Rss

  • redit
  • youtube
  • google

Did you know Harry Potter was racist

harry potter is racist I didn’t know this. It appears that J.K. Rowling is a huge racist, just look at her books. A bunch of white kids save their mostly white school from a bunch of bad guys. Wait, you say that isn’t enough to call her a racist? You need more? Well, how about a nice poem about how racist she is…

She gives a pretty compelling argument, I’m ready to light up a torch and grab the pitchfork myself.

But, before we do, let’s take a step back and look at the world of Harry Potter. One of the first things that she talks about is how there are so few brown people attending Hogwarts. Harry Potter attended Hogwarts in the 90s, so let’s take a look at some census data. I was able to find the 2001 UK census, it’s from just after Harry would have graduated, so I’m going to say that it’s still good. It puts the total of white people in the UK at 92.14%.

Harry Potter is Racist 02

Each of these tables holds about 70 students (counting thanks to the nice people at Beyond Hogwarts). J.K. Rowling herself put the number of students at 1000, but that just a number she put out when asked by one of her fans, stating that it may be a little off. Since we rarely hear about more than a handful of teachers, the lower number shown in the movie is probably more accurate. Now, applying the numbers from the census to the 70 students sitting at that table, we find that 64 of them are going to be some form of Caucasian, when looking at the numbers for any Asians, we find that there would be .5 Asians at each table, or, more likely, one on every other table. There would be one black student per table, with one table getting two. About the same for students from India. You may have four of five students at each table that aren’t white. I should add that these are the numbers for all grades, not just Harry’s class. There is only an 8% chance of there being a minority in each class, with about ten students per class per house. Gryffindor would get less than one minority student per class. Knowing that, how likely is it that Harry’s close friends would be Asian?

Rowling made the racial make up of the students in Hogwarts come pretty close to matching the census data. How is that racist? Should Hogwarts have been filled with Chinese students then? Would that have made Rachel happy?

Next she wants to complain about the name. Cho Chang gets two last names, and they aren’t even Chinese. So what. Maybe her family moved from Korea to China before they came to the UK. As to the two last names, maybe she knew a girl that went by Cho, not realizing that it was a last name. Maybe it was an honest mistake. Does it really matter though? This is a problem that writers tend to have. If you don’t put any minority characters in, you’re a racist. If you do put them in, but screw something up regarding their culture, even though it has nothing to do with the actual plot, then you’re a racist. If you put in a minority character, and you research their culture a lot and try to depict it as accurately as you can, then you are just reinforcing a stereotype, and again, are a racist.

You can’t win. Rowling even made the evils of racism a major point of her books. Remember all the talk of true bloods and mud bloods? Yeah, that was racism in the wizarding world, and it was something that the main characters fought against pretty much the entire book. But that doesn’t matter since she didn’t properly research the name for a minor love interest of Harry’s.

No matter what you do, someone who is looking for it, will find a reason to call you racist. It’s a lost cause, so instead of worrying about people like Rachel Rostad that are just out to ruin everybody’s fun, just read the books and enjoy them.

And to Rachel, I’m sorry if your man left you and it made you want to cry. I would like to point out that crying over a break up isn’t specifically a Chinese thing, in fact, Taylor Swift has made quite a bit of money crying over breaks ups, and I’m pretty sure that she isn’t Asian.

  • Harry potter is an asshole

    • objective guy

      hey look! a twilight fan. come on girl, is harry potter story not delusional enough for you

  • This is just another example of someone looking for something to complain about. Isn’t there enough truly wrong in the world (just look at last week) that we don’t need to invent hatred where it doesn’t exist? Rachel should suck on a chocolate frog and shut the hell up. 🙂

    • hwemudua57

      As a white person the fact that your culture and people are systematically play a central role is part of your white privilege. Racism is not just hatred, it is a system of racial privilege. It may be uncomfortable for you to hear, but the act of telling non-white people to shut-up or be silent about their perspectives is racist. Also trying to tell non-white people what is legitimate to complain about when it comes to how they are portrayed is racist.

  • Jason Wagner

    Eh, sounds more like coincidence to me. I really don’t see any racism here, then again – I’m pretty mellow to this sort of stuff, as in – I’m not easily offended by others, so maybe that’s it.

    • hwemudua57

      If racism doesn’t effect you it’s hard to see. If you are a fish and you can breathe underwater, you might wonder why certain creatures need to come up for air.

