|
|
NM (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} narcissam) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2005-11-01 12:43:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Combined HP/Mein Kampf Wank
Thanks to the anon: story645, onwank_report.
Tolerance.org posts an article that doesn't exactly claim HP is racist. But it does say this.
HARRY POTTER: A 'Half-Blood Prince' Revealed
Today, as millions of people rifle through freshly minted copies of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to discover the identity of this mysterious new character, I can't help but imagine this prince as biracial rather than "half-magic."
"Half-breed" — akin to mongrel, mutt or half-caste — flies around as a jab at biracial people more often than "half-blood."
In J.K. Rowling's world, half-blood means "half magic." But the term — reflecting a dichotomy between magic/powerful and mundane/helpless — implies a hierarchy. This "magic" hierarchy directly resembles racial hierarchies.
android on sciforums takes this as an invitation to start a thread named Harry Potter is a Racist.
Mystech: Yeah yeah and he and his friends run around calling people "Mud bloods" which, if I recall correctly, is very close to a slur actually used by American white supremacists.
Does Harry Potter express raciest views? Of course. Should J.K. Rowling be frowned upon for this? I don't think so. She's British, she just can't help it. . . its bred into them. She probably doesn't even know she's doing it, and it's not as if she's actually making any derogatory statements against any actual race, so really in the end who cares?
Fathoms: actually all the wizards that use the term 'mud-blood' are looked upon as biggoted. There is a clear anti-racism/anti-discrimination theme in the series, especially Chamber of Secrets. Though one could make a case for the fact that all Slytherins tend to be assholes
Mystech: I'll admit it, I've only seen the movies :P this destinction between those who use the term mud blood and those who don't doesn't really seem to be particularly evident therein.
Neildo: Fantasy realms have always been filled with racism, so what's new? Half-elves (or any half-breed) have always been scorned. However, that is fantasy and roleplaying someone/thing else and not real life.. just too bad few can distinguish the two. So the book has racist elements in it, big deal, it's a book. Start complaining about racism in video games such as Grand Theft Auto now.
Satyr: I just heard that Harry Potter is gay.
riku_124: if he was gay he wouldnt have been sucking face iwth ginny ( and ron and lavender wouldnt ether)
and for who ever claims harry is calling peopel mud bludes read the boosk over dumbass tis malfoy and co who say that
malfoy is a bigot
android: There's nothing wrong, illegal, or unscientific about racial awareness and preferring your own kind. Bigotry I'm not so fond of, but only undermen equate the two.
SCrow: Well, to go back to the original point about Harry Potter being a racist, the book certainly has some elements that could definatly be interpreted as Nazi related symbols. For example, Snape's initials are S.S. which relates to the Schutzstaffel from the holocaust. Another S.S. related point is Harry's scar, which looks alot like the tag in which the S.S. had on their uniform. I also agree with the original point of this arguement, that being the connection between the half-blood and pure-blood to Naziism. I agree it is just a book but there alot more to the book then justthe story.
hapsburg: Either way, it's just a ****ing book.
john smith: Yes.Quite.Just as 'Mein Kampf' was "just a ****ing book.Think a little more, say a little less.
Von Chav: Lets face it. It is just a "F****** book", albeit an infamously, far-reaching one. A book, afterall, is just a book. However, it's historical significance cannot be understated, and it does give a good insight into the mind of a tyrant.
If the Preface is anything to go by, Hitler never intended Mein Kampf to influence people - it's purpose was to cronicle the events of a nation and an extreme facist political movement to give justification through the medium of context. Though at the end of the day - lets face it - it's nothing but the wittering of a mad man, banging his head against the wall of Landsberg Am Lech prison.
Read the book. By not reading it you are simply succumbing to other people's influences and opinions through a naive and narrow-minded, clichéd criterion.
Ahem. Harry Potter a racist?? Don't make me laugh - thats like saying all Roald Dahl books are for paedophiles!!
Hagar: Lets face it. Bread is just "F****** food", albeit nutritional, life-sustaining food. Bread, afterall, is just bread. However, it's historical significance cannot be understated, and it does give a good insight into the mind of hungry people.
If the crust is anything to go by, bread was never intended to feed people - it's purpose was to just sit on a shelf and become penicillin. Though at the end of the day - lets face it - it's nothing but the dough of a baker, being banged against a cutting board. Eat the bread. By not eating it you are simply succumbing to other people's influences and opinions through a naive and narrow-minded, clichéd criterion.
Von Chav: You do make me laugh Hagar, but have you read Mein Kampf? Or were the letters too small?? Prehaps the German title put you off, or maybe your mother told you not to read it.
(I can understand your sarcasm - it does amuse me, and yes I did get carried away abit there) But seriously though, what does 'bread' have to do with Mein Kampf?? Is bread "historically significant"? Lets face it - bread is hardly thaught provoking! My point was Mein Kampf has suffered too much at the hands of infidels and is admittedly useful in placing Hitler's beliefs in context (that does'nt make me a Nazi) too many people like you are overly keen to jump on the nearest bandwagon and at the end of the day it was only a "book" (just like the Bible/Koran etc) albeit an interesting one!
