Hello! Welcome to my hp sideblog ๐
My main is @layla-carstairs which is where all my likes, follows and comments come from (that's me I promise).

Love Begins
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
ojovivo
$LAYYYTER
h
I'd rather be in outer space ๐ธ
todays bird
Claire Keane
KIROKAZE

JVL
No title available
No title available
almost home
wallacepolsom
YOU ARE THE REASON
hello vonnie

#extradirty

No title available
Aqua Utopia๏ฝๆตทใฎๅบใง่จๆถใ็ดกใ

No title available
seen from Russia

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Australia

seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Spain

seen from Belarus
seen from United States

seen from Chile
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States
@sass-therin
Hello! Welcome to my hp sideblog ๐
My main is @layla-carstairs which is where all my likes, follows and comments come from (that's me I promise).
harry potter and the year a literal teenager was blamed for not noticing his new boss was acting weird and was given loads of shit and was held responsible but staff of the safest place and the best school in wizarding world and the best wizard failed to notice the man they knew very well was actually a death eater in disguise and got away without a single complaint aka the year nobody got a haircut.
Short haired Ginny I drew for @arctickidโs DTIYS on insta!
Please share the receipts about Harry Potter being a colonial fantasy! Reading stuff like that is so interesting ๐ have a good day
Iโm glad you both asked!
This argument will be divided into threemain parts. The subject of magical creatures in the wizarding world, thesubject of humans other than English wizards, and the subject of Harryโscharacterization in the novels. But before I can discuss the novels andRowlingโs (probably mostly unintentional) colonial fantasies, we must look atthe background information of those colonial fantasies. To do that, I willoutline and explain certain elements of the 1800-century cultural and politicalsituation, reflected in the literature of the time. (See! This is why you donโtdismiss history as the unnecessary boring subject Rowling!!!!) ย
(In this text, I use the word wizard akin tothe universal man, as in mankind. I do this, because Rowling herself does this,referring to unisex groups of witches and wizards as โwizardsโ.)
Racial thinkingin the British empire was heavily influenced by pseudo-scientific theories likephrenology and race classification theory. Humanist sciences like sociologywere heavily influenced by โhard sciencesโ and there was a strong demand tofind a scientific justification for the existence of the empire. Thisjustification came with race classification, that was divided into twodifferent equally racist branches of theory. The idea that different human races were actually subspecies inside the human main species, and that these subspecies had evolved to fulfill different functions and behave in different ways. Roughly divided, the Anglo-Saxon subspecies had evolved into a rational thinker and a natural leader, the Asian subspecies into servile and effeminate role, and African subspecies into manual labourer. Now, in order for society to live in perfect harmony, that society has to be built in a way that each human species can follow their natural predilections and follow their species-natural behaviour.ย
Theย other branch of scientific sociology argued that all humans had the same potential for civilization, but that all human societies were also in different evolutionary stages. Human societies were seen to evolve in a neat line, from promiscuity-matriarchy-transitional patriarchy-patriarchy.ย All human societies therefore started from hunter-gatherer tribes and would eventually turn into enlightened British style modern societies. As the British already had reached the top of the societal evolution, it was also their right and burden to protect the societies that had not yet reached this top evolutionary form. It is very important to remember that while the British empire was filled with straight up hateful and vile racists that saw genocide as a fun past-time, there were equally many people who condemned the mistreatment of the empireโs subjects and fully believed that the empire was in truth necessary in order to help their less-evolved human compatriots.
Another important note to make about the imperial mindset is how these rational leaders were created; in boarding schools. The future leaders of the empire were all sent to a boarding school, somewhere around the age of 10. These schools, rampant with bullying, pressure and straight up rape, were not places that a young boy was supposed to become a scholar or an athlete; his job was to make connections and learn to become charismatic. Doing too well in your subjects was not desirable, as a book-worm is not what the empire needed. Being good at sports was good, but not if you had to sacrifice time to practice too much. Sports and sciences were there to support the studentโs growth into a proper English gentleman, not as an educational goal themselves. Debating, public speaking, and aggressive confidence were much more important skills to master for the future overseer of a colony. Your job as a student in, for example Eton, was to network and grow a stiff upper lip. A terrible educational system for sure, which caused damage to the British psyche that people today are still trying to understand; with Boarding School Syndrome and its consequences important when trying to understand the problems in British politics today
How do these facts then relate to Harry Potter? Well, letโs start working our way through from magical creatures. In the Harry Potter universe, the world is filled with creatures with human-sentience that however do not, at least in Britain, mix with the dominant human population. We know that there are house-elves, working as servants, goblins, working as bankers, centaurs, keeping away in their forest, as do merfolk in their lake. Dwarves were employed as cupids (entertainers) in Hogwarts by Lockhart, and there are veelas that work as exotic dancers in the quidditch world cup.
