To address your last line first, what on earth makes you think I'm just engaging to insult people. Please have a look at my posting history (and what makes this site different from the feral Twitter I typically avoid). With a wry smile, I find this line... well, rather insulting.
That aside - or not, as what follows does rely very much on our respective perceptions of what is "insulting"...
I can see some of your points, but not all. My view is that we should always be alert to the possibility of racism, but - particularly with the dilution of critical race theory by well-meaning but confused EDI activists - as a society we've somehow become vulnerable to all of the following errors of thinking:
-
a clumsily awkward conflation of objective acknowledgement of legitimate difference with prejudice against that difference - returning to primary-school logic, in this context, a) could well be b), but needn't always be b) by definition.
-
the presumption that adopting a feature of another culture is by definition appropriative and insulting - so-called "cultural appropriation"
-
a terror of previously safely satirical stereotyping (as an entirely understandable and much-needed backlash against scarily recent and ongoing racist stereotyping)
-
a presumption of offence
Cho Chang- (if you want to ignore the fact her name is racist we can do) but a sweet, intelligent Asian girl who cries all the time (we're clearly supposed to forget that her boyfriend just died and Harry jumped right on in there) and has no other character development.
I have no issue with this character, based on this. I'd say it falls under
Firstly, 1) recognisably Asian name - not definitively racist and secondly 3)&4) presumption of stereotyping on the basis that this character is Asian
I'd honestly say that I find your own assumption that Cho Chang crying is racist stereotyping more guilty of stereotyping than the character itself: you're the one presuming that a minor character's occasional appearances as a distressed love interest may be cynically perceived as in some way "representative" of a particular cultural tendency (I'm assuming diligent Asian schoolgirls? unsure...)
Parvati Patil becomes absorbed by divination early on, seen even in the wizarding world as a nonsense and feeding into "mystical" Asian stereotypes, and Padma just disappears. In the books, they are at least "pretty", which seems to be the only descriptor they really get, but the film undoes that because no-one could be bothered to actually dress them properly and wanted to focus to stay on Hermione.
As for my comment above.
The Irish characters (Seamus Finnigan, but also Luna after the casting decision was made and signed off explicitly by JK)- one is an idiot who is always blowing something up, the other is a lovable eccentric who believes in a wide range of conspiracy theories and would be a tin-foil hat wearer in the muggle world.
More with you on this one - always thought so. I felt the same way about Merry and Pippin in the the Lord of the Rings franchise (although, while this was far more extreme, I don't think Peter Jackson received the same condemnation?) The difference between this and the two examples above is, I think, that Seamus is erring on comic caricature. Although I also think I need to reread the books to avoid conflating them with the films in this respect.
There are very few characters explicitly identified as black in the books but we do have Dean Thomas who JK has said was black although he isn't defined as such in the UK version, which is a problem in itself. He's not too bright, always in trouble and hangs out with Seamus. His Dad left him.
I like the colour-blind nature of Hogwarts. I didn't really consider who may or may not be black. I can see the argument for making this more explicit, though. But how?
And Kingsley Shacklebolt...do I really need to go into why that's problematic?
Actually, yes – I'm not being facetious. Haven’t a clue what the issue is, whether because I don’t know my Potter well enough or I may not view there as being an issue.
Fleur is hyper-sexualised and extremely passionate.
OK - another caricature. But I think I'd put this under 3) and 4) on balance. I find it very sad that modern woke culture labels playful stereotyping of German and French culture as racist. There's a fine line, and it's nuanced as heck, but it's there. Remove it and we seek to remove something that's very necessary to our humanity and society: like it or not, we do seek membership of one group and enjoy mocking another. I think the issue is there there's a power imbalance, and there isn't between the British and French. Bring on the British character in French teen fiction called Le Bif Steck!
Lavender Brown was black in the film until the filmmakers realised she had some lines, then she was recast as white!
Tenuous as heck - this is, to me, very much 4), looking for offence. Be alert to the possibility,but don't presume without evidence. That would risk engaging in prejudice yourself.
Don't get me started on the hook-nosed, money-obsessed goblins.
This is one I want to look into more. My current impression is that it's an unevidenced bad-faith slur on Rowling that 1) conflates the films and her books (again, I'd ask for quotes from the books, esp. re. the goblins' appearance) & 2) disregards the entire mythology of the goblin, which may have been exploited for anti-semitic purposes at points because of certain coincicidental overlaps between prejudiced stereotypes and the goblin archetype, but wasn't originally such, to the best of my knowledge.
As an aside, JK Rowling has explicitly confirmed that lycanthropy was a metaphor for HIV/AIDS. Apparently, likening AIDS sufferers to people who turn into uncontrollable werewolves who attack people in the night was meant to REDUCE stigma.
I didn't know this. But are you seriously saying that you believe the character of Lupin could increase stigma against AIDs sufferers?! As with Cho Chang above, I actually find your attitude here, and the societal trends it reflects, somewhat disturbing. Yes, we need to be alert to and fight against injustice. But when doing so turns into dismissing someone else's well-intentioned attempt to do exactly the same as being in some way phobic, or taking metaphor too literally, as a result of your own assumptions and preconceptions, you're embarking on very dangerous path that, itself, risks blundering into bigotry. To come full circle, I think it risks leading to the point of view underlying your line asking me not to insult you - an unjustifed readiness to presume bad faith intent, presuming something wholly unfounded about an individual, presumably based on the forum on which I post.
That attitude is, I think, not reflective of the values you seek to uphold.
bigotry
noun [ U ]
the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life