kuiperoid - Tumblr blog

kuiperoid · 1 day ago

Note

hey! i saw your post about harry potter being antisemitic and i dont really understand, since i am not familiar with the origins of goblins. i know the author is problematic, but not much more. can you explain?

I'll try and explain this as best I can! I'd like to note here that I'm not a Jew, so if any Jewish people spot any mistakes let me know!

This is going to be a looooooong post, so I'm putting the rest under a cut.

So the word "goblin" is an English word, and for a long time has been a catch-all term for numerous mischievous and malevolent folkloric creatures, none of which were antisemitic caricatures, and none of which bore any strong resemblance to Rowling's goblins, aside from maybe one or two very superficial similarities. One thing I've never come across in old stuff is goblins hoarding or being greedy for gold.

However, at the same time, antisemitism was a thing in Europe, and negative stereotypes and hostile propaganda about Jews affected fairy tales. Not all folklore and fairy tales are antisemitic (far from it), but you will come across stuff featuring the greedy Jew, the Christ-killer stereotype, or blood libel. So there's... a certain archetype reflected in this stuff, let's put it that way.

The greedy Jew stereotype came about because Jews were associating with banking and money lending. But the reason for this was that this was one of the few jobs they could actually take - Christian governments legally prohibited them from most jobs.

The Christ-killer stereotype is the notion that all Jews are culpable in the death of Jesus, are knowingly and willingly so, and therefore all hold animosity toward Christians and so can be expected to treat them with hostility, violence, and betrayal.

Blood libel is basically a conspiracy theory that goes back to pagan Greece. In medieval times, it manifested as the idea that Jews would kill Christian children and use their blood to make matzo balls, or as some sort of medicine to cure ailments specific to Jews (under the belief that Jews were cursed by God for rejecting Christ), or as an offering to Satan and his demons, who would help them work evil magics. Keep this one in mind going forward, it's going to be particularly relevant.

And of course, the stereotype of Jews having large, hooked noses is old, too, going as far back as medieval art.

For most of Europe's Christian history, goblins and antisemitic stereotypes didn't really meet - any similarities remained vague and coincidental. Creatures one might regard as goblinlike, such as kobolds, were often associated with mines and were known for being quite malevolent if angered. This is because mines were dangerous places, and people are prone to blaming stuff like accidents on ghosts and spirits. With that said, kobolds were not characterized as greedy, much less presented as bankers.

If goblins were ever associated with treasure in any other sense, it would almost certainly be in the treasure guardian sense, which has been associated with many creatures including dragons, demons, and ghost poodles. (BTW if this topic interests you, I suggest watching this video!)

I can't rule out all possibility of antisemitic stereotypes affecting older goblin lore, but the fact that I haven't been able to find it proves just how easily Rowling and every other creative involved in this franchise could have avoided this if they'd done a little research.

So just what happens in the Harry Potter/Wizarding World franchise that makes the goblins antisemitic, anyway?

First, there's the association with banking. The first book informs us that goblins run the banks of the wizarding world. The first goblin we see is described thus:

The goblin was about a head shorter than Harry. He had a swarthy, clever face, a pointed beard and, Harry noticed, very long fingers and feet.

So our first impression of a goblin is a creature with a darker complexion, and long fingers and feet. It's left unclear what "clever face" means.

Now, the book does lean into the whole mine thing - we find out that you travel through Gringotts in a mine cart. And the way Gringotts is loaded with traps for people trying to take what's not theirs is reminiscent of kobolds bringing harm to those who have angered them.

Later in the book, we learn that Harry's history studies included goblin rebellions. If you're a young kid who doesn't know a lot, you might just pass over this and not think anything of it. But we gotta ask ourselves, Wait, what? What are they rebelling about?

Prisoner of Akzaban talks more about goblin rebellions:

‘But Hogsmeade’s a very interesting place, isn’t it?’ Hermione pressed on eagerly. ‘In Sites of Historical Sorcery it says the inn was the headquarters for the 1612 goblin rebellion, and the Shrieking Shack’s supposed to be the most severely haunted building in Britain –’

Now, as people have pointed out, this date lines up with the date of the Fettmilch Uprising. Coincidence? Well, maybe, but there have been other places where Rowling has lined up wizarding history with real world history. For example, the American law prohibiting magical and non-magical people from marrying (Rappaport's Law, if anyone's curious) was repealed very close to the same time interracial marriage bans were struck down.

