clear that most house-elves would have strongly resisted ‘freedom’ even if the wizards decided to impose it on them.
You might consider that the reason Hermione was an anti-SJW stereotype is the same reason people might mock someone who insisted we free dogs. It’s fairly clear that modern dogs don’t want to ‘be free’ and are considered part of the household rather than slaves we abuse - and someone who tried to draw the kind of analogy you and Hermione are trying to draw would be mocked.
In terms of goblins being ‘anti-semitic’, this isn’t an argument you should be taking up with J.K. Rowling. Her goblins are pretty much a straight port - like her trolls, giants, dragons, unicorns, etc. - from already existing mythology. Indeed, you might consider that perhaps their most defining trait - their stature - is a not an anti-semitic stereotype. Likewise, the ‘hook-nosed’ stereotype is purely a Nazi invention and thus largely unrelated to the goblin myths that J.K. Rowling was borrowing. What are we left with? That “jews are bankers” is a stereotype? But if that’s all you’ve got to hang your anti-Semitism claims on, you’re effectively claiming that the mere existence of the profession of banking in Harry Potter is ‘anti-semitic’.
Rita Skeeter is described as having a ‘heavy’ jaw and ‘large, mannish’ hands. You’re really stretching to read any sort of ‘anti-trans’ rhetoric out of this unless you seriously believe that most women would like this description applied to them. Rowling wanted to describe a female character as visually unappealing and you seem to consider any such description as violating some sort of ethical code or another.
The same is true with ‘fatphobia’. There’s a big difference between not hiring an accountant because she’s put on a bit of weight and describing a villainous character as physically unattractive. And ‘fat’ is physically unattractive by our modern standards.
In terms of the scrutiny received by women/girls, you might consider that this accurately reflects the reality in which we live. Nor is it limited to women/girls. The Dursleys - of both genders - are also unattractive, as are villains such as Quirrell. Lockheart is both male and the primary example of vanity in the series. It seems like you’re cherry-picking again - trying to invent a bias by examining female characters but not male.
In terms of emphasizing motherhood, bear in mind that this is the path most women follow so it’s hardly unrealistic to portray it in an aspirational fashion. But you’ve also got women who never took that route like McGonagall. The reason it’s called ‘heteronormative’ is because it’s what most people end up doing. The fact that most women end up with children and/or married in Harry Potter is no different than how women in the real world live their lives.
Indeed, you might stop to consider that in almost any work primarily written about children you’re going to have the involvement of their parents. Those parents are far more likely to be ‘heteronormative’ than not. At best you might argue that Rowling overstates the prevalence of parental death/disability vs. parental divorce. But that’s more of a key plot element than some sort of argument in favoring of killing parents.
You can certainly debate about these sorts of elements in the book but it’s a tough sell to claim these elements as a nefarious insert by the author.
The people who think the goblins are representative of Jews are the racists. Flat out. “Oh, just look at these jerks, they must be Jews!”
Hello?! Wtaf?
I didn’t see Jews anywhere in the goblins.