At first glance, you might think that Harry Potter and Dumbledore are on the side of the creatures. Dumbledore is noted for being a great advocate for non-humans when defending their right to exist, as opposed to the more genocide-minded goons at the ministry. Voldemort is happy to employ creatures that he deems โdarkโ and ignore the rest. At first glance it would even look like the narrative is advocating for tolerance, and it is, but it is not advocating for equalitybetween humans and non-humans.ย ย ย ย
The centaurs and the giants have lost their native lands to humans, and have been forced to live in reservations, as most notably pointed out by Dolores Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix. โMinistry of magic permits you certain areas of land.โ (p.665) At the same time, the books do not portray either the giants or the centaurs in particularly sympathetic light. Centaurs are shown to be violent and even unreasonable towards any humans who would want to have contact with them. Giants are shown to be simply so stupid that they are killing themselves into extinction. (Order of the Phoenix p.377) Meanwhile, the races that do mingle amongst wizards all have something to offer to humans who allow them in their society. Goblins are useful to have around because of their hold over the banking industry and their superior metal-working. House-elves are useful as domestic servants. The creatures that wizards label as โdarkโ are all creatures that do not have any filled role that they can perform for the benefit of humans, (vampires, hags, werewolves), segregated from the wizarding society proper, and are therefore shunned as undesirables. Veelas on the other hand are blatantly fetishized, and they are only shown in two roles in the books. Either as entertainers or as married to wizards. The narrative does not even hint that a veela might have any non-sexual role in the society. It would seem, that all the magical races have either been pushed out of the wizarding community, or they fill some niche purpose in society that the wizards find useful, and that the wizards themselves do not want to perform.This structure of society, built upon the assumption that there will always be creatures fulfilling certain roles for the society, is not questioned by any of our heroes.
Dumbledore is happy to advocate for tolerance, but not inclusion. He is happy to create a dialogue between humans and centaurs- aslong as it is not humans who have to make any concessions in theirrelationship. Same goes for merfolk. Dumbledore advocates for their right toexists in their own segregated patches of land, and in return they will helpDumbledore. Merfolk will allow themselves and their home to be used as obstacles in the tri-wizarding tournament and the centaurs will let wizardstraipse through their forest. Inside the centaur society, we are supposed tosee territorial Bane as the โbad guyโ and the meek Firenze, who argues thatcentaurs should take sides in a human war, and eventually accumulating into the human society (by becoming a teacher in Hogwarts, but only after he has been banished from the Centaur society and therefore is not a centaur culturally anymore), as the โgood guyโ. After all, Firenze placed the needs ofhumanity above the needs of his own species.ย ย
The same happens with goblins. They are at every turn shown to be unpleasant, unreasonable, and impossible to work with, and when Harry Potter shows the bare minimum of respect- acknowledging that goblins have their own legal system that defines ownership of an object differently than a human would, it is framed as the greatest height of progressiveness that anyone could ever show towards a goblin. Never-mind the fact that the books explicitly mention that goblins are denied the use of a wand by the dominant human government, which is neither an interest nor a concern to any of our heroes. Note of interest is also that most non-humans taking action against the status quo are antagonists. There are no creatures in the order of the phoenix fighting against the dark lord, (Remus Lupin identifies as a human with an unfortunate condition.) but there are several under the command of Voldemort. (Order of the Phoenix p.88) The most positive attitude towards non-humans comes from the heroes who show tolerance towards non-humans, but who also do not try to reach any deeper understanding about non-human experiences in the wizarding society.
The house-elves are the most blatant piece of yikes when it comes to the issue of creatures. The enslavement of house elves is explained away as a natural order of the world. ย At the end the series, even the protagonist Harry Potter accepts this natural order and becomes himself a master of the house elf Kreacher (Half Blood Prince p.55). Harryโs slave-master position is accepted,because we trust Harry to treat his slaves decently, there is never anyquestion what the condition of being a slave-master can psychologically do tothe master, or that slavery as an institution is too immoral to accept, nomatter the conditions. The reader is shown that the elves are not capable oftaking care of themselves without a master by examples of Dobby and Winky, the only freed elves shown in the books. Winky, after being freed, becomes an alcoholic. (Goblet of Fire, p.564) Dobby, while enjoying freedom, would be unable to support himself without the help of benevolent Dumbledore, to whom Dobby works in the same way as the other slaves in the castle, even if he is namely free. (Goblet of Fire p.400) (Both alcoholism and โfrivolityโ were anti-abolitionist talking points in the southern states in the antebellum era). Theimplication is that some races are simply born subservient, and the morally decent thing to do is to keep them in slavery but treat them kindly.ย
Hermione Granger, who in the books argues that slavery as an institution is by itself something that cannot be accepted, is presented with her views as ridiculous and misguided. On the other hand, those who argue for the institution of slavery appear as rational and reasonable. There is no way for anyone to think of her S.P.E.W badges as anything but childish and stupid. In Chamber of Secrets, the readers do see Harry freeing the house elf Dobby, after Dobby has personally helped Harry. However, the implication is that Dobby suffered from an unfit master, not from the slavery itself, and that his freedom came as boon after he had done a personal favour to Harry Potter. In the world of Harry Potter, slaves are happy to be slaves, as long as their masters are decent masters.
