JK Rowling says that there were Jewish wizards at Hogwarts: Only religion not included is Wicca - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46745757]Wiccans make me very regretful that true European paganism has been perfectly eradicated, without much concrete information about what it was [I]actually[/I] like, remaining.[/QUOTE] Particularly sad considering slavic paganism suffered brutally to an extent. While local versions of christianity have a huge amount of pagan beliefs, not much of the original religion remains or has been recovered. Unlike say the Norse.

[QUOTE=ZenZill;46746886]Good. Most 'Wiccans', as far as I know, are money peddling charlatans.[/QUOTE] I think you're confusing "Wiccan" with "Gypsy"

I just find it funny that while she says most religions are in there, many religions still consider the Harry Potter series to be blasphemy.

is it me or is Rowling starting to jump wizard sharks?

I can't even imagine Scientologist wizards

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;46747259]is it me or is Rowling starting to jump [b]wizard sharks?[/b][/QUOTE] Fund it.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;46747259]is it me or is Rowling starting to jump wizard sharks?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/5oyfDeY.png[/img]

I'll be honest, having authors explain this sort of thing about characters outside of the actual book always makes me raise an eyebrow slightly and feels like super weak representation in my opinion

[QUOTE=NiandraLades;46747547]I'll be honest, having authors explain this sort of thing about characters outside of the actual book always makes me raise an eyebrow slightly and feels like super weak representation in my opinion[/QUOTE] Their religion, sexual orientation etc had nothing to do with the plot, soooo... it wasn't explicitly stated. I think that's the right way of going about it. There's nothing worse about representation than 'representative' characters being shoved down your throat. "Oh, did you know that X is totally gay and Jewish? it has nothing to do with anything, but just know it ok? Also, Y is Muslim"

Any place for some Asatru/Odinist wizards? Viking Wizards!

[QUOTE=gudman;46747993]Their religion, sexual orientation etc had nothing to do with the plot, soooo... it wasn't explicitly stated. I think that's the right way of going about it. There's nothing worse about representation than 'representative' characters being shoved down your throat. "Oh, did you know that X is totally gay and Jewish? it has nothing to do with anything, but just know it ok? Also, Y is Muslim"[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I totally get that as well, it's very easy to do more harm than good, so obviously the key is balanced between the two - like subtle mentions in dialogue or whatever are a nice way to go abou There's a post going around on the internet - 'people pointing out queer representation in the media like' [img]http://media.tumblr.com/df8cae9dfcba31cc22499f322c42eee1/tumblr_inline_n97g47leir1r431w5.png[/img] Which I found pretty funny and could be relevant here :v:

If a Hindi wizard had a cow for patronus would that be racist?

[QUOTE=Black;46750633]Any place for some Asatru/Odinist wizards? Viking Wizards![/QUOTE] Well there is Durmstrang which is in either Sweden or Norway, so it's not out of the question.

[QUOTE=Black;46750633]Any place for some Asatru/Odinist wizards? Viking Wizards![/QUOTE] Didn't the Norse also think magic was primarily the tool of women and cowards? Like, I remember Loki used magic a couple times in mythology and the gods [I]flipped their shit[/I] because of it. Then again, Loki turned into a female horse so he could get impregnated with Sleipnir so he probably gave zero fucks. [editline]19th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;46747270]I can't even imagine Scientologist wizards[/QUOTE] Aren't those Death Eaters.

[QUOTE=Axsisel;46750981]If a Hindi wizard had a cow for patronus would that be racist?[/QUOTE] I always wondered about patronuseses. Could someone have a human patronus? Or a dementor?

