The topic of poverty in HP is also so underutalized. The Weasleys are poor, but they don't have to worry about landing on the street or feeding themselves. The children get put into Hogwarts, but there's never a word from the older children who can't move out or on with their life because they can't afford their own appartment. Rowling has put herself into this weird worldbuilding corner where the wizarding world is still capitalist, but capitalism is never properly integrated into the wizarding world. Can't wizards just go into shops and replicate the books they cant afford? The only really existentially poor person we meet is Voldemort's mother.
All great points. It really is quite frustrating to see the topic touched on, but never in any way meaningful, almost as if poverty is some sort of set dressing.
I always thought the Weasleys were poor because Arthur is the Virtuous Eccentric that capitalists love to fantasize about. "He follows his passions, even though that makes his family poor. Isn't that lovely, that he chooses to be poor? We don't need to worry about him or his children, he chose this life, for passion, and virtue! It's admirable, really. I could never, why, just look at my Scottish castle. Except also I used to be very poor and had to write Harry Potter on cafe napkins. I am also very virtuous, thank you."
Ever since I first read the series at 11 years old, I had questions about the Weasley's poverty. They were always said to be extremely poor, but that was never really shown. Sure, the kids got hand-me downs, but that happens in almost every family regardless of financial status. The Weasleys have enough food to not only feed all of 7 of their children, but also Harry, and they're able to spend enough resources to give Harry gifts all the time instead of allocating their resources to help their own children. And yet they're the example of poverty in the narrative? It's not what true poverty looks like. And then there's the question of how they even became poor in the first place. Every other notable pureblood family we see has some form of generational wealth or are generally extremely wealthy, but the Weasleys are just inexplicably poor despite being purebloods. There's no explanation as to how they got there.
Well them all being red heads does imply Irish or Scottish heritage, since thats a stereotype, and JKR loves those, so that could explain it, since, ya know, all the colonialism thats been happening for more than a millennia on those islands.
I grew up poor too. Buit thanks to living in Canada my family was able to climb the ladder unlike the Phillippines where my family is from and get out if poverty! Thank god for capitalism
Lol. The Philippines is one of the top 10 crony capitalist countries in the world. You literally went to a country with MORE socialism, then thanked capitalism for your success.
Speaking of other Wizarding schools in the HP universe: 99% of Latin American countries speak Spanish. But the only school of Magic in Latin America is in the middle of the jungle in Brazil, the only country that doesn't speak Spanish. One school for a whole continent. And apparently, everyone has to learn Portuguese to attend that school. What the hell, Joanne?
@@aden_ng Yes, LOL, from all the problematic things in her books to her transphobia and Holocaust denial… That's my reaction now every time I read her name in the news: What the hell did you say or do now, Joanne?
A jungle seems like the perfect spot to hide a magical school if you don't want muggles wandering around. Also what does it matter which language they speak in other countries? If they wanna attend a school in Brazil, they better learn the language. If not, they can build their own school.
@@alejandrinos Why not create at least ONE school for all Spanish speaking magicians in Latin America? Plus, the Brazilian school is a Mayan pyramid. In Brazil. C'mon, JKR is culturally insensitive or just ignorant.
It really is crazy what people in the 90s considered poverty. The sheer knowledge that their buying power is so much higher than any generations after should have been a huge red flag.
In partial defense of Harry's "stinginess", generally when a minor inherits a lot of money, there's an adult executor who doles out the money at their discretion. The idea is to prevent the child from wasting their wealth on frivolous and unwise purchases. Money to buy school supplies, yes. Paying a legal fine for an adult who knowingly broke a law, no. Buying the entire Gryffindor Quidditch team top-of-the-line racing broomsticks, also no. Buying a new wand for a friend sounds easy... except that it's not clear whether the price of a new wand is within the range that would be socially appropriate as a Christmas gift or not. Also, how could he and Ron get to Diagon Alley to be matched to a wand at Ollivanders? As second years, they can't even go to Hogsmeade! Plus, social conventions would prevent the Weasleys from accepting large sums from an orphan's inheritance. If Harry did offer to pay the fine for Arthur's illegal possession of a Muggle artifact or to compensate them for his room and board, they would have indignantly refused. As Shaun noted in his video, Harry is emotionally intelligent enough to realize the offer could be construed as insulting. So Harry's being a cheapskate isn't necessarily a problem... *if* Rowling had written about him having a financial quardian who was in control of the purse strings*. But Harry is apparently free to stuff his pockets at will whenever he visits his trust vault, which makes his refusal to spend his money on anyone but himself make him look like a miser. Rowling has trouble seeing these kinds of plot holes.