But if you stop and think of all this, it should not be rationally possible for a society like this to exist. If the giants truly are so stupid and violent that they are accidentally killing themselves to extinction, they should also not be sentient enough for humans to breed (and even create emotional bonds, as Hagridโs family) with them. If these creatures have a society, they are sentient enough to realise the peril they are in and who their true enemy are. Same with the centaurs. Segregating an entire culture to a small reservation is not pretty, and it does not happen peacefully. Still there is never any indication that the centaurs would be actively fighting back to regain more land or that the wizards would be actively curbing their numbers in order to keep them in check. No creature segregated in their little reservation wants to leave that reservation, choosing to rather waste away amongst their own kind than pushing for their species to be integrated into the wizarding culture, or gaining more land from the wizards. The mythical tale of the noble savage who quietly goes into the good night, is real in the wizarding world.ย ย
Those creatures who do live and work alongside wizards are equally content with their narrow roles. No goblin wants to work anywhere else expect the bank, no house-elf wants to open a business, no veela wants to study in Hogwarts. Half-breeds might be allowed in, if the headmaster is eccentric enough, and as long as they are able to โpassโ as humans. The fact that their creature parents would never have that change is not even acknowledged as the tragedy that it is. It is easy for the heroes to appear as progressive, when the only thing the creatures want is to be allowed to exist in their pre-ordained roles and be treated with the most basic decency.ย ย ย ย ย ย ย
We donโt know what Dumbledoreโs answer would be if a young goblin wanted to apply as a student at Hogwarts. We donโt know what any of our heroesโ reactions would have been, if the centaurs demanded compensations for Hogwartsโ rights to use the Forbidden Forest. Or if Dobby would have been competent enough to actually start campaigning alongside Hermione for abolition. We donโt know, because the wizarding world is in perfect harmony, as long as the creatures are allowed to exist peacefully in their roles, without corrupt, dark wizards abusing them needlessly.
What about humans then. Not all humans are created equal either. We donโt really see about the state of the wizarding world outside of Britain, but we are given the implication that the political situation in Britain is equal to the fate of the world. Harry Potter is not fighting for a political cause in UK, he is saving the world. British politics are world politics. The international wizards we do see, are also almost as much stereotyped as the creatures are. The French boys and girls from Beauxabatons are vain and frilly, while the girls and boys from Durmstrang are brutish and coarse. And in the European stage, UK and France gets their own wizarding population, while the eastern Europe is apparently lumped together in a way that makes you suspect that the Soviet Union never fell in the magical world. (considering when Rowling was creating these stories, that is not impossible. Rowling started writing Philosopherโs stone a year before the Soviet Union was dissolved). In the world politics, these three are the only ones important enough to be included in the tri-wizarding tournament, (tournament that the British dominate easily in book four), and therefore clearly hold the political cards of magical Europe. What we do know is that British wizards have no trouble finding work overseas, while we do not see any foreigners living or working in the British wizarding world. Britainโs importance as the centre stage of magical world politics is simply a given fact of the world.
(Note that I havedecided to omit all nonsense that Rowling has added to Pottermore in her effortto world-build but rest assured that it makes the situation simply much worse.)ย ย
There is also the clean divide between muggles and wizards. The wizards once again are honour-bound from their superior position to protect the muggles. The books make it clear that it was not for the safety of the wizards that the worlds were divided. It was simply that muggles in their ignorance kept burning other muggles during the witch-hunting times. The idea that muggles, if confronted with an existential threat like the death-eaters and their genocidal tendencies, were to win the fight, is not even floated as an idea. The moral implications ofkeeping the muggle world ignorant about a part of UK population that wants to kill them, and has succeeded in several terrorist attacks against the commonpopulation, is not discussed at all. The wizards simply have the right to sacrifice the lives of muggles in exchange of keeping their society hidden from the โcommon folkโ. The wizards who do show any interest in muggles, do it in the most condescending way possible. Arthur Weasley, who has spent years working in the ministry of muggle-affairs, cannot pronounce the word electricity or know what a rubber duck is. How exactly does someone work for muggle-affairs if one is completely ignorant of said affairs? Why are mugglebornโs not automatically working for muggle-affairs? How is it, that muggleborns all simply choose to embrace the wizarding culture without there being any underground muggleborn culture running counter the pureblood establishment? Hermione Granger wants to be seen as one of the witches, not as someone whose cultural knowledge of muggles could in on itself be a strength. Rowling really wants you to believe that the British wizarding culture is naturally so desirable that no counter-cultures have born inside it, or that there ever could be any other problem expect that muggleborns are restricted from accumulating into it.