People have pointed out that Rowling never described the goblins with hooked noses in these books, and this is true. However, that doesn't mean Rowling is innocent here. By the time the Prisoner of Azkaban book was out, the first movie was already in production and Rowling had considerable influence over the movies. She decreed that there would be no non-British actors cast unless absolutely necessary, and they stuck to that. The film's creators initially tried to give blue-eyed actor Daniel Radcliffe green contact lenses, but when he had a bad reaction to them it was JK Rowling they went to - who gave them her blessing to let him perform without contact lenses. Given all the influence she had over the film, the fact that she apparently said nothing when they decided to go and give the goblins hook noses is very suspicious.

Additionally, the Gringotts scenes were shot at the Australian Embassy in London, which features six-pointed stars on the floor. In real life the six pointed star is unrelated to the Star of David, but in the context of a movie where the floor is used as a set for a bank full of hook-nosed guys, that's... not exactly great. At the end of the day, somebody scouted a place with six pointed stars on the floor, and nobody with any power to do anything said "hey wait let's not."

In the fourth book, when Harry has to flee from attacking Death Eaters, we get this:

They followed the dark path deeper into the wood, still keeping an eye out for Fred, George and Ginny. They passed a group of goblins, who were cackling over a sack of gold they had undoubtedly won betting on the match, and who seemed quite unperturbed by the trouble on the campsite.

Can we say yikes? This passage characterizes goblins as caring about gold over all else, including the lives of the people fleeing from the Death Eaters' assault. This very much lines up with the greedy Jew stereotype.

We also learn in this book that there were goblin rebellions in the 18th century, because it's apparently very important for Hogwarts students to know that goblins are rebellious and cannot be trusted, I guess? We also learn that when goblins get violent, they get violent:

It was amazing how he could make even bloody and vicious goblin riots sound as boring as Percy’s cauldron-bottom report.

We also learn that goblins speak a language that sounds vaguely continental Germanic or Slavic:

‘Absolute nightmare,’ said Bagman to Harry in an undertone, noticing Harry watching the goblins, too. ‘Their English isn’t too good … it’s like being back with all the Bulgarians at the Quidditch World Cup … but at least they used sign language another human could recognise. This lot keep gabbling in Gobbledegook … and I only know one word of Gobbledegook. Bladvak. It means ‘pickaxe’. I don’t like to use it in case they think I’m threatening them.’

You know what's melded of Germanic and Slavic components? Some dialects of Yiddish.

In this book we also find out that not only do goblins lend money, but they'll play dirty to get even more of it - again evoking the greedy Jew stereotype:

‘Tell me about it,’ said George. ‘’Course, we found out what was going on in the end. Lee Jordan’s dad had had a bit of trouble getting money off Bagman as well. Turns out he’s in big trouble with the goblins. Borrowed loads of gold off them. A gang of them cornered him in the woods after the World Cup and took all the gold he had, and it still wasn’t enough to cover all his debts. They followed him all the way to Hogwarts to keep an eye on him. He’s lost everything gambling. Hasn’t got two Galleons to rub together. And you know how the idiot tried to pay the goblins back?’ ‘How?’ said Harry. ‘He put a bet on you, mate,’ said Fred. ‘Put a big bet on you to win the Tournament. Bet against the goblins.’ ‘So that’s why he kept trying to help me win!’ said Harry. ‘Well – I did win, didn’t I? So he can pay you your gold!’ ‘Nope,’ said George, shaking his head. ‘The goblins play as dirty as him. They say you drew with Diggory, and Bagman was betting you’d win outright. So Bagman had to run for it. He made a run for it right after the third task.’

It wouldn't be a bad thing to include some kind of mafia type thing on its own, but here we have to ask ourselves - why does it have to be the creatures who run the banks, whose language evokes Yiddish? It could have been literally anything else, but it wasn't.

In the fifth book, we start learning that goblins have been denied rights by magical human governments, and that this could provide them with an incentive to work alongside dark wizards:

‘I think it depends what they’re offered,’ said Lupin. ‘And I’m not talking about gold. If they’re offered the freedoms we’ve been denying them for centuries they’re going to be tempted. Have you still not had any luck with Ragnok, Bill?’

