decadent-trans-girl:

catzyfavs:

decadent-trans-girl:

Text:

It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.

Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don’t think it could any other way [sic]. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he’s opposes [sic] all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has a showdown with Voldy, Harry surpasses by [sic] adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland. Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.

But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry lives in a world drought [sic] with conflict and injustice: a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magic creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts up to enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth. But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end, the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the aurors, a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.

And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So, for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.

I totally agree with OP about the terrible way Rowling handled the house elves situation (only Dobby was ever liberated and in large part because he was the only “weirdo” who wanted to be – every other house elf enjoys being enslaved – and ended up dying anyway for the person who freed him, which makes this a very uncomfortable comparison to how a lot of white people viewed black slaves)

BUT

OP advocates “organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity” which just makes it seem like OP subscribes to radicalism, which no wonder OP abhors liberalism. Radicals often turn their nose up at the way many liberals hope to enact slow but more permanent change through official channels because (1) even if change is slow through law making it is also more likely to work and (2) liberals would actually like to not be mirror images of reactionaries (people who think any change is terrible and everything should go back to the good old days). A lot of radicals are anarchists (not saying OP is) and I saw them turn a peaceful protest at my university violent many a time and also smash and vandalize store fronts while I was in Athens. How is that doing anything and affecting positive change? Unless if OP meant boycotts and sit-ins and such by the words “organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity”, then my mistake and i have no gripe with that.

Today in horseshoe theory bullshit and completely unwarranted faith in reform