Outside of Harry Potter and Star Wars films, what is the most Antisemitic blockbuster film of the last 30 years?
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
Oh sorry, I only added it for context, but I'll go ahead and take it out.
I am saying JK Rowling's work has very strong racist tendencies, not only when it comes to the Jewish people but all races. But it's done so in a way that it's not readily apparent to mainstream audiences. Neither of the two properties would be as successful today as they are if it was as blatant straight-up antisemitism. The majority of the public will be dumbfounded if you said off the cuff Harry Potter and Star Wars is racist because it is done very subliminally.
This is basically the whole crux of the issue here: You're unlikely to find blatantly racist mainstream today because most of these things have been moved to the subtext and stereotypes. But in the end, it's all about the intent so openly racist or not, shit is bad. And continues to persist in the background.
Okay, sorry I was trying to parse the stuff because I don't want to be a dick, but I recognizance that I'm not the best with explaining it.
What are you arguing? I've said it like three times now.
Just because a lot of the problematic elements have existed since our birth does not mean they are not something we should articulate our misgivings and try to combat.
must be weird to somehow miss the basis of antisemitism somehow.
No apologies necessary, you are totally fine! If anyone is being a dick here, it's probably me lol
We're literally talking about Goblins with hooked noses who control all of the money. This isn't subtext, it is right there. Again, "I didn't know it was racist" racism... is still racism. Especially when unaddressed.
Also... Watto? Really?
I thought this was Harry Potter AND Star Wars, if this has all been about just Harry Potter ...
I would argue this subtle perpetuation of stereotypes is ultimately more damaging than blatant hostility would be. It's got just enough room for reasonable doubt that people will bend over backwards to protect it, all while millions of kids are taking it in and I getting stereotypes they don't even realize they're being fed.
Different boy, different magic stick 😉I thought this was Harry Potter AND Star Wars, if this has all been about just Harry Potter ...
I think you are misdirecting your anger towards me. I have said nothing about not articulating or not trying to combat, the opposite if anything. All I said was there is room for nuance but clearly, that's lost here so I will summarize it one last time so everyone stops fucking quoting me:
Star Wars has racist depictions but calling it straight-up anti-semitic is a bit of a stretch. Just like Simpsons has racist depictions but calling it anti-brown would be a bit of a stretch.
Harry Potter has a lot of racist depictions of various races. And given Rowling's views in recent years, I would say she is probably anti-everything that's not straight cis people, let alone anti-Semitic. Then again Harry Potter is no Birth of the Nation. Context is important.
Now, this is something I agree with 100% and have been trying to say all this time. The non-blatant racist depictions are actually a lot worse and in many ways, they are all around media, hell in real life too.
I thought this was Harry Potter AND Star Wars, if this has all been about just Harry Potter ...
Luke is absolutely a boy with a magic stick.
I don't see the benefit of stratifying racism because if we say "racist-lite", I doubt that makes her more likely to improve on depictions. I think it lets her get away with more. Language matters to an extent but only dumb right wingers will conflate racism to only burning crosses on a lawn and just because there are layers to it, doesn't mean one is better than the other. Yes, there is a difference between wanting genocide of trans women like Lily Cade BUT is easily combated against by deplatforming versus J K Rowling campaigning against eroding certain civil rights for trans folks under the guise of white cis "feminism" which has been more successful and mainstream-friendly. The downplaying of bigotry is beneficial for the status quo, not for minorities. Her being representative by having Indian characters, East Asian characters with names like Cho Chang, Jewish characters named Anthony Goldstein, goblins being like anti-Semitic stereotypes and other problematic aspects can seem like a liberal good thing for the unaware white majority and only minorities or some white folks can pick up on the coding for her "racist-lite" depictions.
In case, we have forgotten JK Rowling's actions, here's a handy list thanks to Kyuuji:
I agree with everything you said and that's why I added an addendum because in Rowling's case it's not just the Goblins, it's so much more. She gets no benefit of the doubt. Actually, there is no benefit of the doubt whether it's blatant racism or racist depictions. Ignorance can only be used as a defense when people are willing to recognize there is a problem but as we see, most creators double down instead of accepting their faults. Like at the whole fiasco with Apu, not only did the creators not remedy the situation, they double down on their denial. Or fucking Dave Chappelle.
If it wasn't clear from my posts so far, Fuck JK Rowling categorically for being a vile piece of shit.
And let's not forget, the only adult black person in the series being named Kingsley Shacklebolt.
It's certainly a choice name! And he's wearing a dashiki, while at the Yule ball the Indian Patil twins wear saris, and Cho Chang wears a qipao. In case you forgot they were ethnic minorities.
Jesus Christ. I know I'm a day late and all, but holy shit some of the comments in this thread are embarrassing or revealing as fuck.
We really need a thread or two like this every month or so from now on, if for no other reason than to bring the assholes out of the woodwork to get blocked/banned…
I... I could be the boy with the magic stick!
