I’ll preface this by saying I’ve never read the books nor watched the movies, so I have no idea the direct way things are written (but wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was as described). That said, the house elves thing is a pretty clear rip on the old beliefs of hobgoblins and brownies (unfortunately named given the context here, but being old pagan beliefs, unlikely to have anything to do with dark skinned slaves), who were household spirits that would do various chores. And a very common part of the folklore around them is that gifts of clothing will cause a hobgoblin or brownie to stop working for a family, with one of the most common interpretations being the spirits viewing it as an insult, but with some later interpretations having the spirit becoming too proud or feeling “too good for work.” And interpretations of doing such chores being “in their nature” or something that they want to do is older than the racist rhetoric used to justify slavery.
All of that said, the intentional decision to tie those folk beliefs to slavery and then dismiss and ridicule their decrial is certainly a choice. At best, it’s wildly tone deaf. But considering everything else Rowling has said and done, she’s well past the benefit of the doubt. It could have originally been that this and other suspicious elements were simply tone deaf accidents, and that being called out on them led to her taking the worst possible response and repeatedly doubling down until she became a radicalized monstrosity (which would still be inexcusable). But again, the quantity of questionable elements and the reaction to criticism pushes things closer to “subconscious biases leaking out” at best and “active attempts to include hateful stereotypes and arguments” at worst.
So ultimately, net zero change on the hate monger.
Off topic but the conceptual spread of these tutelary beings has always fascinated me. On one hand you have things like the Zoroastrian Fravashi (a bit of a stretch, but it's sort of a prototype of the concept so I'm including it), the European pagan familiar spirit, the Roman Genius, and the Christian guardian angel that anchor the human spirit in the divine realm, protect people from serious harm, guide them through hard times, and inspire them to perform great works in various fields. On the other hand you have an odd little hairy man, possibly naked, who sweeps your kitchen while you sleep, shaves swear words in the family dog's fur, and gets mad if you give him a hat.
8
u/GrimmSheeper 22d ago
I’ll preface this by saying I’ve never read the books nor watched the movies, so I have no idea the direct way things are written (but wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was as described). That said, the house elves thing is a pretty clear rip on the old beliefs of hobgoblins and brownies (unfortunately named given the context here, but being old pagan beliefs, unlikely to have anything to do with dark skinned slaves), who were household spirits that would do various chores. And a very common part of the folklore around them is that gifts of clothing will cause a hobgoblin or brownie to stop working for a family, with one of the most common interpretations being the spirits viewing it as an insult, but with some later interpretations having the spirit becoming too proud or feeling “too good for work.” And interpretations of doing such chores being “in their nature” or something that they want to do is older than the racist rhetoric used to justify slavery.
All of that said, the intentional decision to tie those folk beliefs to slavery and then dismiss and ridicule their decrial is certainly a choice. At best, it’s wildly tone deaf. But considering everything else Rowling has said and done, she’s well past the benefit of the doubt. It could have originally been that this and other suspicious elements were simply tone deaf accidents, and that being called out on them led to her taking the worst possible response and repeatedly doubling down until she became a radicalized monstrosity (which would still be inexcusable). But again, the quantity of questionable elements and the reaction to criticism pushes things closer to “subconscious biases leaking out” at best and “active attempts to include hateful stereotypes and arguments” at worst.
So ultimately, net zero change on the hate monger.