And then we come to Harry. Our hero. At first look, he appears to be the underdog fighting against the unjust establishment of the wizarding world. However, if one takes a closer look at the story, Harry Potter is not an underdog at all. In the beginning of the story, he acquires a great inheritance from his exceedingly wealthy parents. (Philosopherโs Stone p.85) In every other character exceeding wealth seems to be a negative trait, but curiously Harryโs status as an heir to a fortune is never properly addressed in relation to Harryโs moral character. Harry is also a son of esteemed and powerful magical parents, both highly regarded in the wizarding society. From his fatherโs side, Harry can claim a connection to an old pureblood house, making him part of the purebloodwizarding establishment. Both the wealth and the bloodline inherited from thePotter family guarantees a place in the upper class of the magical society foryoung Harry. Even the extremely racist Draco Malfoy in the first book seemseager to make friends with Harry. (Philosopherโs Stone p.120). It is only Voldemort who has robbed him of his natural heritage and privileges and forced him in to hiding with his brutish and cruel (muggle) relatives.ย
The story of Harry Potter is not of someone who fights for acceptance, but of someone who returns to his rightful place on top of the wizarding society. characters who do not naturally have this privilege, gain prestige by being helpful and loyal to Harry. It is a deliberate choice by Rowling to make Harry a pureblood fighting for the rights of muggleborns and those lower than him in the wizarding societal ladder. He is the archetypical English gentleman hero, because he has both the privilege and the proper character to carry that privilege. Voldemort, Malfoy, and other โdark-sidersโ from the pureblood establishment have abused this privilege and are therefore unworthy of it.
Another important part of Harryโs character is that all his powers and abilities that help him champion against Voldemort are either inherited or inherent. Harry does no need to labour for his victory. His mother gives him โblood-protectionโ, his father and mentors give him magical items to help him on his journey, and he simply has skills that others donโt. His flying abilities making themselves known the first time he hops on a broom, and his inexplicable talent to resist the imperio-curse is never explained expect with โa strong heartโ. What he is good at, he doesnโt need to work for, and what he is not good at, he never improves on. If there is something he doesnโt have the innate talent for, he has friends who will do it for him. When Snape claimed that all of Harryโs successes were due to luck and more talented friendsโฆhe wasnโt wrong. And the kicker is, that thatโs the point. Harryโs main strength is the fact that he is good at networking and having a brave heart. That is the ideal that thousands of young Englishmentried to mould themselves into during the imperial days. Harry doesnโt need tobe the โsmartest wizard of his ageโ, he needs to be charismatic enough thatothers will follow him into the battle. He doesnโt need to be shrewd, or ambitious,or smart, or even kind, he needs to know how to apply his inheritance correctlyand how to manage those in the lower position than him, in order to return thestatus quo into the wizarding world.
When both Harryโs already existing place in the magical society, and the question of how the books treat the magical creatures are considered, the main conflict in the book seems to be reduced to an inner struggle between the higher classes of wizarding society. Voldemort and the death eaters are evil because they misuse their power over the lower classes, and because they discriminate against other witches and wizards. Therefore, it is the duty of Dumbledore and Harry Potter to return the wizarding world to its former and rightful order. The narrative supports the idea that now that the proper people, the naturally noble-minded heroes, are once again in power all the social issues of the wizarding world will disappear. Those on the top of the social pyramid will treat those under them with tolerance, and those at the base of the pyramid will stick to their place.In other words, the world of Harry Potter has fulfilled the colonialist fantasy of the British empire, where everybody has their place in society, and theinferior races truly are without ambitions or nuances.ย ย ย
The wizarding world has the structures that the British empire had, but none of the problems that come with those structures. In the end, the wizarding world returns to peace. โall was well.โ The house-elves are given laws that punishes a master that mistreats their slave. The goblins continue in their segregation. The centaurs and merfolk are given a promise of no genocide. The British muggleborns are promised a place in the dominant society, as long as they perfectly emulate their pureblood peers and donโt bring muggle culture with them. The superiority of British wizardingkind has been proven, and they benevolently reside over their less evolved subjects, making sure that they are allowed to fulfill their roles in the society, as they naturally desire, in peace. There are no troublesome creature-rights activists causing havoc on streets. There are no muggleborns who would wish to side with muggles against the wizards. There is no empire, there is only the natural order of things. ย
Bibliography
https://www.academia.edu/26667941/Crowning_the_King_Harry_Potter_and_the_Construction_of_Authority
https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/ojs/index.php/tlg/article/view/162/161
https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/24083/H_and_F_book4print_final.pdf;sequence=1
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-phrenology-2795251
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-victorians-empire-and-race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Bachofen
https://kenanmalik.com/2014/05/15/the-forgotten-roots-of-the-first-world-war/
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478
https://www.naturepl.com/stock-photo-tableau-to-accompany-professor-agassiz-opening-sketch-on-the-image01388344.html
https://until-darwin.blogspot.com/2012/09/darwin-slavery-species-question.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Scientific-classifications-of-race
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/11/hitchens200811
https://newrepublic.com/article/151232/britains-boarding-school-problem
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/09/boarding-schools-bad-leaders-politicians-bullies-bumblers
https://anotherwasteland.blogspot.com/2008/05/robinson-crusoe-colonialism-and.html
https://neoenglish.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/colonialism-in-victorian-literature/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3141t.html
Hogwarts School Unifrom
The other day I read a series of posts on the Hogwarts uniform and how book!uniform differs from movie!uniform, which is more canonical and whether thereโs been/there should be some retconning to unify the books, films and illustrations from different sources. Since wizarding fashion is one of my favourite subjects (particularly since the word โcorsetsโ was mentioned in HBP), I thought I had to write a post about it. So here it goes.