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;46752069]Didn't the Norse also think magic was primarily the tool of women and cowards? Like, I remember Loki used magic a couple times in mythology and the gods [I]flipped their shit[/I] because of it. Then again, Loki turned into a female horse so he could get impregnated with Sleipnir so he probably gave zero fucks.[/QUOTE] Both men and women could practice seiðr. In the Havamal, Odin actually claims to know 18 spells.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;46746368]Either that or she just wants to go back and take credit for stuff she never really intended for when she was writing the books. But my guess is as good as yours[/QUOTE] Harry Potter and the Half-Assed Representation

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46745759]Probably. Wizardboos [editline]18th December 2014[/editline] Probably a lot more bloodletting and sacrifice than Wicca has[/QUOTE] Way back in the day of my people, if your wife wasn't being fertile enough, you hung daggers above the bed to prevent bad spirits from poisoning her womb or some shit. Also, a man made of rocks shot a load across a river once, and it got our wise woman/fertility goddess pregnant with the first humans. Or a baby made of stone, depending on who you hear it from.

[QUOTE=gudman;46747993]Their religion, sexual orientation etc had nothing to do with the plot, soooo... it wasn't explicitly stated. I think that's the right way of going about it. There's nothing worse about representation than 'representative' characters being shoved down your throat. "Oh, did you know that X is totally gay and Jewish? it has nothing to do with anything, but just know it ok? Also, Y is Muslim"[/QUOTE] A plot can be made or broken by the world in which it's set. If the world is shown to be pretty non-diverse by default, it makes it harder for a wider range of people to get into it. It's satisfying to say "there's no need to represent certain sections of society if it has no bearing on the plot" but in reality it makes your story less enjoyable/appealing for the people who aren't represented. Theoretically it's best to ignore race, religion, sexuality etc when writing anything but realistically it's just gonna perpetuate the over-representation of the dominant sections of society to the detriment of the under-represented ones.

[QUOTE=shozamar;46758804]A plot can be made or broken by the world in which it's set. If the world is shown to be pretty non-diverse by default, it makes it harder for a wider range of people to get into it. It's satisfying to say "there's no need to represent certain sections of society if it has no bearing on the plot" but in reality it makes your story less enjoyable/appealing for the people who aren't represented.[/QUOTE] I've honestly never understood this. If a movie has a good plot I couldn't care less what color the character's color is, mine or otherwise. It seems to me that a person would need to be pretty racist to not be able to enjoy a movie as much because the people had a different skin color.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46758834]I've honestly never understood this. If a movie has a good plot I couldn't care less what color the character's color is, mine or otherwise. It seems to me that a person would need to be pretty racist to not be able to enjoy a movie as much because the people had a different skin color.[/QUOTE] This is a good ideal to have, but for a minority race growing up where almost every main character belongs to the dominant race it's pretty hard to follow. We want to see ourselves in literature and film, the point of most protagonists is to be a vehicle for the reader/watcher (hence why most characters in Western society are male and white, probably the most numerous group in relation to how influential they are). To a child growing up in a society that doesn't represent their race/religion properly, the comparative lack of role-models of their race/religion almost certainly leads to the insecurity that they're somehow defective. Hence why minorities gravitate towards characters who do represent them.

Rowling, Rowling no. Stop. You're going all George Lucas on us. [B]Mark my words, next thing we know there'l be another set of movies! Subpar, substandard, and hated by all of us and entirely confusing![/B] And even worse! [I]A pre-triology![/I]

[QUOTE=shozamar;46758947]This is a good ideal to have, but for a minority race growing up where almost every main character belongs to the dominant race it's pretty hard to follow. We want to see ourselves in literature and film, the point of most protagonists is to be a vehicle for the reader/watcher (hence why most characters in Western society are male and white, probably the most numerous group in relation to how influential they are). To a child growing up in a society that doesn't represent their race/religion properly, the comparative lack of role-models of their race/religion almost certainly leads to the insecurity that they're somehow defective. Hence why minorities gravitate towards characters who do represent them.[/QUOTE] I really do think a lot of this mentality comes from the group think encouraged in modern society. People are told to be proud of the group they're born in (black pride, gay pride, etc.) and that their group, specifically, should be recognized as a group (black history month). The modern lack of expectation of assimilation doesn't help either (teaching elementary schools in more than one language, for example). I've know white kids who grew up in parts of Africa with essentially no other white people beyond their parents and/or a siblings and they had none of insecurities that you mentioned. To them, their skin color isn't even a thing to compare with others. They are people, and those other people are people too, they just happen to have a different skin color. This also only seems to be an issue to specific minority groups. So I'm not sure if generalized statements would apply.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;46751990]Well there is Durmstrang which is in either Sweden or Norway, so it's not out of the question.[/QUOTE] Wasn't that from Bulgaria?

