Short lads who don't go outside much known for their craftsmanship and materialism. They're pretty clearly Tolkien/Norse mythology dwarves with a different name.
Same way HP elves are more like, well, goblins.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Short lads who don't go outside much known for their craftsmanship and materialism. They're pretty clearly Tolkien/Norse mythology dwarves with a different name.
Same way HP elves are more like, well, goblins.
And where in the books is any of the above linked to being Jewish?!
Yeah, you are right, it seems to be much more of a movie problem than a book problem. The only physical descriptions in the books seem to be pointed nose, pointed ears and long fingers. No red flags there, so I stand corrected on my earlier post.
Still, the depictions in the movies are very clearly based on anti-semitic tropes, and you can read about how Rowling was consulted on very minor details in the production process. Make of that what you will. I don't think there was any negative motivation from anyone, so it's a question of whether the intent matters. It just seems a little funny to me, that those depictions ended up the movies.
They’re very clearly based on the way goblins have always been portrayed on print/film beforehand!
Now maybe, just maybe, Rowling should have demanded to have been involved in the art direction and insisted that the goblins were portrayed in a way that was visually different from the way goblins have always been represented, in case viewers got the wrong impression?
Whatever, spinning her failure to do so as deliberate antisemitism on her part is an outrageous stretch.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Who are you arguing with here? It can't be Mike Smalling.
The thought process might be similar to the "thought process" that led her to give the only East Asian character a nonsensical name, "Cho Chang". In other words, not much thought at all, just coasting on vibes/feelings.
Bit too similar to cha-ching in my opinion. Yet more hidden evidence of an anti-Semitic agenda?
You asked for examples of obvious AntiSemitic tropes, so I just highlighted the ones associated with the goblins that I can remember from back then. I’m sort of confused by what you’re asking here, are you asking me where in the books are these tropes then associated with being Jewish?
My initial post on the topic was just calling into question this idea a few posters have that her depiction of goblins is in keeping with established fantasy tropes/folkloric traditions.
They clearly aren't. In folklore goblins are tricksters existing on a sort of sliding scale between mischievous and malicious, and when they're associated with stealing things, it's usually as a means to trick or inconvenience humans, rather than because of greed. Mainstream fantasy depictions tend to depict them as malicious and either stupid or bestial. The idea of goblins running banks and being obsessed with gold isn't a preexisting thing Rowling picked up.
That doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying she's actively antisemitic, just that I don't buy that particular defence. I broadly agree with @Mockney and @Withnail, although my suspicion is that her Goblins and their bank are just a repackaging of various depictions of fantasy Dwarves running banks (which themselves come with their own discussion about antisemitic tropes in fantasy). She may even have changed it to Goblins precisely to avoid that association (although she does like to take established fantasy concepts and rename them to make them seem fresh).
I think the one we can agree on is that the costume designers on the films have done her absolutely no favours.
@V.O. - just seen you've responded to my post with a similar observation on her Goblins and fantasy Dwarves.
There’s also the thought process between the student who keeps causing explosions at Hogwarts being… oh yeah, the only Irish student
Yeah, exactly.
It’s rarely as explicit as that though. Obviously it’d be a very different ball game if the goblins took a break from their banking to celebrate Hanukkah in one book. Like sometimes things have to be implicitly understood, otherwise you’ll sit there and argue Animal Farm is just about talking animals and Stalin has nothing to do with it.
This isn’t to say I think the work is antisemitic in nature, but those tropes were to characterise the goblins. The same way that I don’t think she set out to discriminate against the Irish, but having the one wizard who creates explosions be Irish was pretty clumsy
I’m not being obtuse at all. I’m actually trying really hard to see if there’s even the tiniest bit of justification for her being antisemitisc. Because it all seems ludicrously flimsy and part of the standard social-media fuelled craze for making sure that “the enemy” is completely one dimensional and rotten to the core.
There’s two decisions that seem to be the basis of all of this. First of all, her choice to use goblins as bankers in her book. And that’s only possibly antisemitic if we all accept that bankers=Jews and painting bankers in a negative light (by choosing nasty little monsters to portray them) is somehow hating on Jews (as opposed to hating on, you know, bankers). Which is madness, obviously.