On tradition and unmuggleness
As much as I like the movie uniforms, the way I see it, theyโre irreconcilable with those described in the books, which, both because theyโre from the book and because thatโs how I see them in my head, I consider canonical. Most people point out as proof of this that in a couple of occasions we are told more or less directly that the basic (Iโll talk more about this later) uniform does not bear any house indicator (see the Penelope Clearwater and Crabbe-and-Goyleโd Ron-and-Harry Cases, both in CoS). This is true. However, what I see as a bigger issue is the fact that the movie!uniform is basically a muggle school uniform with robes instead of a blazer, which, considering how often we see wizards struggling with muggle clothing, doesnโt really add up. And given that school uniforms tend to be on the conservative side of fashion, it would make much more sense to have the Hogwarts uniform resemble traditional wizarding attire.
On openings and trouserslessness
The movie robes are completely open at the front save for one (PoA-onwards) or two (PS-CoS) little clasps, which would take next to no time to do up and undo, so the movie robes would be put on and off like a bathrobe or a coat. However, most (if not all) of the times we see Harry changing into his school robes heโs described as pulling them over his head. To me that implies that the front is not open all the way down, that maybe thereโs just a small opening with a few buttons, like a polo shirt. Either that or the robes are open all the way down but fastening and unfastening them is so tedious that students simply never do them up or undo them all the way. In a pre-zipper world, a front opening like that would most probably mean a metric tonne of little buttons, at least (look up some old-timey portraits, particularly of womenโs fashion. They took their buttons seriously). No one has time to fiddle with that many buttons, so it would be easier to undo a few of the top ones and pull the robes over your head.
Personally, I think the left-hand version fits the description of โplain black work robesโ better. And yes, thereโs no indication anywhere in the books that the sleeves are flared or gathered at the top, but they look more wizardy this way, so.ย
For an even more undeniable piece of evidence that supports the idea of having a closed front, look no further than Snapeโs worst memory in OotP. When he gets levicorpused by James, we see his underwear. Heโs not wearing trousers. Wh. Why is he not wearing trousers??? Because thereโs no risk of accidental exposure of oneโs undergarments when there isnโt a massive opening on the front of oneโs robes, thatโs why. Also, if for some sinister reason he had not been wearing trousers under open-fronted robes, everybody wouldโve been able to see his pants already and it wouldnโt have been โfunnyโ when James revealed them.
Moreover, it seems that trousers, even though they are worn in the wizarding world, are neither required nor part of traditional wizarding attire. See the old man in the Quidditch World Cup. Trousers have been adopted to some extent, but they are not considered wizarding clothing per se, but rather a garment borrowed from muggles. So if we go back to the idea that uniforms tend to be conservative, the Hogwarts uniform would have probably been designed to be worn with no clothes underneath other than underwear.
On hats gone with the wind and cloaks
Hats. โOne plain pointed hat (black) for day wear.โ Day wear. In the films (PS, basically), hats seem to only be worn on special occasions. And I can understand that; On set theyโre probably a huge inconvenience as they like to fall off and have to be touched up constantly and may cover something/someone important. Still, canonically, a pointed black hat for day wear is part of the Hogwarts uniform.
Now, do not quote me on this, but I am positive that in one of the books there is a description of a windy day where students grab the brims of their hats so that they donโt get blown off. Thatโs the one and only time in the whole series (that I can remember) where the uniform hats are said to be brimmed. It makes sense, though, as traditional witch hats do have a brim. Modest brims seem adequate for uniforms. (I do think it is strange to make students wear hats indoors, but oh well.)
Then thereโs the winter cloaks. Again, plain and black, this time with silver clasps. No crest, no house colours. And thereโs also the protective dragonskin gloves, which seem to be used both as protective gloves for Potions/Care of Magical Creatures/Herbology and as regular winter gloves.
On house pride (or the lack thereof)
So far we have established that the uniform consists basically of plain black garments: a set of black robes (closed front), a black cloak, a black hat. Hence, by default, there is no way to tell what house a student belongs to just by their attire. Or is there? Hereโs where the โbasic uniformโ I mentioned ย before comes into play.
