Two caveats: one, I’m not the biggest fan of Jon Stewart. He can be funny and insightful, but his stances occasionally rub me the wrong way. This is most-apparent in, ironically, his defence of Dave Chapelle over his transphobia regarding JK Rowling. It’s bizarre that people have forgotten that. But the internet has a short attention-span, so who am I to judge?
And two, I find it disturbing that this moment has riled people up and reignited the Antisemitism discourse. Let’s face it, Antisemitism isn’t a partisan issue. It doesn’t hold allegiances, and it takes many forms. Some aren’t even so obvious! So while this is worth mentioning, the conversation on Jewish ally-ship shouldn’t end there.
Anyway, Jon Stewart and Goblins.
A while back, Jon Stewart started a podcast titled “The Problem With __”. It’s received plenty of critical buzz, reminding audiences that he’s never skipped a beat since leaving The Daily Show. But while Stewart’s commented on more serious topics, it’s his clip on Harry Potter and the Goblins of Gringotts Bank that set everything alight. In the name of fairness, I watched it. And you can too:
I still can’t believe this was worthy of a debate. (Courtesy of The Problem With Jon Stewart.)
Honestly, Goblins are rooted in a coded history. There’s actually a dark underbelly to them, one you don’t normally question. Think about it: Goblins are diminutive, dirty creatures with weird accents, hooked noses and a penchant for being greedy. Conversely, Jews in Europe were often depicted by Christians as diminutive, dirty creatures with weird accents, hooked noses and a penchant for being greedy. Even if you believe in “coincidences”-I don’t-this is too on-the-nose to be accidental.
I loved the Harry Potter books growing up. And when I reread them as an adult…well, I binged them in a week. The prose is fantastic, the characters are multi-faceted and there’s a message about the follies of authority figures that’s still relevant. They’re also one of the few book series to make me cry. Considering that movies, not books, usually get tears from me, that’s saying something.
That said, they’re festered with bigoted stereotypes. Whether it’s the House Elves acting and speaking like black slaves, the Irish student being good at blowing stuff up, the Half-Giants being quirky and overweight, or the scheming reporter being a masculine woman who shape-shifts into a cockroach to spy on girls, this is hard to overlook. I haven’t even gotten to the only Asian character of note, Cho Chang, having a gibberish name. These books, which were intended for children, are blatant in their piss-poor representation, even if they’re not spelled out. That’d be an issue on its own…but then there’s JK Rowling.
See, Rowling’s been on a one-woman crusade in recent years against trans women. Whether it’s her Tweets, or her weirdly off-putting manifesto, Rowling’s made it her duty to “champion women’s reproductive rights” against “dishonest men who’d devalue them”. She’s sullied whatever good graces she’d had by targeting people who don’t know her. And it’s tiring. It’s especially tiring because it’s forced fans to re-evaluate not only her as a person, but also her work.
I loved the Harry Potter books growing up. And when I reread them as an adult…well, I binged them in a week. The prose is fantastic, the characters are multi-faceted and there’s a message about the follies of authority figures that’s still relevant. They’re also one of the few book series to make me cry. Considering that movies, not books, usually get tears from me, that’s saying something.
That said, they’re festered with bigoted stereotypes. Whether it’s the House Elves acting and speaking like black slaves, the Irish student being good at blowing stuff up, the Half-Giants being quirky and overweight, or the scheming reporter being a masculine woman who shape-shifts into a cockroach to spy on girls, this is hard to overlook. I haven’t even gotten to the only Asian character of note, Cho Chang, having a gibberish name. These books, which were intended for children, are blatant in their piss-poor representation, even if they’re not spelled out. That’d be an issue on its own…but then there’s JK Rowling.
See, Rowling’s been on a one-woman crusade in recent years against trans women. Whether it’s her Tweets, or her weirdly off-putting manifesto, Rowling’s made it her duty to “champion women’s reproductive rights” against “dishonest men who’d devalue them”. She’s sullied whatever good graces she’d had by targeting people who don’t know her. And it’s tiring. It’s especially tiring because it’s forced fans to re-evaluate not only her as a person, but also her work.
I won’t say that “Rowling was never a good writer”. That’s false. I think her writing, despite its problems, is excellent! But while I’ll defend her Harry Potter-related material, I can’t do the same for her as a person. She simply won’t let me. She’s become a bad dream who opens her mouth every once in a while and Trends, except that if you criticize her, her diehards will pile on you.
I’d normally end with that, but it gets worse. Jon Stewart’s commentary became so heated it led to Jewish organizations and publications coming to Rowling’s defence. I don’t get it. Or, rather, I only partly get it (she’s a “pro-Zionist ally”, despite her ally-ship never sitting right with me). Still, when The Forward makes my eyes roll, something’s amiss. Doubly-so when JK Rowling’s reputation matters more than Emma Watson’s, the latter of whom has expressed solidarity for a Palestinian state. And yes, that’s a whole other can of worms...