The Ministry of Magic arguably treats goblins as pests moreso than people. Seeing the words "beast," "goblin," and "pest" put so close together, one can't help but think of all the times Jews were characterized as vermin:

When the doors opened, two of the memos zoomed out with a few more of the witches and wizards, but several more memos zoomed in, so that the light from the lamp flickered and flashed overhead as they darted around it. ‘Level Four, Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, incorporating Beast, Being and Spirit Divisions, Goblin Liaison Office and Pest Advisory Bureau.’

Also, an article of The Quibbler, which is characterized as a tabloid that runs any and all wild rumors and baseless speculations, runs an article about Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge, which claims (allegedly ridiculously) that Fudge murders goblins to seize their wealth:

Sources close to the Minister have recently disclosed that Fudge’s dearest ambition is to seize control of the goblin gold supplies and that he will not hesitate to use force if need be. ‘It wouldn’t be the first time, either,’ said a Ministry insider. ‘Cornelius “Goblin-Crusher” Fudge, that’s what his friends call him. If you could hear him when he thinks no one’s listening, oh, he’s always talking about the goblins he’s had done in; he’s had them drowned, he’s had them dropped off buildings, he’s had them poisoned, he’s had them cooked in pies …’

Despite having just learned that goblins are denied rights, Harry brushes all of this off as absurd. It never crosses his mind that there might be a grain of truth to this somewhere. His belief that goblins being baked into pies is just a step too far for a government that actively oppresses goblins, in my opinion, is uncomfortably reminiscent of Holocaust denialism, or at the very least uncomfortably reminiscent of people today denying the reality of ongoing hate crimes against Jewish people.

Furthermore, historically European Jews were frequently murdered so the Christians in power could seize their wealth, so with all of the coding we have so far it's difficult to read this in a good light.

We also learn that goblins were forbidden from carrying wands specifically to disempower them from fighting against their oppressors:

He was finding it very difficult to remember names and kept confusing dates. He simply skipped question four (In your opinion, did wand legislation contribute to, or lead to better control of, goblin riots of the eighteenth century?), thinking that he would go back to it if he had time at the end.

In the seventh book, we learn that goblins take no sides in the wizarding war - they are solely on their own side:

There was another pause, in which the fire crackled and the river rushed on. Then Ted said,‘And where do you two fit in? I, er, had the impression the goblins were for You-Know-Who, on the whole.’ ‘You had a false impression,’ said the higher-voiced of the goblins. ‘We take no sides. This is a wizards’ war.’ ‘How come you’re in hiding, then?’ ‘I deemed it prudent,’ said the deeper-voiced goblin. ‘Having refused what I considered an impertinent request, I could see that my personal safety was in jeopardy.’ ‘What did they ask you to do?’ asked Ted. ‘Duties ill-befitting the dignity of my race,’ replied the goblin, his voice rougher and less human as he said it. ‘I am not a house-elf.’ ‘What about you, Griphook?’ ‘Similar reasons,’ said the higher-voiced goblin. ‘Gringotts is no longer under the sole control of my race. I recognise no wizarding master.’

In the context of the goblins' longstanding and ongoing oppression at the hands of wizards, this makes a kind of sense. It's not like Voldemort is going to make things worse for goblins. However, that's part of the problem - the supposed heroes of the story are at best pretty apathetic about the goblins' oppression. The way goblins are treated and perceived by wizarding society is largely framed as something they've genuinely earned, even if it also sucks for them and gives them incentive to act against the interests of the protagonists. Furthermore, it also echoes the idea that Jews are only loyal to themselves and will betray any country for their own gain - see for example the stab-in-the-back myth.