It is true that the robes, hats and cloaks are plain black when bought. And yet, there are many points in the story when Harry seems to simply know what house some students belong to, even when he clearly doesnโt know them. We get constant references to โa gorup of first year Ravenclawsโ or โa Hufflepuff girlโ, and since the story is told from Harryโs point of view rather than an omniscient narratorโs, there must be a way for Harry to tell apart people from different houses without knowing them personally. So how can we reconcile the ideas that some peopleโs house is recognisable at first sight while other peopleโs isnโt? Itโs quite simple: CUSTOMISATION.
Bagdes, scarves, appliques, ribbons, hat ornaments, buttons, socks, belts, and a long etc, to show your house pride. Just as we can get jumpers and hoodies and caps and whatnot with the name and colours of our uni or specific college, kids in the wizarding world are probably able to buy (and make) house merchandise. These items would be available at Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade, and parents would send them to their children once theyโve been sorted or the kids themselves would be able to get them via owl order.
Some students may only wear a small badge on their chest. Others a scarf+turtleneck undershirt+bandana+animal-shaped hat bauble combo. I love to imagine some kids wearing ridiculously tacky things, like red-and-gold neck ruffles or bee-striped boots. And those kids who are not as inclined to show off their house? They can just wear their basic black uniform. ย
I hate a lot about Snape stans, the way the try to blame things on Lily and call her a bad friend, the way they overlook bigotry and romanticize it, etc.
What probably upsets me the most is when they try to bring up their opinion in on the Nazi analogy and defend it by saying the death eaters didnโt do the same amount of cruelty (ie concentration camps, gas chambers). THIS IS A CHILDRENS BOOK?! Did you want Rowling if exploit Jewish trauma more? She did the analogy enough that if you have brain cells you can see it. Donโt care to claim about Jews and then want us to suffer even more in the same sentence. Also kindly if you arenโt Jewish, Romani, or have a family member directly impacted by the Holocaust, I donโt want to hear your hot take. Itโs not your trauma to debate about.
(The obviously doesnโt apply to those trying to uplift Jewish + others previously mentioned voices. I appreciate everything yโall do)
Give Harry to me, Hagrid, Iโm his godfather, Iโll look after him.
Ah, let me count the ways in which fandom interpretation of Sirius Black infuriates me. One day, Iโll write an essay, but as I donโt currently have the time to pen a thousand-page epic -
This is literally the moment that possibly defines Sirius the most, and itโs the one that everyone forgets.
Everyone knows the story - Sirius arrived at Godricโs Hollow, saw the Pottersโ bodies, and tore after Peter Pettigrew in a blind, thoughtless, reckless rage.
Um, except he didnโt.
He tried to take care of Harry. He tried to get Hagrid to give Harry to him, and when Hagrid refused, he tried to argue.
What, you think he was planning to tear after Peter with Harry tucked under one arm? Of fucking course not. It didnโt change that he wanted to kill Peter, that he probably would be happy to find and kill him later - but he wasnโt planning to murder anyone, to throw his life away, to even sit in a dark corner and drink himself to death while holding a goddamn baby.
This is Siriusโs godson, the person he promised his dead best friend heโd protect, and whom he now loved more than anyone alive. Heโs asking for the kid so he can take the kid, and that means devoting himself to a lifetime of raising, nurturing, being patient, being parently, changing nappies and nursing fevers and a million other VERY. RESPONSIBLE. THINGS.
Do we know how good Sirius would have been at doing that? Hell no.
But what we do know is the most important thing - that he was willing to try.
Hagrid cites Dumbledoreโs orders and wonโt give Harry up.
So itโs really only once everything is really gone - that Siriusโs responsibilities and attachments are nearly all truly severed - that he decides thereโs nothing else to do but go after Peter.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES THANK YOU SO MUCH for telling it as it is!!!!!!!!
PREACH
THANK YOU!
Lucius: Whenever Narcissa is mad at me, I tighten the lids on all the jars so she has to get help from me.
[sound of glass shattering in the background]
Lucius: It hasnโt worked yet, but itโll happen.