  • Quite frankly does it really matter in the great scheme of things. I don;t think so!

    • hwemudua57

      For a white person it doesn’t really matter, you don’t see anything wrong or hurtful with this.

  • I don’t know the Harry Potter stories well enough – having only seen a few movies rather than read the books. It does seem that white people predominate – but as the blog post points out, this is probably representative of England at that time. And Harry does battle against discrimination of all sorts – so I’d say that accusations of racism might be misplaced.

    • hwemudua57

      The Harry Potter books perpetuate white supremacy (passive racism), the good news is they’re not unique in that respect, I do give JK Rowling credit for at least including non-White characters. What I do not like is people trying to silence the girl above for expressing her frustration and giving her perspective. If you just silence anyone that speaks of societal oppression you are just upholding systems of power and privilege. If you don’t see any problem with any of this, or people as being oversensitive it’s because you’re benefiting from white privilege. You all have the luxury of seeing nuanced portrayals of yourselves (white people) in the media and your culture and people that look like you have always been valued as superior.

  • Mac

    people in England – mainly white
    Harry Potter (lives in England) – white
    Bad guys in the books – mainly white
    Good guys in the books – mainly white

    starting to follow the pattern?

    • objective guy

      I see patterns in novels better than you buddy and your argument does not stand.

      • Lola Guin

        Uh, yeah it does. Is a Chinese author supposed to write about other cultures? Or do they write what they know? Does a Israeli author write about other cultures? Or do they write what they know? It’s YOUR argument that doesn’t hold water. JK Rowling doesn’t owe you PERFECT representation. She’s writing HER story, not YOURS. If you want a U.N. convention for a story, write it yourself. Writing what you know is in NO way racism.

        • hwemudua57

          You can write about whatever you want, but if you are writing about another culture you need to be careful to not play on stereotypes, and make an effort to portray them correctly that is the point here. Because of your colonial and racist history (and present), white authors have to be more careful about this. Stereotypes punch downward, so a Chinese person doesn’t have the same burden. If you are ignorant of certain things you can perpetuate and reinforce certain stereotypes. Do you see why this could be problematic because of the best-selling nature of the Harry Potter books?

  • my gf was saying the same thing three days ago…

  • I think a bit of an effort at inclusion is simple, easy, and good for society. I am unclear that a failure to be inclusive is racist.

    • hwemudua57

      A bit of inclusion is just for your self-esteem e.g., tokenism. Failure to be inclusive maintains white supremacy. Is that clear enough?

      • So, inclusive to the point of matching the racial diversity of the general population at the time is “a bit of inclusion” and as such “tokenism”, and in order to not be racist, minority children have to be represented in greater numbers than what is found in the general population.

        Are you saying that white children should be less magical than children of other racial backgrounds, or that we should rewrite history to make the 90’s UK more racially diverse?

        • hwemudua57

          I don’t care about whether the books match the racial diversity of the general population. I’ve already established the books focus on white characters, that’s not peculiar to the Harry Potter books. I don’t think the books should be rewritten to please non-White people. All I am saying, and my point is that non-White people should be able to critique and give their perspectives on how they feel without being called “sad”, “oversensitive”, or “looking for a problem.” The gas lighting here is what I take issue with.

          • Anybody should be able to critique and give their perspective, regardless of their race.

            Likewise, anybody else should be able to give their perspective on the above critique, again, regardless of their race.

            And there are indeed people that go looking for problems. There are people that can’t be happy if other people are happier than them. There are people that create drama to feel better about themselves. Some people can’t have fun unless other people aren’t. I’ve known several people that were like this, and they were indeed sad individuals.

            After listening to her poem, I get the same feeling from her that I got from those toxic people that I used to be friends with. This leads me to believe that, like those people, she looks for things to get upset about.

            • hwemudua57

              “Anybody should be able to critique and give their perspective, regardless of their race.”

              Of course, white people are always guaranteed the floor, your voices are never silenced. Unfortunately this is not the case for non-White people if you read any of the comments above which all gas light her.