Furthermore, the story acts as if goblins refusing to share their metalworking secrets with wizards, and wizards banning them from carrying wands, are somehow equivalent:

‘Wand-carriers,’ repeated Harry: the phrase fell oddly upon his ears as his scar prickled, as Voldemort turned his thoughts northwards, and as Harry burned to question Ollivander, next door. ‘The right to carry a wand,’ said the goblin quietly, ‘has long been contested between wizards and goblins.’ ‘Well, goblins can do magic without wands,’ said Ron. ‘That is immaterial! Wizards refuse to share the secrets of wandlore with other magical beings, they deny us the possibility of extending our powers!’ ‘Well, goblins won’t share any of their magic, either,’ said Ron. ‘You won’t tell us how to make swords and armour the way you do. Goblins know how to work metal in a way wizards have never –’

In point of fact, protecting your trade secrets is a very reasonable thing to do when the dominant culture hates you and would just as soon be rid of you. Rowling trying to "both sides" this issue is painfully clueless at best, showing an assumption that marginalized people must have done or must be doing something to justify their marginalization.

While Rowling does have Hermione does acknowledge that goblins have been mistreated and have every right to distrust wizards, the entire way this is handled is just... not great. Pulling the "both sides" card when oppression and marginalization is involved is never appropriate.

Furthermore, we learn that Griphook is just... mean and nasty, echoing the idea that Jews are all hostile and malevolent to anyone but themselves:

The longer they spent together, the more Harry realised that he did not much like the goblin. Griphook was unexpectedly bloodthirsty, laughed at the idea of pain in lesser creatures and seemed to relish the possibility that they might have to hurt other wizards to reach the Lestranges’ vault.

Griphook also refuses to share food with the others in any meaningful sense, and the food he does eat is shown to be offputting:

The goblin ate only grudgingly with the rest of them. Even after his legs had mended, he continued to request trays of food in his room, like the still frail Ollivander, until Bill (following an angry outburst from Fleur) went upstairs to tell him that the arrangement could not continue. Thereafter, Griphook joined them at the overcrowded table, although he refused to eat the same food, insisting, instead, on lumps of raw meat, roots and various fungi.

Nothing ever happens that prompts Harry to consider that Griphook or any goblin is particularly deserving of acceptance or compassion. The notion that a goblin could potentially become a friend is unthinkable in this story. Goblins are intrinsically Other, and this Otherness is marked and emphasized through their hostility, cruelty, the food they eat, and the language they speak. Bill Weasley, who works for Gringotts, confirms that goblins can't ever really be friends or allies in the same way that Harry is friends with Ron and Hermione:

‘I know goblins,’ said Bill. ‘I’ve worked for Gringotts ever since I left Hogwarts. As far as there can be friendship between wizards and goblins, I have goblin friends – or, at least, goblins I know well, and like.’ Again, Bill hesitated. ‘Harry, what do you want from Griphook, and what have you promised him in return?’

We also learn that goblins have a different sense of ownership from wizards. Goblins believe that the items they craft belong to the original crafters; or if the crafters are gone, to goblins in general. While this isn't framed as an intrinsically bad thing in and of itself, it's also framed as a potential motivator for cruelty:

‘All I am saying,’ said Bill, setting his hand on the door back into the sitting room, ‘is to be very careful what you promise goblins, Harry. It would be less dangerous to break into Gringotts than to renege on a promise to a goblin.’

It's definitely pretty rich for a white UK author to paint people who just want to get their stuff back as the perpetrators of violence.

Ultimately, Griphook leaves the story when he seizes the sword of Gryffindor (a goblin artifact) and leaves Harry, Ron, and Hermione to die in one of Gringott's traps.

While Rowling's goblins are undeniably fantasy creatures, they still fill the role or archetype created by antisemitic stereotypes. Additionally, the films provided a visual which reinforced this. Rowling apparently never told the film people to fix that, and never listened to any of the criticism both the books and the films received; at least, not to any serious degree.

An unfortunate thing with Rowling is that she likes using stereotypes, and doesn't seem to be interested in fairytales, folklore, or mythology except insofar as she can project those stereotypes onto them. We can see this with characters such as Fleur Delacour, for whom Rowling drew on vila folklore simply for justifying the stereotype of French women as irresistibly attractive. For Rowling, goblins function as a way to bring certain antisemitic tropes to life within the context of her fictional world.

And like, why do you want that in your world so bad, lady? Why is this so important to you that your world includes a type of character who was incubated and hatched from the most despicable minds to exist? Why does your ego need this?

And now we have the Hogwarts Legacy game. Please understand that right now I'm unable to confirm a lot of plot details so there might be a lot that I'm missing, but here's what I have on it so far.