Rita Dolores Potter, you were so named because after what I did to your brother it was only fair
This is really messed up but Iโm laughing while thinking of a headcanon where James and Sirius wanted to fuck with Remus after a full moon so they made Peter hang out in the great hall while Remus came up to the dorm and when he got there, they started sobbing and telling Remus that he ate Peter by accident and Remus starts freaking out until he sees James and Sirius laughing. Yes I know this is twisted and would be a complete asshole move BUT it did make me laugh
Harry Potter saga: ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Harry Potter saga if Remus had eaten Peter on the full moon in February '76: ๐
Does anyone else find Molly wanting to have a girl so bad kinda weird? Like the only reason she had so many children was because she wanted a girl and she only stopped having children because she had Ginny. Imagine growing up learning that the only reason you exist is because your mom wanted you to be a girl and when you werenโt, she was disappointed. I understand wanting to have a girl but you should be happy nonetheless and it really goes to a far extent. So far that she treats almost every one of her children bad except for Ginny (bullies Billโs wife and is always down on/yelling at Percy, Fred, George, and Ron)
Something that really bothers me about peopleโs hatred towards Ron is that unless you grew up really poor you have no idea what itโs like and how much it affects you. Especially if you grow up poor surrounded by rich friends. The jealousy seriously eats you alive and the way Ron acted was perfectly understandable.ย
Over twenty years later, Iโll still never forget the day one of my classmates told me to just ask my parents for more money, as though I was literally too thick to work out the obvious solution. Because in her world, it was that simple. Or the day my teacher gave me anย โare you even trying for a believable lieโ? look when I had to tell him my parents couldnโt afford to send me on a low-cost excursion. Or how for an entire school year, I had to wear a school uniform skirt so small it left angry marks on my waist every day, because my mother begged me to make it last just one more year. The day everyone thought it was hilarious to ruin my pencil case, and even more hilarious that I was so upset and claimed that my parents would be furious with me - LOL, that silly girl! Theyโll just buy her a new one, itโs not that difficult! (Spoiler, they couldnโt and it was). And yeah, I had my fair share of second-hand underwear too, like another character who grew up in poverty. The utter shock I felt when I realized other families not only had air conditioning, but also used it regularlyโฆ the jealousy I felt when everyone else had nice formal wear and I had whatever my parents could manage to getโฆ the list goes on and on. And thatโs on top of a bunch of other struggles and disadvantages I had.
But to hear Ron critics talk, he was the worst person alive if he ever even dared to want nice things for himself instead of just nobly being happy other people had them. โWhy is everything I own rubbish?โ is not a permissible attitude, not even for a moment.
I see a lot of people making fun/disapproving of how Ron is always stuffing his face with food and it INFURIATES ME. When you grow up fucking poor you learn to take advantage of free food when you have it. Asshats.
Also does anyone realize the sheer fortitude Ron had to have to invite Harry over to his house!?
I could not invite my better off friends over to my house because things were literally falling apart inside of it and my family didnโt have the means to fix it and it ate me up inside to not be able to have my best friend over to my house when I spent the better half of my teenage life sleeping over at her house because my parents and I didnโt want her to see how rundown the inside of our home was.
Ron was so nervous about what Harry would say about his house and was embrassed by the state of it but he saw Harry needed somewhere to stay and he opened up his home to him. People who have always been well off wouldnโt understand the magnitude of that action.
Ron is a damn treasure and anyone who hates him because of his jealousy canโt understand the deeper meaning behind it.
Insult Ron and I will fight you
As the youngest of 10+ children who grew up with a very very low income (much like Ron), he was the first ever realization I had that other people were as poor as my family. Literally everything I owned was a hand me down. My clothes, my backpack, my textbooks. I carried a billion pens in my backpack because any one of them could suddenly run out of ink during school and I would need a new one. We only had three bedrooms, my parents room, the boys room, and the girls. We were doubling up on beds, and at one point, one of the bunk beds broke so I had to sleep on the floor for months until my parents were able to buy a new bed for us. There were literal years where the only food I had was the lunch and breakfast school offered. At one point, my dad broke his ankle, he needed surgery we and sold almost everything in the house, including our refrigerator, in order to pay for the medical bills. I used to think that we were an anomaly, that we were the only kids in the world who lived like that. But I read Harry Potter, through my schoolโs library, and I literally cried the first time I read about Ron, and the Burrow especially. I got so mad every time Hermione yelled at Ron for eating because I knew he needed food. His body was probably in some sort of survival mode. Ron was by far one of my favorite characters because he was everything me and my family experienced and I needed that validation. I needed to know there were others like me and I couldnโt believe how much I related to Ron
People just donโt get it. And then on top of the regular struggles is the resentment that builds up. Because your parents were so irresponsible to HAVE so many kids when they werenโt capable of taking care of them; mentally, financially, physically.ย
And yet they want you not to complain. To be perfectly fucking happy with the little you do have.ย
Like, I get Percy Weasley, I get him. The fact that his dad, Arthur, made the decision to have so many kids and yet wants to stay at a low income job for his own happiness and satisfaction pissed me off. Like, yes, Arthur was a kind and sweet man, but that doesnโt help Ron get a wand or propper clothes, that doesnโt help the twins get textbooks for the school year, or to handle emergency situations when they come up.ย