              There are people that look for problems, but in the context of social justice, and people demanding societal change, and critiquing the ways people are portrayed in the media we are not inventing problems, we are shedding light on systemic issues regarding the way non-White people are portrayed. Do not conflate social justice, or societal oppression and addressing and pointing out with looking for problems. If you do, you are gas lighting and simply trying to maintain the status quo. Social justice says society is not working for everyone it needs to change, if society is working for you, or better yet you are in power, you may find an equal society threatening and try and silence dissenters or anyone that wants to call out injustice.
              What you are feeling is probably white guilt. She is expressing her frustration, you feel bad as a white person because of the history of racial oppression. That is understandable, but if you shift the blame back on her, that is gas lighting. The enemy is racism in our society. Marginalization, stereotypes, these are the enemy. People unknowing perpetuate them, we just need to become aware of them, listen to how it affects people, and work to change things.

              • You keep talking about gaslighting.

                In general, gaslighting is a term used when someone uses misdirection, lies, or other underhanded methods of convincing someone that they are wrong about something.

                That’s not what is happening here. Pointing out that the school matches the racial makup of the country isn’t gaslighting. You can tell someone that they are wrong without it being gaslighting.

                In fact, your continued use of the term is closer to the meaning of gaslighting.

                Conflating the use of facts with gaslighting in an attempt to silence someone IS gaslighting.

                “What you are feeling is probably white guilt. ”

                That’s another term that you don’t seem to be using correctly. White guilt is a term used to describe when a white person essentially falls over them self to gain forgiveness or acceptance in spite of any supposed racial crimes committed by them or their ancestors.

                I don’t feel bad to be white, and I know of no racial crimes committed by my family, and even if I did, I do not believe myself (or anybody) to be guilty of the sins of their fathers. I believe that the idea is absurd, and, quite frankly, racist.

                The fact that she is upset that the school’s racial makup is the same as the country’s that it resides in, and the fact that SHE reduces Cho to being a character that cries and has a bad name when she is instead a character that is shown to have to deal with depression after her boyfriend is murdered and is lied to by the government about the details of said murder, punished at school if she tries to ask about the details of said murder, while trying to deal with feelings for another student that is training her to fight in a war that everybody else denies is coming, before sneaking back into the school to fight said war. Cho is a complex character, with a lot going on, even if she is not one of the main three protagonists. Cho isn’t “Lucy Lui in leather pants”, Rachael is the one marginalizing the character and applying stereotypes to her, not Rowling.

  • Not sure how I actually feel about it since I do not really follow Harry Potter. But she did mention the roles of Chinese women in other movies. If it something that is offensive then why say “yes” to the role. oh wait, take the money first then bitch! I got it now.

  • objective guy

    Listen to me carefully with an open mind. There is racism in harry potter, but J.K Rowling does not encourage or propagate racism.. if you criticise Rowling for racism, do you also criticize Sephenie meyer for being anti- feminist or even anti-human? do you see that Stephenie meyer’s book is actually the worst case of Mary Sue that got published in years? no you do not. I have read 198 novels, so I can objectively say that Twilight makes Harry Potter look like a masterpiece..but people blindly love twilight, why? because they each are still under the delusion cast by a Mary Sue story. if you are a girl reading this, you probably are angry but the thing is I envy you, I envy someone who can actually get addicted to crap novel. After a lot of novels,I see the stupidity in novels quite easily and i cannot enjoy them anymore.

    • Pipiripatipitu

      Dude, I’d tell you to get a life but you don’t even have an existence. You are literally the biggest stereotype of a geek imaginable. Go outside and feel the sunlight, for your own good. Right now you are on the path to failure. If you don’t change your ways soon, you will forever be a twerp who spends his days reading books, all alone, and then going on the internet and bragging about it. You will do your best to delude yourself into thinking you are better than other people, worse, that other people are beneath you, that it is worth judging them over trivial nonsense, and that you are an intellectual, when really you are just a dork. You will somehow convince yourself that you have something, anything to be proud of, and if someone were to ever open the door to that basement, a single, feeble ray of light would hit your pale, greasy skin, and you would shriek like a vampire and retreat further into the shadows. But that will never happen. As much as you wish it would, as much as you hope, it won’t. That door will forever remain locked, and you will forever remain a total loser sneering at others from behind a keyboard, aware that the rest of humanity is going to parties and having sex, unlike you. You will never have sex. Instead you will read and brag, and cry. Yes, you will cry, because your search for a sense of worth has reached such a level of desperation, that you now look down upon the very things that once provided you with comfort from being cold and alone. No life, no joy, just the internet. And novels.