None shall harm magic stick boy!
This is an open question, but just slightly weird timing that I read through this thread (and learnt a lot, I will admit) and your post kind of stuck with me... Then a started browsing Twitter and came across this tweet.
I'm not Jewish, but to me this doesn't feel right. But a Jewish person is calling this out as anti-Semitic.
Should it just be a case of just sitting on my hands and not getting involved?
Honestly, this is posted without hidden meaning or anything, am genuinely interested.
This is probably an intracommunity topic and not really suitable for this thread. I have my own opinion but the reality is Jewish people are as ideologically diverse as any other group.This is an open question, but just slightly weird timing that I read through this thread (and learnt a lot, I will admit) and your post kind of stuck with me... Then a started browsing Twitter and came across this tweet.
I'm not Jewish, but to me this doesn't feel right. But a Jewish person is calling this out as anti-Semitic.
Should it just be a case of just sitting on my hands and not getting involved?
Honestly, this is posted without hidden meaning or anything, am genuinely interested.
Oh yeah, 100%.
It's just, as a non-jew (and this goes for anything I guess, I'm white, cis-male, middle class, I'm not exactly persecuted) should "I" (not just me) get involved?
Honestly? Probably. It's important to acknowledge what other communities go through and stand in solidarity, but it's also important to know when to step back and let people directly concerned speak up for themselves. That coincidentally is also the best way to avoid giving covers to concern trolls.
I know it's not always so clear cut, but I always feel letting people speak up and listening to them goes a long way.
The guy in that tweet unequivocally calls for genocide against Palestinians:
Danny Danon - Wikipedia
So do what you will with that information.
I'll be honest, I never saw the parallels between the Goblins in Harry Potter or Watto in Star Wars to Jewish people until this thread but I guess I see it now (especially the goblin bankers).
my general advice for goyim regarding palestine/israel is to stand in solidarity with palestinians, leave the jewish shit for jews, and if you're culturally christian and feel like you need to say something to or about jews please find the strength within yourself to shut the fuck up and read a book. possibly a history book
This is an open question, but just slightly weird timing that I read through this thread (and learnt a lot, I will admit) and your post kind of stuck with me... Then a started browsing Twitter and came across this tweet.
I'm not Jewish, but to me this doesn't feel right. But a Jewish person is calling this out as anti-Semitic.
Should it just be a case of just sitting on my hands and not getting involved?
Honestly, this is posted without hidden meaning or anything, am genuinely interested.
Here are my thoughts...
First, I think it is ok to question something provided it is done respectively. I live in a small town that is incredibly anti-mask and the citizens here have made numerous references to the holocaust when discussing masks and vaccinations. My family is the lone Jewish family in the town (and I am guessing the county) and we are very ardent supports of vaccines and masks, so these comparisons get thrown my way along with suggestions of correcting my life by "finding Jesus". Telling a Jewish person that their life will be better by finding Jesus is an anti-Semitic comment, regardless of intention. It's ok to question why. It's a moment to learn. What shouldn't be done after I give the answer is to push things. Just let it be. You can't argue with a Jewish person about what is anti-Semitic any more than I can argue with a person of color about what they consider to be racist.
Secondly, there is a fucked up narrative that says any criticism of Isreal is anti-Semitic in nature. A lot of right-wingers have been running with this. It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government for its actions. It goes back to the thought that all Jewish people have a split loyalty between the US and Israel. That's a whole other ball of yarn, but essentially you can criticize the policies of the Israeli government and not automatically be anti-Semitic.
Finally, thanks for asking the question!
Again, I'm not the most knowledgeable about Harry Potter, but I'd like to assume that both of these people are my grandma.
(I don't think wearing a character wearing a sari is offensive at all in a vacuum, and there shouldn't be an expectation that people or fictional characters with foreign origins should appear integrated, but this sort of thing needs to be taken as a whole as Messofanego was doing in that post. If Rowling's only depiction of non-white characters are in traditional garb, it at best highlights a weakness.)
Last edited:
I'll look out for it the next time I watch or see clips of it.
While I'm not Jewish, I kinda feel like the people who keep equating any and all criticism of the Israeli state as anti-Semitism is distracting and diluting actual anti-Semitism that's still happens so often today. It's gross.
That's the game plan. It furthers the narrative that the left is anti-Semitic (which has an anti-Semitic issue but nothing like the right. It pales in comparison) and that any Jewish people that criticize Israel are disloyal, which in and of itself pushes the dual-loyalty trope.
Honestly, as a Jewish person, I kind of appreciated that. I would often hear "the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did!" from some stupid Jewish friends and it just sugar coats what the actual story taught in Sunday schools and in the actual book is. That movie made me sit down and read the New Testament and I realized a whole lot of the criticism was basically, "don't put on film what Christians have been taught for millennia."