When the Weasleyโs won that lottery and decided to WASTE it ALL on a fucking vacation? I was so livid. It reminded me so much of my mother and my stepdad who informed me they didnโt have the money to by my sister new pants after one of her last ones ripped, but who went out and BOUGHT a fucking four-wheelerย โto help them take care of the lawn.โย
The pure SELFISHNESS of it.ย
My baby sister got a backpack from her elementary school to help poor families and the barely within date cans of food no one wanted, the pop starts that were so old they were a different color? The odds and ends that were other peopleโs throw out food was what FIVE kids ate over the weekend while my mother still had money to buy herself chocolate muffins and smoke cigarettes.ย
We were living in poverty and every decision they made was for themselves.ย
Now, Iโm not saying that Molly or Arthur Weasley were like this, but the book detailed several occasions of blatant favoritism, a dismissal of problems THEY caused, a refusal to acknowledge that they are the ones at fault for having more children than they could safely- financially handle, and also poor financial decisions that benefit THEM more than their children. Likeโฆ WHY the fuck did Arthur Weasley have the Ford Angelina as a pet project he bought when he couldnโt afford to buy his youngest son a god damn wand?ย
Right from the get go, as an 11? year old, I noticed that shit and while I do find the quirky man to be a lovable person, that in no way erases the CLEAR demonstration that even if he doesnโt REALIZE he is being selfish that he most definitely is.ย
Time and time again the Weasley parents make decisions that give themย โimmediateโ satisfaction rather than any type of long term planning that could actually help.ย
So thatโs why I donโt blame Percy.ย
I UNDERSTAND the silent resentment that Ron felt. The knowledge that even if you do stand up for yourself, that if you point out that itโs not a good decision, that nothing will change. You are the child in that situation and in a wayโฆ in a way your parents treat you like property. You donโt have an opinion. Youโre not allowed to be upset. If they make a stupid decision you just need to shut up and deal with it. They made you andย โthey are trying their best.โ Even though their best isnโt good. You go where they tell you and when they tell you and you arenโt allowed to be part of that conversation because youโre not quite a person yet. You donโt deserve to have a say.ย
The resentment that you have to suffer the decisions that your parents make over and over again.ย
And Harry had to deal with a lot of shit. The Dursleyโs were horrible. However there is one thing I want to point outโฆ They were always intentionally horrible. Harry never had to deal with accidental neglect and he starved, but because people were monsters to him and withheld food, it was never because it simply wasnโt there.ย
What Harry went through was horrible but it makes me sick to my stomach that people use the abuse done to Harry to dismiss what Ron went through. And it upset me that whenever Ron was upset about something he was going through, it was treated like a joke. Like because Harry had suffered Worse that Ron didnโt have theย โrightโ to feel like something was hard. That having a wand that wasntโ matched to him wasnโt a big deal.ย
That having clothes that were shit wasnโt that hard to deal with.ย
That being excited about getting something new was mocked.ย
That ASKING for something was DEMONIZEDย
That working with a broken wand for an entire year wasnโt heartbreaking.ย
That wearing those robes, Ron should be grateful, not humiliated.ย
That Ron doesnโt have the right to be upset that the money was fake and that he couldnโt pay Harry back.ย
That his pet was being hunted and mistreated by his best friend who refused to take responsibility and that was VALIDATED because the pet turned out to be a bad guy.ย
That his shoes are too tight and his pants are always too short and his stuff is always worn and he STILL gave socks to Dobby.ย
He STILL offered his home to Harry.
I did not mean for this to turn into a anti Arthur and Molly Weasley post, but so much of the stuff they did upset me when I was reading the books. They are so loving and likable, and I do not think it was the intention of J.K Rowling to write the characters that way.ย
She probably just thought the car was a cool idea. She probably thought the vacation was a nifty plot tool for the picture of family. As someone who was homeless, Rowling probably wrote a lot of the things she herself experienced.ย
But she only had to take care of herself.ย
The projecting I did with the Weasley family is pretty obvious here. But itโs very hard for me not to criticize an unnecessary car bought when you canโt even buy a god damn wand. Itโs hard to look at the decisions they made and cringe at the audacity they had when their kids are struggling so hard. Itโs hard to look at that job Mr. Weasley enjoys so much and not be angry that he refuses to take higher paying ones because heย โwouldnโt enjoy themโ without also thinkingย โgrow the fuck up.โย
You lost the right to pick enjoyment over money when you had seven god damn children you are responsible for taking care of.ย
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk on poverty and parents who are incapable of making good financial decisions. This has been brought to you by Vivi who keeps sending me awesome links to posts she thinks I will be interested in.ย
-Windy
I am so grateful for another day to hate Molly Weasley with all my heart and soul.
Just wanted to let you know, tumblr suggested me your blog and what it used to describe you was โbig in Bill Weasley.โ I figured youโd want to know.
I'm flattered but when do I ever post about Bill?? huh??
Me: I hope the twins gave Peter Pettigrew absolute hell while he stayed at the Burrow disguised as Scabbers!
Also me: Ok but I hope they didn't torture Scabbers too much because Percy loved his rat and a sad Scabbers makes a sad Percy and a sad Percy makes a sad me.
Headcanon
The reason why Percy didn't want to believe Voldemort was back is because then he'd have to admit that Scabbers, his pet that he gave to Ron, was a full grown man the entire time, and he just couldn't emotionally deal with it or the deal with guilt of giving him to Ron