      Thank you, that is all. Best wishes to you.

  • EJ

    :s you’re talking complete rubbish. England/Wales is mostly made up of white people – it wouldn’t make any sense for there to be an equal number of multiple ethnicities in the books/films because that wouldn’t be representative of the true picture of the UK. There are however a few people of different ethnicities in the books, pretty sure one of the recurring characters is mixed race, so why make a big deal out of nothing? Would you go to India and complain that their films were racist to white people because they involved mostly asians? No of course not. Sad person.

    • hwemudua57

      She is not a sad person. She is just expressing her frustration, and she is allowed to critique the way her race is portrayed by a non-White person. Trying to silence her is gas lighting. The fact that it seems like nothing to you is an example of white privilege. While not having an equal number of ethnicities in the book is not in itself racist, the fact that she gets to control how the few that are portrayed in the books is telling and open to critique by non-Whites.

  • Aliece Fatin

    One should also remember, though, that these books started in her childhood. It’s not like she grew up in georgia with a black person around every corner. The book was also a very personal thing for her. It is not racist to admit your closest friends and sources of inspiration (herself even) are not as varied as most people would like. It’s not like J.K. Rowling didn’t realize this later in life. That is why she did start to ease a more diversified cast of characters in later. Of course she put thought into creating cho chang. She wanted to give an Asian some spotlight after realisign her exclusion. She wanted her to be a real role model. Smart and responsible. The two most respected groups are ravenclaw and griffindor and lets face it griffindor is full of a bunch of trouble makers. I see no crime but i do see a heartbroken girl who feels like nothing but a minority who doesn’t just want but needs a strong role model in her life and in the media.

  • Adjoa “Adjo” Baah

    Why does everyone think Cho is Chinese. The books never said that in the first place.

    • I never realized this. Did a little bit of googling, and your right, she’s only mentioned as being Asian, not Chinese.

  • KOBE SBM

    Why do so many people keep saying Harry Potter refers to “MUDBLOODS”, when it is MUGBLOODS they are saying? Muggles = Mugbloods, NOT mudbloods.

    • Pretty sure you’re the only person in the world thinks that.

      • KOBE SBM

        Don’t read much, huh? The books say MUGblood. Non magical folk are not Muddles, they are Muggles. Someday, when you learn to read, you might be able to see it for yourself in the actual Harry Potter books.

      • KOBE SBM

        So, you authored this article? Shame on you for not reading the books and only watching the movies. When you think you are hearing the word “Mudblood” in the movies, they are saying pretty clearly MUGBLOOD. I just checked my copies of the films. Malfoy says it very clearly. Also in the books, the word “Mudblood” appears nowhere in any of the 6 novels. You said:

        “Pretty sure you’re the only person in the world thinks that.”

        Are you also claiming that you know what everyone in the world is thinking? I am more than poisitive that you do not. And I am just as positive that the term “MUDblood” is what some people want to hear when the books and the actors in the films are clearly saying “MUGblood”.

        Get back to me your your correction when you can!

        • Read the books before I watched the movies.

          Also went back and checked, it’s mudblood.

          It’s obviously what they say in the movies too.

          Doing a search online provides absolutely nothing to support them saying mugblood.

          You’ve ether got your hands on a different edition of the books than everybody else has, or you’re a troll.

  • Slaeslia

    It’s not racist because there are not more Asian students. It’s racist for it’s tokenism and Rowling’s ignorance to look up names from different Asian coutries.

    • “Token” characters are generally added for the specific purpose of adding minorities, and are generally portrayed in a stereotypical manner in an attempt to say, “Look, I’m not racist, here’s my black friend.”.

      What stereotypes did any of the minority characters portray?

      There are several minorities in the Harry Potter series, and while they may not have played as big of a part in the movies, a lot of them play larger parts in the books.

      And as to the name, how is it racist to make a mistake. And who is to even say it’s a mistake? Cho was Scottish, her parents could have given her the name for any number of reasons.

      • hwemudua57

        People make racist mistakes all the time. You are equating racism with hatred alone. Anything that upholds white supremacy is by nature racist whether it is hostile as in the past, or merely passive as most racism is today.

  • hwemudua57

    “No matter what you do, someone who is looking for it, will find a reason to call you racist. It’s a lost cause, so instead of worrying about people like Rachel Rostad that are just out to ruin everybody’s fun, just read the books and enjoy them.”