meh, how is it a partial defense to say that if someone had been in charge of harrys finances it wouldve been justified? Someone wasnt, so... none of that is relevant to the critique
New viewer here, i really enjoyed your thoughts on this and also the clear walk-through of accurate descriptors in terms of political views! i hope you have a great week :)
I really enjoyed this. I agree there’s a lot that could be unpacked about how her ideology negatively impacts both the books and the world. I definitely can see some of the parallels in her version of poverty to what’s experienced in the books. I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts so I’ll check out your other videos. Have a great day
Well sir, If you can write a simple sentences with differing different interpretations by the people who are reading that, you should be glad that he replied with a comment that actually make effort to show his stance on Harry Potter.@@Loganberry
@@Loganberry Tell me you don't have a job and spend all of your days trolling without telling me you don't have a job and spend all of your days trolling. Just kidding, the time stamps already did that for you.
As an Canadian Immigrant from the Phillipines who grew up poor. But became rich through hard work. You must not be aware of the reality of economics. It really it hard work. If you look of the stats its always the hardest working group is successful.... regardless of economic satus. Good try though. try using facts next time
In Harry Potter (which this video is about) this is explicitly not the case. Harry gets rich through his parents (who also inherited family money) We see the hard working Weasleys not get money or success, but the Malfoys do, not because they work hard. Literally the only way people in universe get money is either through inheritance or through the lottery, never hard work
Lmao please share the stats that show the hardest working are more successful. Working hard might be an ingredient to success, but is very rarely the sole reason.
lol, dude, how old are you, 12? the world ain't that easy, hard work only gets you places if you can actually get to those places, and if the people in control of those places want you there. Lots of folks don't have those privileges.
As someone who lives in a country where the majority of people are poor, hard work is not how you achieve "success". There are so many hard working poor people who will never be rewarded with remuneration worthy of their effort or level of production no matter how hard they work. Sure, their middle class or wealthy boss may on rare occasions reward one or two of these people with a better position and slightly better pay, but the vast majority will never even attain that meager recompense.
@@monikasmithsonian2985I want to add this before anyone tried to point out the success of the Weasley starting book 6. First : Percy, he got very high position definitely not because his stellar work in handling Barty Crouch situation but because Ministry need a spy on his family. Yes he did not actually get demoted back once he split up with his family but his position while seemingly important, was basically just a secretary job albeit now directly for the Minister. Fred & Georg : they have talent but without windfall from Harry, they can't even open their Joke Shop Arthur : Ah yes, he finally lead a department that supposedly so important and had more people under him. Which is fine but Rowling example was almost identical to what Arthur done before, just then he did not work exclusively on muggle artifacts. Plus again it was not really because Arthur hardwork that lend him the promotions, he just happened to grow a spine and lobbied for it.
The topic of poverty in HP is also so underutalized. The Weasleys are poor, but they don't have to worry about landing on the street or feeding themselves. The children get put into Hogwarts, but there's never a word from the older children who can't move out or on with their life because they can't afford their own appartment.
Rowling has put herself into this weird worldbuilding corner where the wizarding world is still capitalist, but capitalism is never properly integrated into the wizarding world. Can't wizards just go into shops and replicate the books they cant afford?
The only really existentially poor person we meet is Voldemort's mother.
All great points. It really is quite frustrating to see the topic touched on, but never in any way meaningful, almost as if poverty is some sort of set dressing.
Plus Arthur Weasley could be making a lot more, easily. He chooses to work the job he has because of his love for Muggle items.
I wouldn't go around trying to "pirate" books in a world where authors can potentially put "DRM curses" on the books.
And the Snapes.
I always thought the Weasleys were poor because Arthur is the Virtuous Eccentric that capitalists love to fantasize about. "He follows his passions, even though that makes his family poor. Isn't that lovely, that he chooses to be poor? We don't need to worry about him or his children, he chose this life, for passion, and virtue! It's admirable, really. I could never, why, just look at my Scottish castle. Except also I used to be very poor and had to write Harry Potter on cafe napkins. I am also very virtuous, thank you."