-snip-

[QUOTE=sgman91;46759111]I really do think a lot of this mentality comes from the group think encouraged in modern society. People are told to be proud of the group they're born in (black pride, gay pride, etc.) and that their group, specifically, should be recognized as a group (black history month). The modern lack of expectation of assimilation doesn't help either (teaching elementary schools in more than one language, for example). I've know white kids who grew up in parts of Africa with essentially no other white people beyond their parents and/or a siblings and they had none of insecurities that you mentioned. To them, their skin color isn't even a thing to compare with others. They are people, and those other people are people too, they just happen to have a different skin color. This also only seems to be an issue to specific minority groups. So I'm not sure if generalized statements would apply.[/QUOTE] Gay pride and black history are acknowledgements of how far we've come and the need to continue. The reason it's known as "pride" is because gay people are proud of the fact that they've come out in a society that often discourages them from doing so. They're not proud of the fact that they arbitrarily like the same sex, they're proud of the strength they have in order to make it known that they like the same sex. I understand where you're coming from, treating people as groups is idealistically bad. This, and my arguments against are an example of something called ideal theory vs non-idea theory in the philosophy of prejudice. I'd recommend reading some of this subject if this kind of topic interests you. Essentially I believe that you're advocating some (mostly justified) social ideals without acknowledging the situation at hand. Yes, it's true that it's bad to treat people as groups, but those groups have already been created thanks to past atrocities (racial segregation, slavery, illegality of specific traits etc). The damage has already been done and one of the best ways of repairing it is through an active effort to represent as many people as possible. If more groups are represented together, social divisions will begin to dissolve and the ideals you're espousing can be properly achieved.

[QUOTE=shozamar;46758804]A plot can be made or broken by the world in which it's set. If the world is shown to be pretty non-diverse by default, it makes it harder for a wider range of people to get into it. It's satisfying to say "there's no need to represent certain sections of society if it has no bearing on the plot" but in reality it makes your story less enjoyable/appealing for the people who aren't represented. Theoretically it's best to ignore race, religion, sexuality etc when writing anything but realistically it's just gonna perpetuate the over-representation of the dominant sections of society to the detriment of the under-represented ones.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood my point, I didn't say that representation is not needed, or should be ignored or anything like that. There're various circumstances where certain methods of 'diversifying' the cast of characters would be detrimental to the integrity of the narrative. Pointing out religions and sexual orientations in a fantasy about magic school makes little sense, for example. Who would talk about such things when there're magic stuff, talking portraits, ghosts, evil sorcerers and shit? Certainly not main characters, they've got their hands full as it is. What Rowling did (or at least claimed to do, let's be fair) may be a little too subtle, but it's certainly much better than one of the background characters suddenly celebrating some Jewish holiday, in such a way that main characters hear about it (and through them, the reader).

I-I don't get the choice to be pro-anything religious in Harry Potter. I mean... isn't it filled with magic, sorcery, and all kinds of witchcraft? Doesn't that go against most Religions? Where are the Muslim Wizards with their Burka's on Rowling?! HUMMM?!

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46745827]He didn't seem that obsessed with money though. Also Snape turned out to be one of the best good guys.[/QUOTE] Dude, he's the alchemy teacher. Jew confirmed.

[QUOTE=Keys;46760023]I-I don't get the choice to be pro-anything religious in Harry Potter. I mean... isn't it filled with magic, sorcery, and all kinds of witchcraft? Doesn't that go against most Religions?[/QUOTE] I believe you'll find most religions are very accommodating of magic in various forms.