    Racism is a societal system of oppression that has been reinforced for centuries. There is no quick fix, but that doesn’t mean it’s a lost cause. People aren’t looking for it, they are in fact being affected by racism on a daily basis, if you don’t see it you’re probably benefitting from white privilege. Rachel offered her perspective, it was interesting to hear. Trying to silence the perspectives and racial realities of non-White people is gas lighting. Your reaction is what is called white guilt. Rachel is not out to ruin your fun, all she is trying to say is you need to be respectful and careful about the way you as a white person portray other cultures.

    • Pointing out that the racial makeup of Hogwarts matches cencus data isn’t gas lighting, it’s having a discussion.

      If the racial makeup of the school matches the racial makeup of the population it’s pulling from, how is it racist? She’s showing that each race has an equal chance of having wizard babies, and that they acre likewise equally welcome an return Hogwarts.

      Believing something to be racist does not make something racist, regardless of your skin tone. Racism does have a definition. To be racist, it must be based on the belief that one group is better than another group, or prejudice and discrimination based on this belief.

      Making and and curate portrayal of the racial makeup of England at the time the novel takes place isn’t racism.

      Making a mistake when naming a character isn’t racist unless it was done so for the above reason.

      There are plenty of mistakes, inconsistencies, and plot holes in her books. To point out one and say it’s racist with no other actual backing is ridiculous when everything else would indicate that the author isn’t racist.

      What Rachael said may have been interesting, but that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the conversation. It’s only the beginning. Telling everybody they are racist for trying to have a conversation, however, is nothing but an attempt to shut down discussion. You’re the one about to invoke Godwin’s law in an attempt to silence people saying things you don’t like, not me.

      • hwemudua57

        I didn’t say pointing out the racial makeup is gas lighting. Saying people are looking for something to be offended by is gas lighting. You’re invalidating her experience. You do not need to define racism to me, I’m acutely aware of what racism is seeing as I am the target of racism and you are not. I think I would have a very nuanced understanding of racism compared to you. Saying that believing something is racist doesn’t make it racist, is racist because a white person has to agree with it first. Again, gaslighting. I never said JK Rowling is “a Racist” or evil, I’m just saying her books perpetuate white supremacy. And again, I didn’t say that was the end of her conversation and I’m not trying to silence anybody. The people that are trying to silence people are saying this girl has nothing to complain about or it’s not a big deal. All she was doing was giving her perspective as an Asian girl critiquing how an Asian character was portrayed by a white author. I am not calling people but acts racist. Anything that upholds and justifies white supremacy is racist, which may be hard to hear. Yes, you have racial biases, in some ways you are racist, but for racism to go away people have to be antiracist.

        • “You do not need to define racism to me, I’m acutely aware of what racism is seeing as I am the target of racism and you are not.”

          So, now you’re gaslighting me then? Are you saying that my experiences as the target of racism don’t matter? Or are you saying that I cannot be the target of racism?

          I feel I should point out that either belief would actually make you a racist. Maybe you should work on being antiracist yourself…

          “Saying that believing something is racist doesn’t make it racist, is racist because a white person has to agree with it first.”

          Not in the least. It doesn’t matter if a white person agrees or not, what matters is whether or not it was done out of prejudice or to discriminate against someone of another race. If that’s not the case, then it’s not racist.

          Take, for instance, the word “niggardly”. The word has nothing to do with race other than an unfortunately close pronunciation to a slur. It has a completely separate etymology than that of the N word. Just because someone takes offense to it, doesn’t make it racist.

          As to her critique, showing where she was wrong isn’t silencing her or gas lighting her.

          The population of Hogwarts was racially accurate based on the time the books took place in.

          We only see relationships that effect the three main characters, so the fact that we don’t see the 10% of Hogwarts that is gay isn’t surprising. Likewise, homosexuality wasn’t always the most accepted thing in the UK, and for most of Dumbledore’s life, it was illegal.

          Cho Chang is never stated in the books to be Chinese. That’s something that Rachael decided all by herself. Cho is only described as being beautiful with shiny black hair and freckles. She is only depicted in the artwork of one book, in which yes, she does appear to be Asian. And while yes, she did join Ravenclaw, she was also a star Quidditch player (sports aren’t generally an Asian stereotype). And while she was a love interest, it wasn’t portrayed in a way to indicate that Harry had “yellow fever”, but that they shared several interests and had a mutual respect for each other. Cho also didn’t kill herself after the breakup, and I don’t think leather pants were ever mentioned in the book. She’s hardly a caricature of any Asian stereotype.