One of the talking points here is whether or not JRR Tolkien and Roald Dahl should be scrutinized for their overt and covert bigotry too. To that, I groan and ask why this is being brought up. Yes, Tolkien and Dahl’s use of stereotypes should absolutely be scrutinized! That doesn’t mean their influences should be discounted, and nor should Rowling’s, but that doesn’t mean this should be swept under the rug. This is bigger than them, and it’s for sure bigger than Rowling!
If you’ve ever encountered a novel from Western history, chances are you’ve come across some less-than-pleasant content. With Tolkien, any characters who aren’t Wizards, Elves or white men have unfortunately-racist/demeaning coding. The Orcs and Uruk-Hai are bad portrayals of black people and Jews, the Dwarves are bad portrayals of Jews, the Hobbits are stock tropes of children, and the dark-skinned men who ride elephants into battle are bad caricatures of Middle Eastern and Indian people. With Dahl, his Oompa-Loompas in particular are uncanny to African slaves. This doesn’t include his open disdain for Jews.
I’d normally end with that, but it gets worse. Jon Stewart’s commentary became so heated it led to Jewish organizations and publications coming to Rowling’s defence. I don’t get it. Or, rather, I only partly get it (she’s a “pro-Zionist ally”, despite her ally-ship never sitting right with me). Still, when The Forward makes my eyes roll, something’s amiss. Doubly-so when JK Rowling’s reputation matters more than Emma Watson’s, the latter of whom has expressed solidarity for a Palestinian state. And yes, that’s a whole other can of worms...
One of the talking points here is whether or not JRR Tolkien and Roald Dahl should be scrutinized for their overt and covert bigotry too. To that, I groan and ask why this is being brought up. Yes, Tolkien and Dahl’s use of stereotypes should absolutely be scrutinized! That doesn’t mean their influences should be discounted, and nor should Rowling’s, but that doesn’t mean this should be swept under the rug. This is bigger than them, and it’s for sure bigger than Rowling!
If you’ve ever encountered a novel from Western history, chances are you’ve come across some less-than-pleasant content. With Tolkien, any characters who aren’t Wizards, Elves or white men have unfortunately-racist/demeaning coding. The Orcs and Uruk-Hai are bad portrayals of black people and Jews, the Dwarves are bad portrayals of Jews, the Hobbits are stock tropes of children, and the dark-skinned men who ride elephants into battle are bad caricatures of Middle Eastern and Indian people. With Dahl, his Oompa-Loompas in particular are uncanny to African slaves. This doesn’t include his open disdain for Jews.
I’m not saying this to retroactively erase their impacts. That’d be bad-faith criticism. All I’m saying is that, as Jon Stewart has pointed out, these harmful portrayals, even if subconscious, should be acknowledged if they’re to be remedied in the future. History should be learned from, not ignored. And defensive arguments about how “they’re not really racist, you’re overreacting” aren’t the way to do it.
That said, I’ll give the backlash the upper-hand in one area: phrasing. He might not have stated that JK Rowling’s Antisemitic, but he seemed to imply it. If we’ve learned anything from Donald Trump, it’s that a well-known figure can say anything, but if they’re not clear in their intentions, or even if they are, people will misinterpret their words to mean something else. We saw it with the “Very fine people on both sides” statement following the Charlottesville riots: despite referring to tearing down Confederate statues, people thought he was exonerating the neo-Nazis who marched with their Tiki torches and shouted “Jews will not replace us!”.
So yes, Stewart should’ve known this’d happen. But that doesn’t mean his critics weren’t also overreacting. They were. And it’s that defensiveness that harms more than it heals. (Remember, JK Rowling’s active on Twitter…)
Ultimately, this is why internet discourse is so toxic. Because if you zig, people will claim that you zagged. This is especially true with statements, both true and false. Besides, the internet has enough problems without adding to them. Jon Stewart could’ve been more tactful, but we should also acknowledge his truths and move on. Trust me, we’ll be better off!
That said, I’ll give the backlash the upper-hand in one area: phrasing. He might not have stated that JK Rowling’s Antisemitic, but he seemed to imply it. If we’ve learned anything from Donald Trump, it’s that a well-known figure can say anything, but if they’re not clear in their intentions, or even if they are, people will misinterpret their words to mean something else. We saw it with the “Very fine people on both sides” statement following the Charlottesville riots: despite referring to tearing down Confederate statues, people thought he was exonerating the neo-Nazis who marched with their Tiki torches and shouted “Jews will not replace us!”.
So yes, Stewart should’ve known this’d happen. But that doesn’t mean his critics weren’t also overreacting. They were. And it’s that defensiveness that harms more than it heals. (Remember, JK Rowling’s active on Twitter…)
Ultimately, this is why internet discourse is so toxic. Because if you zig, people will claim that you zagged. This is especially true with statements, both true and false. Besides, the internet has enough problems without adding to them. Jon Stewart could’ve been more tactful, but we should also acknowledge his truths and move on. Trust me, we’ll be better off!
No comments:
Post a Comment