Now claiming Jesus invented chairs? That's unforgivable.
Related note: I saw that movie in the theater sitting between two Catholic friends who cried the whole time. Fun times.
As to the OP, yeah those two films were obvious on day of release and this thread continues to bring out the ignorant.
Nazis and Mussolini repurposed a lot from history and different cultures. Their historical understanding was warped at best and it was combined with pseudoscience nonsense.
Historical Sparta is interesting because they enslaved members of their own race. Their society was evil by modern standards but it was not racist per se.
If in 300 the comic book the Spartan society is racist and anti-gay, then those elements and biases came from our society/Miller.
Last edited:
Can't even stand up against even the most blatant stuff when he's called out for it... Not that that's too surprising. He's weak against transphobia too
I don't think anyone involved in that movie's creation knows a single fact about ancient Persia and simply googled the name of the Persian antagonist to make the movie.
Honestly I never knew about the whole Jewish bank good with money stereotype until a thread here a couple of days back. Now the Harry Potter thing is so blatant. When I watches the movie never realized.
I think people are mis-attributing antisemitism with the goblins in the Harry Potter movies to JK Rowling. Which isn't to say that Rowling doesn't have issues. But Rowling was the book author, and what people are taking issue with are the visuals in the movie.
Here's what Rowling first wrote about the goblins.
That's it for what Rowling said about goblins. Short, dark skin, looks clever, pointy beard, very long fingers and feet.
And then you tack on, that they're scary monsters who are acting perfectly civilized, because their one rule is "do not steal" and they'll fuck you up if you cross that line (because Harry's totally gonna cross that line in a later book).
Nowhere does Rowling tell anyone to lay the floor tiles in the pattern of a Star of David. The movies even went against Rowling's text by giving the goblins white skin and taking their beards away. And set designers and creature/makeup effects are entirely different departments. Because racism is everywhere, and not everything is JK Rowling being a monster.
When the goblins come back into the picture in later books, goblins aren't even characterized as being "greedy", they're characterized as "creators", who make treasures beyond anyone else's ability, and Wizards use goblin coins as their money because goblin money has DRM that can't be counterfeited (unlike say, Leprechaun gold, which is free for everyone to enjoy but ultimately worthless), and goblins conflict with Wizards over creator's rights vs publisher's rights (with goblins being on the side of the creators).
JK Rowling has plenty of issues (like, she looked at House Elf mythology and said "That's slavery" and painted it as bad... and then turned around said that the world endorses slavery, even the slaves do, and turned her self-insert into the asshole for trying to end it), but an antisemetic interpretation of goblins isn't really on her.
Here's what Rowling first wrote about the goblins.
That's it for what Rowling said about goblins. Short, dark skin, looks clever, pointy beard, very long fingers and feet.
And then you tack on, that they're scary monsters who are acting perfectly civilized, because their one rule is "do not steal" and they'll fuck you up if you cross that line (because Harry's totally gonna cross that line in a later book).
Nowhere does Rowling tell anyone to lay the floor tiles in the pattern of a Star of David. The movies even went against Rowling's text by giving the goblins white skin and taking their beards away. And set designers and creature/makeup effects are entirely different departments. Because racism is everywhere, and not everything is JK Rowling being a monster.
When the goblins come back into the picture in later books, goblins aren't even characterized as being "greedy", they're characterized as "creators", who make treasures beyond anyone else's ability, and Wizards use goblin coins as their money because goblin money has DRM that can't be counterfeited (unlike say, Leprechaun gold, which is free for everyone to enjoy but ultimately worthless), and goblins conflict with Wizards over creator's rights vs publisher's rights (with goblins being on the side of the creators).
JK Rowling has plenty of issues (like, she looked at House Elf mythology and said "That's slavery" and painted it as bad... and then turned around said that the world endorses slavery, even the slaves do, and turned her self-insert into the asshole for trying to end it), but an antisemetic interpretation of goblins isn't really on her.
I don't know if she did have control over those elements in the film, but we also can't say definitively that she didn't. From an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Source
I agree that she probably had some control over the writing and design but that quote really only mentions the script which could easily not have had any mention of set or creature design.
It's why I won't say anything definitive either way. What we do know is she had a fairly u precedented level of creative control, but we'll probably never know exactly how much.
Either way, the designs in the movie are antisemitic whether JKR played a part in their design or not.
J.K. Rowling Apologizes For Not Making It Clear That Ron Weasley Is The Anti-Semitic Caricature
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND—Saying she could only express her heartfelt remorse to any fans who felt misled, author J.K. Rowling apologized Wednesday for not making it clear that the character Ron Weasley was her intended anti-Semitic caricature in the Harry Potter series. “Obviously, I’ve always...
www.theonion.com
Oh sure. She's not 100% innocent or guilty in my mind. There were lots of people involved in the design who could've said or done something.