          Cho also cried because her boyfriend died. It’s the same thing is parents did, it doesn’t make Cedric’s parents some kind of Asian caricature, it makes them normal people that experience great emotion when someone they love dies. Lavender Brown did a bit of crying, is she an Asian stereotype?

          Neither crying nor having trouble moving on are particularly Asian stereotypes.

          She may have made a mistake with the name, but again, there was never a mention of where he family is from, other than Great Britain or Ireland (though casting decisions would make her Scottish). There are instances of Cho being a family name as well as being a given name. She may be fourth generation Scottish. She may have one white parent and one Asian one. She may have two Asian parents from two different countries. The reason for the name could be due to how it was romanized when they came to the UK. A Japanese family may go for a specifically non-Japanese romanization of their name right after WWII.

          We don’t know this because her parents aren’t important. Only three families are important. The Dursleys, because that’s where Harry lives. The Weasleys, because they’re in the Order of the Phoenix and also where Harry spends his summers. And lastly, the Malfoys, because they’re the villains. We barely know anything about Hermione’s family than their occupations, and she’s one of the main characters.

          But even ignoring that, if she knew someone that went by Cho and didn’t realize it was the last name, or she got the name from a poorly written list of Chinese names, it doesn’t make it racist. It doesn’t justify white supremacy in any way.

          • hwemudua57

            “So, now you’re gas lighting me then? Are you saying that my experiences
            as the target of racism don’t matter? Or are you saying that I cannot
            be the target of racism?”

            Assuming you are white, you can experience prejudice just like everyone else, but you are not being systematically oppressed by another race. So, by being white, you cannot experience racism. You can experience racial prejudice and on an individual level, but no you cannot experience racism. The problem here is once again, your myopic view of racism as something peculiar to personal interactions. I agree racial prejudice is wrong, but the difference is by virtue of white privilege you do not have to suffer from systematic oppression, and you do not have to worry about the way your race is portrayed in different media like non-White people do.

            I am a black man. I am capable of racial prejudice, but my people do not have social, economic and cultural domination. So by nature of our society I cannot be a racist. It is the power and privilege that does the damage, the individual racial slurs are just icing.

            People do not always intend to be racist, I understand that. But you can still cause damage without intending to. If you run over someone’s dog for example, you can say you didn’t mean to do it, but the damage is still done. Obviously racism is more insidious than that, but the point is it is incorrect to say that your good intentions count for everything.

            I agree with your example of the word niggardly, but considering the word is both outdated and is awfully close to a slur the wisest thing to do would be to avoid it because of the risk of causing harm or triggering. From a white perspective such people are oversensitive, but from a black perspective it is insensitive all things considered, most of all because you will never know what it is like to be called that word and will not experience the same emotional reaction.

            The point is not so much the accuracy, but the effect of excluding certain characters. From a white perspective I imagine this seems normal, and you don’t see anything wrong with this, but it sheds light on the marginalization and erasure of certain oppressed identities. Accurate thought it may be, it is still open to critique. When an LGBT person, or a black person reads a Harry Potter book what do they see, and how does it make them feel. It is interesting to hear the perspectives. Rather than trying to silence them, justify the portrayal, and normalize marginalization.

            Whether it is racist or not, is not for a white person to decide. You actually have to listen to what a Chinese, or Korean or Japanese person would say, and multiple perspectives at that. Of course she was not trying to harm or be racist. But it would have been wise for her or even the editors to consult a Chinese person, or Asian person about the accuracy of the name. This is important as many Asian people would go on to read the books, and appraise her portrayal of the character.

            • I guess I do need to define racism for you…

              1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
              2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
              b : a political or social system founded on racism
              3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

              Wide ranging systematic oppression is only one part of racism. The main definition is still the belief that one is better or worse than another based solely on race, and it also still includes racial prejudice and discrimination.

              This means that anybody, regardless of race, can be racist, and anybody, again, regardless of race, can be the target of racism.

              By claiming that cannot be racist because you are black, you are claiming an exemption from the above definition, which, by definition, makes you a racist.

              “People do not always intend to be racist, I understand that.”