I mean sure. Why should we address poverty? It's beautiful and inspiring!
@@kahlilbt exactly! Now you're thinking like Ol' Jebediah Kornelius!
Ever since I first read the series at 11 years old, I had questions about the Weasley's poverty. They were always said to be extremely poor, but that was never really shown. Sure, the kids got hand-me downs, but that happens in almost every family regardless of financial status. The Weasleys have enough food to not only feed all of 7 of their children, but also Harry, and they're able to spend enough resources to give Harry gifts all the time instead of allocating their resources to help their own children. And yet they're the example of poverty in the narrative? It's not what true poverty looks like. And then there's the question of how they even became poor in the first place. Every other notable pureblood family we see has some form of generational wealth or are generally extremely wealthy, but the Weasleys are just inexplicably poor despite being purebloods. There's no explanation as to how they got there.
Well them all being red heads does imply Irish or Scottish heritage, since thats a stereotype, and JKR loves those, so that could explain it, since, ya know, all the colonialism thats been happening for more than a millennia on those islands.
@@mistynottus4840 I got hand-me downs from my cousins all the time when I was a kid, and we weren't poor at all.
I grew up poor too. Buit thanks to living in Canada my family was able to climb the ladder unlike the Phillippines where my family is from and get out if poverty! Thank god for capitalism
Lol. The Philippines is one of the top 10 crony capitalist countries in the world. You literally went to a country with MORE socialism, then thanked capitalism for your success.
@@kodabuck225 Right? It's like every Irish Catholic stereotype rolled into one. Family full of redheads with 10000000 kids.
Speaking of other Wizarding schools in the HP universe:
99% of Latin American countries speak Spanish. But the only school of Magic in Latin America is in the middle of the jungle in Brazil, the only country that doesn't speak Spanish.
One school for a whole continent. And apparently, everyone has to learn Portuguese to attend that school.
What the hell, Joanne?
@@sergei_mikhailovich "What the hell, Joanne?" should be the default reaction now.
@@aden_ng
Yes, LOL, from all the problematic things in her books to her transphobia and Holocaust denial… That's my reaction now every time I read her name in the news: What the hell did you say or do now, Joanne?
uh? who should speak Portuguese and whty? maybe yiou should specificy why Portuguese is so much better than spanish?
A jungle seems like the perfect spot to hide a magical school if you don't want muggles wandering around.
Also what does it matter which language they speak in other countries? If they wanna attend a school in Brazil, they better learn the language. If not, they can build their own school.
@@alejandrinos
Why not create at least ONE school for all Spanish speaking magicians in Latin America?
Plus, the Brazilian school is a Mayan pyramid. In Brazil.
C'mon, JKR is culturally insensitive or just ignorant.
Her entire legend of being so poor she had to write in cafe is so freaking funny for anyone who ever actually had been underpaid for essential labour.
It really is crazy what people in the 90s considered poverty. The sheer knowledge that their buying power is so much higher than any generations after should have been a huge red flag.
That myth of Joanne's Ciderella story is also false. Verilybitchie has a video called "the consumerist dystopia of harry potter" tackeling that
You dont have to work if you dont want too. You get the right to leave! thank god for capitalism unlike communism
@@Grimsake1bootlicker
"Jebediah Kornelius Rowling" lmao
I lost it 😂😂
In partial defense of Harry's "stinginess", generally when a minor inherits a lot of money, there's an adult executor who doles out the money at their discretion. The idea is to prevent the child from wasting their wealth on frivolous and unwise purchases. Money to buy school supplies, yes. Paying a legal fine for an adult who knowingly broke a law, no. Buying the entire Gryffindor Quidditch team top-of-the-line racing broomsticks, also no. Buying a new wand for a friend sounds easy... except that it's not clear whether the price of a new wand is within the range that would be socially appropriate as a Christmas gift or not. Also, how could he and Ron get to Diagon Alley to be matched to a wand at Ollivanders? As second years, they can't even go to Hogsmeade!
