So I’ve seen a ton of lists of all the questionable things JKR has done post-books with Harry Potter content that is putting people off her. From Cursed Child to a clear lack of understanding of racial politics in America to lack of actual LGBT representation to what-now-is-this-about-Nagini-being-a-cursed-asian-woman? And also the counter-smattering of I LOVE JKR SHE IS AMAZING STOP BEING MEAN. Interesting times in hpland, though when is it ever not?
Anyway, on one of these lists I saw someone say something about JKR claiming that european wizards introduced wands to the indigenous peoples of america and how offensive that idea is. But you know what? This one I can actually believe.
Hold on. Give me a minute.
I have what are probably weird and definitely unsubstantiated headcanons about wands in the HP world (that I briefly touch upon in The Changeling). Wands were invented. Meaning there was a time before wands. They are a tool meant to harness and channel magic. And maybe they are helpful. But I see a world in the books where there is little to no magic happening without wands. So what happened to all that magic that used to exist before? The only glimpse we see is what Lily does for Harry, the blood protection, which was not with wands, but with love. She cast no spell, she waved no wand, but imparted something that lives in her son.
Not only that, but this magic is more powerful than the deadliest wand spell that exists.
I find that very interesting. Especially when you add in that you can only get a wand if you can afford it, and when you are eleven (an ‘adult’), that children still do magic before that, but it is seen as ‘uncontrolled’ and ‘primitive’ and even ‘dangerous’. And that adults never do this kind of magic anymore, and if they did, they would be seen as unstable or dangerous.
And then you have people like Hagrid, who had their wand snapped, meaning he isn’t even allowed to do magic. The only other beings to do magic without wands? Goblins and house elves. Both of whom are canonically seen as primitive and subservient or even evil.
The fact that wands are so clearly controlled by the education system and by the government, says that wand magic is something doled out. It is something allowed. Which means it is something that can be taken away. And canonically was.
I think wands caught on because of this very fact. And I think the curriculum of magical education centers on wands because of this very fact. And I think a society based on access to something so fundamental will inevitably be used to disenfranchise and oppress certain groups–women, people of color, minoritized people (which as always in fantasy, many of the ‘creature’ classes of beings are symbolic of, which is another can of worms to be dealt with).
The core of this is that someone is deciding who can handle this ‘technology’–adults, not children; wizards, not ‘creatures’. And how are minoritized groups most often talked of in dominate narratives? As childlike, as primitive, and even dangerous. And the only way the entire system works, is if all other magics are disparaged, outlawed, and eventually forgotten.
So do I think european wizards would bring wands with them to the americas and introduce them to the indigenous populations? Hell yeah I do. And why? For all the same reasons. Because wand magic can be controlled and doled out, and indigenous magics would be a threat to that system. It would undermine the very belief that wands are superior and necessary and the sign of ‘civilized’ society. Of course the indigenous peoples would want them. Who wouldn’t!
I think they would not only introduce wands, but that they would have also made a concerted effort to break the transmission of traditional practices as well. Like, say, making a school. A school where only one version of magic is taught. Where magical children would be removed from their cultures and indoctrinated in a new one–with or without the permission of their parents, if they were even given the right to make that decision. It’s for the ‘good’ of the children, after all.
Clearly wands can be seen as symbolic of a lot of things in our own histories, which is true of many of the things JKR writes, consciously or otherwise. Some she seems willing to engage with, and others that she is not.
I know it’s comforting to imagine a fantasy world where wizards would be better than this (better than our own brutal history and present), that magic might make things more equal and less hateful, that there could be a world where european invaders respected the practices of the people they sought to conquer, lived peacefully beside them, rather than just using them as mascots for their school houses and ‘myths’ to spice up their own storytelling. But nothing in the harry potter books suggests this to be the case.
The thing is, JKR’s narrative is steeped in colonialist messages and approaches, as is the dominate narrative of western culture as a whole. Is this something only she has done? No. It’s something that is widespread and endemic. She is a product of this history as much as anyone, the one we try not to own. It doesn’t make it any less dangerous. Her approach to this topic is totally eurocentric and dismissive of indigenous history, culture, and civilization, which was (and is) pretty much the point of colonial narratives–to break the lines of transmission of knowledge and culture and language, leaving only a system that is built to create unequal ‘classes’ of people based on color and ethnicity.
So, yeah, I find it believable that european wizards brought wands with them and then foisted them off on the population as being so much better and the only way to do magic while simultaneously limiting their access to it and systematically destroying by any means necessary the knowledge of whatever magics existed before they arrived, simply because those magics couldn’t be controlled and, to their minds, couldn’t possibly be better.
I can all too easily believe that. It’s not offensive because it’s unbelievable though. It’s offensive because of the way it is told. And the things that are not told. The fact remains that the way we tell these stories matters. And a refusal to engage only reinforces the stories that have been passed off to us for so long as truth.
As Thomas King says in his brutal, gorgeous The Truth About Stores: A Native Narrative (stop everything and go read/listen to this now), “You have to be careful with the stories you tell. And you have to watch out for the stories that you are told.” Stories, to King, are medicine. They can either heal or they can kill.
Be careful the stories you tell.
“For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world.”
turnnoffyourmind
titsay
ellievsbear
gracieabrams