Currently, the new Hogwarts Legacy game isn't exactly helping matters. Rowling doesn't appear to be directly responsible for its content, but that's not really any better. The game's original head developer Troy Leavitt is a Gamergater who runs a reactionary (IE, alt right) YouTube channel. Warner Brothers was aware of this when they originally hired him to head this game.

One of the game's antagonists is a goblin named Ranrok, who wants to do a rebellion against wizards ostensibly due to the aforementioned oppression. Like the goblins in the films, Ranrok's design evokes the hook-nose stereotype, which would have been very easy to just not do.

Ranrok's deal is that he wants to harness something called ancient magic to weaponize against the wizards. In the game's story, there are few people who can perceive and harness ancient magic. Said ancient magic apparently exists in pools and reservoirs underground.

One of the few characters in this game who can do this is the protagonist, a fifteen year old student. So, Ranrok wants to kidnap said character so they can use their abilities against the wizarding world. On the surface this looks like a pretty bog-standard plot: the protagonist has special powers, and the bad guy wants them.

What makes it troubling is the context: we're looking at a character whose entire race bears troubling resemblance to a hateful stereotype, engaging in yet another action associated with that stereotype. I haven't been able to confirm whether Ranrok actually wants to murder said child, but either way the point remains that he wants to kidnap the child in order to access more power.

There's another troubling aspect to this, too. The (human) character of Isidora Morganach has learned to extract ancient magic from her experience extracting sadness and depression out of people - which apparently looks very much like this "ancient magic." Isidora has become addicted to emotional pain, and even drains it from students. This is concerningly similar to conspiracy theories about adrenochrome, which is supposedly extracted from tortured children; or even about loosh, an alleged mystical substance that is created by the misery of living creatures, that demonic beings Jewish people are allegedly possessed by feed upon.

Ranrok also fulfills the generally hateful trope of a marginalized character apparently seeking equality and freedom actually plotting for dominance and the destruction of everyone else. In real life, people whose demands for rights and freedom challenge the status quo in any way are accused of this. The "good" ones are always the ones who don't make waves, who don't say or do anything that could genuinely change things. Ranrok, whose actions actually present a serious challenge to the status quo, is of course one of the "bad" ones.

At the end of the game, Ranrok uses the ancient magic to transform into a dragon. Again, this looks like a pretty bog-standard plot element on the surface, but with the whole "Jews are lizard people" shit going around thanks to people like David Icke, it... doesn't exactly look great. Context matters.

Also, remember that 1612 goblin rebellion I mentioned earlier? The one set at the same time as the real life Fettmilch Uprising? The game references it and adds a new detail: a war horn blown by goblins. While it's not identical to a real life shofar, it's similar enough that in light of everything else, many people find it hard to believe it's just an innocent coincidence.

However malicious any of this may or may not have been in its original intent, the Harry Potter/Wizarding World franchise has been criticized for antisemitism for years now, and nobody with any power to do anything (including JK Rowing herself) has put any real amount of effort into making the goblins read less like antisemitic caricatures. And that, just in itself, is antisemitic.

2K notes · View notes

kuiperoid · 1 day ago

Note

i have asked this before on a different page and i CANNOT get an answer but can someone pls explain how porn addiction isn’t real??

like we had someone during sex ed in school bring it up as a topic and explain that (primarily a penis haver) you can train your brain to only be able to get hard/cum to porn and not be able to with a real person… and like sex addiction is real? but porn addiction is not? r there people just using “porn addiction” as a reason to ban porn all together and demonize it? like is that why?

i’m sorry if this comes across ignorant in any way. i am genuinely asking and open minded about this. if u take the time to answer thank you!! 🙏🏻

hi anon,

so it's actually helpful, and interesting, that you mention sex addiction, because that's also on pretty shaky ground as an actual thing that can be meaningfully diagnosed. which isn't to say that no one in the world exhibits maladaptive sexual behaviors, of course, but whether those behaviors can be accurately characterized as addictions is actively debated. in many cases what's casually described as "sex addiction" (which includes the use of pornography) would more accurately be classified as compulsive sexual behavior disorder, or CSBD, which has much more in common with obsessive compulsive disorder than addiction. to my knowledge, CSBD is rarely treated as a primary diagnoses, but rather part of a larger pattern of compulsive behavioral issues.