Plus, social conventions would prevent the Weasleys from accepting large sums from an orphan's inheritance. If Harry did offer to pay the fine for Arthur's illegal possession of a Muggle artifact or to compensate them for his room and board, they would have indignantly refused. As Shaun noted in his video, Harry is emotionally intelligent enough to realize the offer could be construed as insulting.
So Harry's being a cheapskate isn't necessarily a problem... *if* Rowling had written about him having a financial quardian who was in control of the purse strings*. But Harry is apparently free to stuff his pockets at will whenever he visits his trust vault, which makes his refusal to spend his money on anyone but himself make him look like a miser. Rowling has trouble seeing these kinds of plot holes.
meh, how is it a partial defense to say that if someone had been in charge of harrys finances it wouldve been justified? Someone wasnt, so... none of that is relevant to the critique
wat?
Great video, thank you!
“Kornelius” 😂😂
I almost went with "kombucha"
New viewer here, i really enjoyed your thoughts on this and also the clear walk-through of accurate descriptors in terms of political views! i hope you have a great week :)
@@Phill4957 Thank you for watching!
That is because of Rowling is a Thatcherite.
I really enjoyed this. I agree there’s a lot that could be unpacked about how her ideology negatively impacts both the books and the world. I definitely can see some of the parallels in her version of poverty to what’s experienced in the books. I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts so I’ll check out your other videos. Have a great day
@@stargemification Thanks! Hope the other videos are enjoyable for you.
Interesting analysis!
Okay, I can’t stay quiet after seeing so much ignorance in the comment section of this video
Joker Killmonger >>> Jebidiah Kornelius COME AT ME
happy to hear the opinions you accidentally left in the script (:
good video :)
I love Harry Potter series
Me too.
That doesn't mean that I can't recognize the problematic things in the HP series.
@@sergei_mikhailovich Did i ever say you couldn't?
Well sir, If you can write a simple sentences with differing different interpretations by the people who are reading that, you should be glad that he replied with a comment that actually make effort to show his stance on Harry Potter.@@Loganberry
@@dodixaber8968 "Differing different"
@@Loganberry Tell me you don't have a job and spend all of your days trolling without telling me you don't have a job and spend all of your days trolling. Just kidding, the time stamps already did that for you.
Fun vid
jebediah kornelius rowling 😚😍
As an Canadian Immigrant from the Phillipines who grew up poor. But became rich through hard work. You must not be aware of the reality of economics. It really it hard work. If you look of the stats its always the hardest working group is successful.... regardless of economic satus. Good try though. try using facts next time
In Harry Potter (which this video is about) this is explicitly not the case.
Harry gets rich through his parents (who also inherited family money)
We see the hard working Weasleys not get money or success, but the Malfoys do, not because they work hard.
Literally the only way people in universe get money is either through inheritance or through the lottery, never hard work
Lmao please share the stats that show the hardest working are more successful. Working hard might be an ingredient to success, but is very rarely the sole reason.
lol, dude, how old are you, 12? the world ain't that easy, hard work only gets you places if you can actually get to those places, and if the people in control of those places want you there.
Lots of folks don't have those privileges.
As someone who lives in a country where the majority of people are poor, hard work is not how you achieve "success". There are so many hard working poor people who will never be rewarded with remuneration worthy of their effort or level of production no matter how hard they work. Sure, their middle class or wealthy boss may on rare occasions reward one or two of these people with a better position and slightly better pay, but the vast majority will never even attain that meager recompense.
@@monikasmithsonian2985I want to add this before anyone tried to point out the success of the Weasley starting book 6.
First : Percy, he got very high position definitely not because his stellar work in handling Barty Crouch situation but because Ministry need a spy on his family. Yes he did not actually get demoted back once he split up with his family but his position while seemingly important, was basically just a secretary job albeit now directly for the Minister.
Fred & Georg : they have talent but without windfall from Harry, they can't even open their Joke Shop
Arthur : Ah yes, he finally lead a department that supposedly so important and had more people under him. Which is fine but Rowling example was almost identical to what Arthur done before, just then he did not work exclusively on muggle artifacts. Plus again it was not really because Arthur hardwork that lend him the promotions, he just happened to grow a spine and lobbied for it.
Dafuq is this
@@MrRikoi A video
JK rowling is actually right. Try again next time
What is she right about?
Haven't heard her say a right thing since I was a child