              Funny, seeing as how you unintentionally are a racist…

              ” If you run over someone’s dog for example, you can say you didn’t mean to do it, but the damage is still done.”

              There’s also a difference between a dog chasing a ball into traffic, and swerving into someones yard to intentionally hit their dog.

              “most of all because you will never know what it is like to be called that word and will not experience the same emotional reaction.”

              I’ve been called lots of things. It’s racist of you to believe that you experience greater emotional harm than I have from the things I have been called because you are black and I am white.

              “When an LGBT person, or a black person reads a Harry Potter book what do they see, and how does it make them feel.”

              Fun fact, there is barely any physical description of the students at Hogwarts. Movie casting aside, for most of the students, any race applied to them is done by the reader, with some exceptions (I don’t think there are many non white families of gingers out there)

              “But it would have been wise for her or even the editors to consult a Chinese person, or Asian person about the accuracy of the name.”

              That costs money, something that a lot of books don’t make. While it would be nice if they could go over every book with a fine toothed comb to ensure that there is nothing that someone could take offense to, it’s just not a reality. Especially when you consider that when these books were written, the internet wasn’t close to what it is today, and fact checking was as easy as going to Snopes or Wikipedia.

              • hwemudua57

                I could have sworn, I responded to this. Comment deleted, shocker gas lighting right there.

                • I could have sworn you responded as well, but I sure as hell didn’t delete it.

                  I just thought you decided that your statement of “I make up the definitions of words as I go along” was as stupid as it sounded and deleted it yourself

                  • hwemudua57

                    Just delete all the rest of my comments and silence me. Like you said no matter what you do you’re racist, so it’s a lost cause, right? Anyone that complains about racism is illogical, and sad, they just need to shut up and stop ruining everyone’s fun. Society is not perfect, but it’s not that bad why try and change it?

                    • I’ll happily copy and past your missing comments from the emails I received when they were posted.

                      I didn’t delete them, and I have no problem with them being here.

                      hwemudua57

                      You may need to look up the dictionary definition of racism, but I get to experience a systematic racism, racial prejudice and microaggressions on a daily basis. The dictionary definition, will likely be biased toward white guilt. If white people and black people thought of racism in the same terms it would no longer exist. White people abide by their definitions of racism: as long as there is no “N-word” involved and no one owns any slaves it is not so bad, so you focus on that definition. For black people it is much more nuanced than that. Hence why racism still exists, it is not as simple as intending to cause harm, again power and privilige. Perhaps a comparison with other isms:
                      A society where men hold power and privilege means that women cannot be sexist. Regardless of any justified resentment and distrust she may feel for men living in a society that objectifies women, and certainly not for trying to resist sexism and calling it out. I am sure there are some women that hate men, of course they shouldn’t but you can understand why. Most women do not hate men, to call the one’s that do and start talking about men’s rights is counter-intuitive.
                      A society where straight people hold power and privilege means to speak of heterophobia is preposterous. Regardless of any justified resentment and distress they may feel for straight peopl e after living in a society that pathologizes and demonizes them.
                      Your so-called “main definition” of racism, unsurprisingly is very different from mine as a black person. This is why racism continues. Racism is everywhere, but everyone denies they are racist, and more importantly the people who are in power do nothing to change it, even if they don’t like it and disagree with it they passively accept it. You passively perpetuate racism by gas lighting and silencing people that point out societal oppression.
                      “There’s also a difference between a dog chasing a ball into traffic, and swerving into someones yard to intentionally hit their dog.”
                      My point is saying you didn’t mean to isn’t going to bring the dog back to life, the damage is done. The dog is dead, someone is going to be upset, you don’t try and ease their pain by telling them you didn’t mean to or by blaming the victim.
                      “That costs money, something that a lot of books don’t make. While it would be nice if they could go over every book with a fine toothed comb to ensure that there is nothing that someone could take offense to, it’s just not a reality.”
                      Probably not that much money I am sure many would be willing to do it for free. I don’t envision a world where people would go through things with a fine tooth comb, that is beside the point. The thing is the non-White voices matter, don’t try and silence them or dismiss their claims that’s what I have been getting at. Just be careful about how you portray characters if they are non-White and do not silence criticism if you are not going to be careful.