Bread, my friend is the cornerstone of everyone's staple diet, however Mein Kampf is not the pre-requisite of literacy.
More to the point Hagar, what the hell are you doing on this thread if you don't have an opinion as to wether or not "Harry Potter is Racist" and can't contribute anything but lame piss-taking, simply because you lack the intelligence to make any worthy or welcome contribution.
John Smith: well Von Chav, forgive me for saying so but i cant help but feel your slightly contradicting yourself, i.e. in the quote above you ARE saying that 'it is just a book', wheras in this post;
You seem to be saying the exact opposite, that mein Kampf shouldnt merely be taken lightly, I can see from your post that youve read 'Mein Kampf', how did you find it?, it must have been slightly wierd??
Von Chav: Yeah it was weird. But not as 'bad' or anti-semitic as I was lead to believe. Most of it entials Hitler's political struggle, and events prior to 1933. (In my previous post I was just dissing a dick-shit retard, and kinda missed the point)
Yes it is just a 'book' but that goes for the Bible too. Any 'book' is'nt really that special - buts thats not to say it is'nt useful. Whats different about Mein Kampf (in this case) is that it's ill-concieved by the masses, and thats put too many people off reading it simply because people are being too dismissive. People just jump the gun and are too keen to dismiss it as tripe (it is ) without giving it a shot.
I was being kinda sentimental by saying its just a book, and yes, that can be regarded as being a contradiction. I just did'nt think too many people would take my view literally. Let me conclude - it is only a book, but a disgusting, god-awful, offensive, dellusional one; albeit useful!! (That was my point in the first place!)
bbc boy: Isn't it strange that a CHILDRENS book can provoke such a philosophical debate?
Especially when the first edition was renamed the SOURCERERS stone for the confusion it might illicit in its American audience!
Oops, was that a racist comment?
My British bad D:
Oxygen: Your British worse. "American" isn't a race. It's a nationality. Unfortunately, it's a nationality with puritan roots that makes us inherently prudish. The whole "Sorceror's Stone" thing was because the Christian Fundamentalists (emphasis on "mental") felt that "Philosopher's Stone" was too satanic.
----------------------------------------
I'd like to sign off this selection of posts from the looney-bin by saying that the word 'half-breed' was originally coined to describe people of mixed Native and European descent. I am a bona-fide half-breed and on behalf of my people I extend the peace-pipe of forgiveness to the paleface Rowling provided she invite me to Scotland, all expenses paid.
NM
Thanks to the anon: story645, on
wank_report.Tolerance.org posts an article that doesn't exactly claim HP is racist. But it does say this.
HARRY POTTER: A 'Half-Blood Prince' Revealed
Today, as millions of people rifle through freshly minted copies of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to discover the identity of this mysterious new character, I can't help but imagine this prince as biracial rather than "half-magic."
"Half-breed" — akin to mongrel, mutt or half-caste — flies around as a jab at biracial people more often than "half-blood."
In J.K. Rowling's world, half-blood means "half magic." But the term — reflecting a dichotomy between magic/powerful and mundane/helpless — implies a hierarchy. This "magic" hierarchy directly resembles racial hierarchies.
android on sciforums takes this as an invitation to start a thread named Harry Potter is a Racist.
Mystech: Yeah yeah and he and his friends run around calling people "Mud bloods" which, if I recall correctly, is very close to a slur actually used by American white supremacists.
Does Harry Potter express raciest views? Of course. Should J.K. Rowling be frowned upon for this? I don't think so. She's British, she just can't help it. . . its bred into them. She probably doesn't even know she's doing it, and it's not as if she's actually making any derogatory statements against any actual race, so really in the end who cares?
Fathoms: actually all the wizards that use the term 'mud-blood' are looked upon as biggoted. There is a clear anti-racism/anti-discrimination theme in the series, especially Chamber of Secrets. Though one could make a case for the fact that all Slytherins tend to be assholes
Mystech: I'll admit it, I've only seen the movies :P this destinction between those who use the term mud blood and those who don't doesn't really seem to be particularly evident therein.
Neildo: Fantasy realms have always been filled with racism, so what's new? Half-elves (or any half-breed) have always been scorned. However, that is fantasy and roleplaying someone/thing else and not real life.. just too bad few can distinguish the two. So the book has racist elements in it, big deal, it's a book. Start complaining about racism in video games such as Grand Theft Auto now.
Satyr: I just heard that Harry Potter is gay.
riku_124: if he was gay he wouldnt have been sucking face iwth ginny ( and ron and lavender wouldnt ether)
and for who ever claims harry is calling peopel mud bludes read the boosk over dumbass tis malfoy and co who say that
malfoy is a bigot
android: There's nothing wrong, illegal, or unscientific about racial awareness and preferring your own kind. Bigotry I'm not so fond of, but only undermen equate the two.