put this way: in many cases, saying that someone is a "sex addict" is sort of like saying someone with OCD is "addicted to washing their hands," in that it's misrepresenting a symptom as the primary issue and misunderstanding the cause of the behavior to boot.

now, talking about CSBD gives us a great segue into something that I think is really important when discussing the validity of porn addiction, which I'll lead into with this quote:

In their study, Grubbs, et al., analyzed data from about 15 different studies by varied researchers (and reviewed many more), comprising nearly 7,000 different participants. Studies were conducted in-person and online, in the United States and Europe. The team found that, first, religiousness was a strong, clear predictor of moral incongruence regarding porn use. This is important, as it indicates that we can and should use a person’s religiousness as an indicator of the likelihood of moral conflict over porn use. Not all people who are morally opposed to porn are religious, but it appears that religiosity captures the majority of people who feel this way. Given that the WHO and ICD-11 recommend an exclusion of moral conflict over sex from the diagnosis of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder, this finding suggests that when diagnosing CSBD, a person’s religiousness is a critically important factor.

put more simply: high levels of religious guilt contribute to so much self-reported "porn addiction" that it can make it hard to figure out who's experiencing actual, verifiable compulsive behavioral issues.

this quote comes from an article called "Science Stopped Believing In Porn Addiction. You Should, Too," in which the author argues that porn addiction is essentially an outmoded understanding of problematic consumption of pornography that's failing to take into account other factors, in this case the moral incongruence or sense of conflict that many people feel about viewing pornography that causes them to feel shameful, dirty, or "out of control" when the use it. it can be read here:

porn addiction is problematic as a classification for other reasons as well; Dr. Devon price elaborates very neatly on many of them here:

again, I don't point out any of this to argue that no one ever has a relationship to sex or pornography that's detrimental to them and their ability to function, only that branding that as addiction is a.) inaccurate b.) unhelpful and c.) deeply loaded in a culture that so often stigmatizes addiction as a matter of weakness and poor character rather than recognizing it for what it actually is. many people grow up in a cultural context that profoundly stigmatizes sexuality, which makes a lot of people worry that they're aberrant and dangerous for doing anything that brings them sexual pleasure. trust me, my own inbox is a testament to that; I spend an enormous amount of time reassuring people that they're allowed to partake in utterly benign sexual behavior.

your example of people training themselves to only get off with porn is actually a great example here. the simple truth is that it's possible for people to train themselves into all kinds of sexual behaviors whether porn is involved or not, because if you only get off one way then your brain and body will simply learn to associate that particular type of stimuli with sexual pleasure and have a more difficult time with anything else.

people with clits who have spent a lot of time getting off by putting a vibrator smack on their clitoris benefit hugely from taking breaks and varying their masturbation style, especially since human partners are rarely able to provide the same type of stimuli as a toy. folks who are accustomed to only getting off in one position, whether it's on their back or humping a pillow or whatever else, can struggle with orgasming in other other position. people who have spent years masturbating before having partnered sex for the first time often find that it's a difficult adjustment—and I can attest to that one personally, because I had trouble for YEARS finishing with partners and almost always had to touch myself to make it happen. you can't even accuse porn of being responsible for that, because I've never particularly enjoyed watching porn and can probably count on one hand the number of times I've used it to get off.

to your final question about whether people are just claiming the existence of porn addiction as a reason to ban it—absolutely yes, many are. if you dig a little beneath the surface you'll find very quickly that many of the most vocal and well-funded anti-porn groups are run by deeply conservative religious groups and other far right wingnuts who stand to benefit tremendously if they can a.) ban porn and then b.) define "porn" as "anything that includes any kind of depiction of sexuality that I personally think is yucky." you see this deployed frequently with challenges to books in schools and libraries and subsequent book banning, which frequently target books about sex education, books featuring information about sexual abuse, and LGBTQ+ books of all stripes as "pornographic."

tl;dr I'm certainly not arguing that nobody on earth has a bad relationship with porn, but I do think the words we use to talk about that are important and porn addiction is a largely unhelpful way to do so.

1K notes · View notes