The other “choice” is the physical representation of the goblins in the film. Now even if we assume the person who wrote the book on which a film is based has some sort of say on hair and makeup, is it really an antisemitic decision to allow the film-maker to portray goblins in exactly the way that goblins are always depicted in print and on film?
Surely to feck we need something a little more substantial to label someone as an antisemite?
Last edited:
Or calling the only black character Shacklebolt. Or having an Irish character called Seamus Finnigan who keeps blowing things up and tries to turn water into alcohol the first(probably) time we see him.
Harry is literally a shallow slave-owner who wants to become a (wizard)cop!
Well yeah, that would be antisemitic. But they didn’t do that. So what is the basis for the antisemitism in depicting bankers as goblins? Would orcs be ok? Or Trolls? Or have we already decided that goblins and Jews are basically interchangeable before Rowling made that choice in her book!? Because that really is antisemitic.
Well said. It’s a huge stretch to say she’s antisemitic based on the movies or her books. The other thing is - Dobby and Kreacher (the house elves) also have exaggerated features - quite similar to the goblin depiction. It’s a fantasy movie with humanoid beings - they’re obviously going to have exaggerated features such as bigger noses, ears, different body heights etc etc. It has nothing to do with Judaism.
I guess we found the real racism all along
You can tell when someone spends too much time on Twitter
Reading the last few pages, not sure why there's Mbappe in the title thread?
Yeah.. the author of a children's book used "descriptive" names, to hammer home a degree diversity to her readers and she likes to use alliterations. What a monster.
Seriously.. criticism for her positions on trans people seems appropriate, but the way people dig through her books to over-analyze every little thing with maximum hindsight is cringe.
One of the weirdest things for me watching the films as a young lad. Everyone going around being ok with slavery, even the heroes.
In the books Hermione stands up to it and creates S.P.E.W and is roundly mocked by everyone for it.
People have been talking about these things since the books came out.
It gave Harry and Hermione a nice character arc when they eventually emancipated some of them.
Some of the slaves, so that's cool.
This thread is fecking bonkers
Well I wasn't saying it was conciously and deliberately anti-Semitic. As someone else pointed out John Stewart has come out and said he wasn't claiming that either. I also take the point that the movies seem to have gone a bit further than the books did and again not likely to have been intentional but it's not a good look.
I’m guilty of that. If only on the basis that any time on Twitter is too much time. But I do limit my usage to an hour or less each week and have the good sense to steer clear of any debates about trans rights (or character assassination of mediocre kids books authors) on that platform. I get my fill of the latter on here.
Ok fair response
I was expecting something worse to my snide remark but that was pretty goodAgreed. I'm East Indian and seeing the names Parvati and Padma Patil in the books felt...I dunno, cool. Or something. It's hard to find a good word for feelings I'm trying to recall 20 years after the fact, but it definitely made a positive impression on me. The only weird part was when they dressed both in saris for the Yule Ball (in the movies) when the books have them dressed like all the other kids in wizard "dress robes". While that seemed jarring to me, I'm sure that whoever made that decision was intending to highlight diversity in some way.
My point here being that one can look back, edit out some points, emphasize some others, and create an unreasonable narrative about racism.
I'll be shocked personally if the story doesn't have the main character end up doing an about face and siding with the goblins.
I mean, wasn't the problem with Cho Chang that they're a chinese character but their names are Korean? It's lazy and a problem in a lot of tv shows/movies/books though of characters of certan groups having stereotyped names that are ultimately wrong and thus problematic.
Where does the "Anthony Goldstein, Ravenclaw. Jewish Wizard" tweet fit into this debate?
So we have come full circle and the thought that Chinese and Korean parents may have a daughter together is offensive?
Part of the problem is that both names are surnames
Both are surnames and seeing how ignorant Rowling is on many other issues I don't think it's a reach to suggest that she was lazy and plucked names thinking they were Chinese and ran with it.
Do you really think that is what has happened here?
Actually, of course you don't. You know nobody is saying that. You're resorting to arguing in bad faith.
Yes?
I'd expect these topics to show up on my search engine if they were indeed always there?