SCrow: Well, to go back to the original point about Harry Potter being a racist, the book certainly has some elements that could definatly be interpreted as Nazi related symbols. For example, Snape's initials are S.S. which relates to the Schutzstaffel from the holocaust. Another S.S. related point is Harry's scar, which looks alot like the tag in which the S.S. had on their uniform. I also agree with the original point of this arguement, that being the connection between the half-blood and pure-blood to Naziism. I agree it is just a book but there alot more to the book then justthe story.
hapsburg: Either way, it's just a ****ing book.
john smith: Yes.Quite.Just as 'Mein Kampf' was "just a ****ing book.Think a little more, say a little less.
Von Chav: Lets face it. It is just a "F****** book", albeit an infamously, far-reaching one. A book, afterall, is just a book. However, it's historical significance cannot be understated, and it does give a good insight into the mind of a tyrant.
If the Preface is anything to go by, Hitler never intended Mein Kampf to influence people - it's purpose was to cronicle the events of a nation and an extreme facist political movement to give justification through the medium of context. Though at the end of the day - lets face it - it's nothing but the wittering of a mad man, banging his head against the wall of Landsberg Am Lech prison.
Read the book. By not reading it you are simply succumbing to other people's influences and opinions through a naive and narrow-minded, clichéd criterion.
Ahem. Harry Potter a racist?? Don't make me laugh - thats like saying all Roald Dahl books are for paedophiles!!
Hagar: Lets face it. Bread is just "F****** food", albeit nutritional, life-sustaining food. Bread, afterall, is just bread. However, it's historical significance cannot be understated, and it does give a good insight into the mind of hungry people.
If the crust is anything to go by, bread was never intended to feed people - it's purpose was to just sit on a shelf and become penicillin. Though at the end of the day - lets face it - it's nothing but the dough of a baker, being banged against a cutting board. Eat the bread. By not eating it you are simply succumbing to other people's influences and opinions through a naive and narrow-minded, clichéd criterion.
Von Chav: You do make me laugh Hagar, but have you read Mein Kampf? Or were the letters too small?? Prehaps the German title put you off, or maybe your mother told you not to read it.
(I can understand your sarcasm - it does amuse me, and yes I did get carried away abit there) But seriously though, what does 'bread' have to do with Mein Kampf?? Is bread "historically significant"? Lets face it - bread is hardly thaught provoking! My point was Mein Kampf has suffered too much at the hands of infidels and is admittedly useful in placing Hitler's beliefs in context (that does'nt make me a Nazi) too many people like you are overly keen to jump on the nearest bandwagon and at the end of the day it was only a "book" (just like the Bible/Koran etc) albeit an interesting one!
Bread, my friend is the cornerstone of everyone's staple diet, however Mein Kampf is not the pre-requisite of literacy.
More to the point Hagar, what the hell are you doing on this thread if you don't have an opinion as to wether or not "Harry Potter is Racist" and can't contribute anything but lame piss-taking, simply because you lack the intelligence to make any worthy or welcome contribution.
John Smith: well Von Chav, forgive me for saying so but i cant help but feel your slightly contradicting yourself, i.e. in the quote above you ARE saying that 'it is just a book', wheras in this post;
You seem to be saying the exact opposite, that mein Kampf shouldnt merely be taken lightly, I can see from your post that youve read 'Mein Kampf', how did you find it?, it must have been slightly wierd??
Von Chav: Yeah it was weird. But not as 'bad' or anti-semitic as I was lead to believe. Most of it entials Hitler's political struggle, and events prior to 1933. (In my previous post I was just dissing a dick-shit retard, and kinda missed the point)
Yes it is just a 'book' but that goes for the Bible too. Any 'book' is'nt really that special - buts thats not to say it is'nt useful. Whats different about Mein Kampf (in this case) is that it's ill-concieved by the masses, and thats put too many people off reading it simply because people are being too dismissive. People just jump the gun and are too keen to dismiss it as tripe (it is ) without giving it a shot.
I was being kinda sentimental by saying its just a book, and yes, that can be regarded as being a contradiction. I just did'nt think too many people would take my view literally. Let me conclude - it is only a book, but a disgusting, god-awful, offensive, dellusional one; albeit useful!! (That was my point in the first place!)
bbc boy: Isn't it strange that a CHILDRENS book can provoke such a philosophical debate?
Especially when the first edition was renamed the SOURCERERS stone for the confusion it might illicit in its American audience!
Oops, was that a racist comment?
My British bad D:
Oxygen: Your British worse. "American" isn't a race. It's a nationality. Unfortunately, it's a nationality with puritan roots that makes us inherently prudish. The whole "Sorceror's Stone" thing was because the Christian Fundamentalists (emphasis on "mental") felt that "Philosopher's Stone" was too satanic.
----------------------------------------
I'd like to sign off this selection of posts from the looney-bin by saying that the word 'half-breed' was originally coined to describe people of mixed Native and European descent. I am a bona-fide half-breed and on behalf of my people I extend the peace-pipe of forgiveness to the paleface Rowling provided she invite me to Scotland, all expenses paid.
NM
Post a comment in response:
