Voldemort is evil because he wants to be immortal (not because he promotes the ideas of an genocidal eugenicist)
That’s not quite true but the degree that’s tolerated is what makes it odd.
In (I think) the seventh book, the trio is horrified, upon infiltrating the Ministry of Magic, at a statue that the Death Eaters have installed which has wizards sitting on muggles as a throne with the phrase “Magic is Might” (for whatever reason, my brain remembered this as, like, a centaur and an elf and, maybe, a goblin underneath but I think this still qualifies for genocidal eugenicism, nonetheless).
But (as you and others have pointed out) these ideas have kind of tepidly been present throughout wizard society well through the books. Even if we disregard – say – Malfoy’s use of Mudblood and such (as his family was always analogous to supremacist families, anyway): Arthur Weasley’s pretty much not respected by his colleagues for his interest in muggles (which, if we were to actually take themes seriously, could have been an opportunity for Rowling to draw further connections with his monetary class) while those who do respect him kind of just regard it as pointless amusement, the fact that nearly every magical creature exists meaningfully segregated from wizarding society without any exploration of why (even in cases where the text provides it as being a choice by the magical creatures), and other small bits.
Like, perfectly reasonable if you’re trying to represent a realistic society (people have all kinds of prejudices) but Rowling and her protagonists seemingly have no interest in it (or, perhaps more importantly, rooting it out more thoroughly past the overt supremacy of Voldemort).
Explicit, in-your-face bigotry: the books come down hard on but it seems wholly interested in maintaining the status quo, so long as it isn’t disruptive.
Which, like, (considering the author) isn’t surprising but I do find it interesting in the ways in manifests itself.
(for whatever reason, my brain remembered this as, like, a centaur and an elf and, maybe, a goblin underneath but I think this still qualifies for genocidal eugenicism, nonetheless).
You remembered correctly, kinda. The “Magic Is Might” statue was installed later on, but during Order Of The Phoenix in the ministry there’s the ‘Fountain of Magical Brethren’. It’s a wizard and a witch that are being stared up at adoringly by a centaur, goblin, and an elf.
Which I wouldn’t call genocidal eugenicism, but it’s definitely problematic in a different way. I think I remember Dumbledore pretty explicitly calling the statue a bad thing, but I don’t remember exactly how or when.
Oh, I meant that the muggles being made the throne, rather than other magical creatures, was still genocidal eugenicism (basically, still qualifies, even if I didn’t remember correctly).
But the previous example you bring up is another case of what I was trying to highlight: the books are aware of the low-key prejudice present throughout the society. Both implicitly and explicitly (e.g. Dumbledore’s highlight), it’s aware that less overt forms of prejudice exists.
Which is what makes it never getting addressed, by the end of the books, so…I dunno, notable, in some capacity?
It’d be much more simple if we could just say that the books implicitly argue for the status quo but it’s something more overt, instead. The books seem cognizant and aware of marginalization – both supremacist (à la Voldemort) and social/somewhat-systemic (various examples we’ve brought up) – yet there’s a way in which even this awareness is tamped down to that’s-just-the-way-it-is by not even arguing for it but just by…doing nothing about it. These microaggressions and prejudices are noticed though never confronted while we continue to socialize and interact with these people who express such bigotry and never gets resolved in any meaningful way, by the end.
That’s not quite true but the degree that’s tolerated is what makes it odd.
In (I think) the seventh book, the trio is horrified, upon infiltrating the Ministry of Magic, at a statue that the Death Eaters have installed which has wizards sitting on muggles as a throne with the phrase “Magic is Might” (for whatever reason, my brain remembered this as, like, a centaur and an elf and, maybe, a goblin underneath but I think this still qualifies for genocidal eugenicism, nonetheless).
But (as you and others have pointed out) these ideas have kind of tepidly been present throughout wizard society well through the books. Even if we disregard – say – Malfoy’s use of Mudblood and such (as his family was always analogous to supremacist families, anyway): Arthur Weasley’s pretty much not respected by his colleagues for his interest in muggles (which, if we were to actually take themes seriously, could have been an opportunity for Rowling to draw further connections with his monetary class) while those who do respect him kind of just regard it as pointless amusement, the fact that nearly every magical creature exists meaningfully segregated from wizarding society without any exploration of why (even in cases where the text provides it as being a choice by the magical creatures), and other small bits.
Like, perfectly reasonable if you’re trying to represent a realistic society (people have all kinds of prejudices) but Rowling and her protagonists seemingly have no interest in it (or, perhaps more importantly, rooting it out more thoroughly past the overt supremacy of Voldemort).
Explicit, in-your-face bigotry: the books come down hard on but it seems wholly interested in maintaining the status quo, so long as it isn’t disruptive.
Which, like, (considering the author) isn’t surprising but I do find it interesting in the ways in manifests itself.
You remembered correctly, kinda. The “Magic Is Might” statue was installed later on, but during Order Of The Phoenix in the ministry there’s the ‘Fountain of Magical Brethren’. It’s a wizard and a witch that are being stared up at adoringly by a centaur, goblin, and an elf.
Which I wouldn’t call genocidal eugenicism, but it’s definitely problematic in a different way. I think I remember Dumbledore pretty explicitly calling the statue a bad thing, but I don’t remember exactly how or when.
Oh, I meant that the muggles being made the throne, rather than other magical creatures, was still genocidal eugenicism (basically, still qualifies, even if I didn’t remember correctly).
But the previous example you bring up is another case of what I was trying to highlight: the books are aware of the low-key prejudice present throughout the society. Both implicitly and explicitly (e.g. Dumbledore’s highlight), it’s aware that less overt forms of prejudice exists.
Which is what makes it never getting addressed, by the end of the books, so…I dunno, notable, in some capacity?
It’d be much more simple if we could just say that the books implicitly argue for the status quo but it’s something more overt, instead. The books seem cognizant and aware of marginalization – both supremacist (à la Voldemort) and social/somewhat-systemic (various examples we’ve brought up) – yet there’s a way in which even this awareness is tamped down to that’s-just-the-way-it-is by not even arguing for it but just by…doing nothing about it. These microaggressions and prejudices are noticed though never confronted while we continue to socialize and interact with these people who express such bigotry and never gets resolved in any meaningful way, by the end.