                      8:33 p.m., Thursday Nov. 30 |

                      Visit hwemudua57’s profile
                      hwemudua57

                      The gas lighting is the comments above by many of the other commentors. A dictionary definition is a one dimensional description of what a word could meaning in a given context, and it is not the final say and a concept is always deeper than that. I don’t live with dictionary definitions of reality, especially when the people that try and define my reality are white. Once again, I am not silencing anyone. My problem is with the people that are trying to silence Rachel in the comments, they are gas lighting. Once again, if you look up the dictionary definition of white guilt, blah blah blah. When I say white guilt, I am using it in the context of anything that helps you to believe that racism is over, and it is not going on anymore, racially our society is not that bad, or ther e is nothing to complain about. All that sort of reasoning keeps racism in place, and placates your white guilt. Racism is insidious because of white privilege, by it’s nature you benefit from your ancestors racism. The idea is actually anti-racist: it is trying to dismantle, uncover, and shed light on racism. What you are trying to do is pretend that racism doesn’t exist, thereby maintaining it. At the end of the day, shifting the blame back on the person is the essence of gas lighting in the context of social. Whatever you are experiencing is your imagination, your over-sensitivity, your insanity etc. There is nothing wrong, we are just looking for something to be wrong, that is gas lighting. My issue is not a personal attack on you, though your white guilt you will react that way, it is on systemic racism and white supremacy which is invisible to you because you are benefiting from it.
                      8:55 p.m., Thursday Nov. 30 |

                      You may want to change the definition of racist in order to make you not be racist, but it doesn’t work that way. Minorities can be, and are just as racist as white people. Just like how women can be just as sexist as men. If the only people you think need to change are white, then you’re a racist. You can keep telling yourself that you aren’t, but you are.

                      And on that note, if you are going to make up definitions for words on your own, ignoring even common usage because that definition doesn’t fit your agenda, we can’t really have a conversation anymore.

                    • hwemudua57

                      I don’t deny that non-Whites can be prejudice we have already gone over this. And yes it is wrong. But don’t conflate that with racism: https://tinyurl.com/ktwyx3q

                    • nobody’s talking about “reverse racism”

                      I’m talking about plain old, ordinary racism. The belief that one is better or has certain qualities based on race, and prejudice or discrimination based on race.

                      It does not matter what race either party is.

                      You can play with words all you like to make yourself feel better, but that doesn’t change the fact that it makes you racist.

                    • hwemudua57

                      If you’re talking about plain old racism, I am black. I’m sure I have prejudices like everyone else, but I don’t have power and privilege. And I don’t believe any race is superior which is why racism hurts me, I am consistently reminded white people are superior. Reverse racism is saying black people are racist, did you even bother to read the article? Reason 6 is where they discuss prejudice; something everyone is capable of.

                    • Yeah, I’ve read it. Multiple times actually. But just like all those Flat Earth websites, being on the internet doesn’t make it true.

                      I’ll agree that reverse racism doesn’t exist because we already have a word for when someone is racist. That word is “racist”. The racist being a minority doesn’t reverse anything. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

                    • hwemudua57

                      Well, for non-White people this is our understanding of racism. It is probably different from yours, you have to look up racism in a dictionary.
                      What I have been getting at is your definition and understanding of racism are myopic and one dimensional. If you think about it what you’re really saying is black people are just as racist as white people e.g., we are on equal footing. If you focus on the individual level (myopic) you could perhaps argue that. But when you look at history, and the big picture it is just not the case.

                    • And what I am telling you, is that you are basically guilty of everything you have accused other people of on this post. You twist language to suit your needs, giving an excuse of “I’m black”.

                      You are a racist. A person can be racist regardless of social standing or power, and in fact, there are plenty of racists that use a lack of power to justify their racism.

                      The fact that an individual of any race can be just as racist as an individual of any other race does nothing to lessen any disparities that black people as a whole may face.

                      You are the one focusing on a single, narrow minded, part of the full definition of the word. You are ignoring that an individual can be racist outside of any systematic oppression because if you were to use that definition, you would find yourself to be racist.

                      It all comes back to the fact that you are making up definitions to words as you go. That’s not how language works, and it prevents communication from occurring. By my definition, that makes you a pine tree, and everybody knows that arguing with a pine tree us useless, so I’m done.

                      Good bye.

                    • hwemudua57

                      At this point you are talking in circles but it’s been said before. Hopefully you’ll actually read this: https://tinyurl.com/83t7nq