But is any other word offered in Harry Potter canon? If not, then Muggle is all we’ve got. You can’t go around assuming they would use some other word just because other fantasy works use it, any more than you can use the term “Earthlings” in Star Trek (where the term is “Terran”).
I don’t see any reason the term would have to be derogatory just because it’s obviously being thematically linked to racism. As pointed out, non-racist wizards use it, too. It could be closer to maybe the word “Mexican”–used both for racist and non-racist reasons.
I agree that “Mudblood” is clearly derogatory, since non-racists seem to not see the need for such a term. Anyone who can do magic is a Wizard, full stop.
I feel like Hermione would with absolutely no reservation say that she was born of two muggle parents.
I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be, so maybe you should try getting more sleep. The term used by magic users in the world of the Harry Potter series to describe non-magic users is “muggle”. This term is unknown to non-magic users because they don’t even know that magic users exist. So?
Within the magic-using culture depicted in the books “muggle” appears to be a completely neutral descriptive term. It would be awkward for them to have no word at all for non-magic users, and I see nothing obviously derogatory about “muggle”. Some magic users do hate non-magic users, but they’re not the only ones who call them/us “muggles”. It’s the term used by the government, in academia (one of the subjects offered at Hogwarts is “Muggle Studies”), and by magic users who have no problem with non-magic users – including those born to non-magical parents.
“Mudblood” is used as an insult in the books and is clearly meant to suggest that people with muggle parents are inherently dirty or impure, but “muggle” does not appear to be derived from any English words with negative connotations. It actually seems less derogatory than something like “non-magic user” or “unmagical” to me, as it doesn’t stress that non-magic users lack an ability that magic users possess. “Mundanes” would be even worse, because it suggests such people are boring.
I’ve often wondered whether ‘mundane’ as a term for ‘those not into strange things’ predates Piers Anthony’s Xanth books. I know it used to be used within the Society for Creative Anachronism to describe non-members, particularly those one runs into while one is wearing medieval garb. I’m pretty sure it’s fallen out of fashion in the SCA because it was starting to be used derogatorially.
‘Muggle’ has also been adopted out;it is used among geocachers to refer to those that don’t play the game. One must be careful not to let muggles realize what you’re up to, because they won’t understand if they look where you are looking and find the cache without knowing what it is. I avoid the term myself, because so many seem to use it as if ignorance of geocaching indicates lack of intelligence.
Gagundathar:
I’m not certain that’s true. I got the sense (from Arabella Figg’s testimony at Harry’s hearing in Order of the Phoenix) that they are completely non-magical, and that Figg was coached by Dumbledore, and Dumbledore was relying on Fudge’s ignorance of Squib nature to protect her.
(I’m assuming that your source for the fact that they can detect magic is the same)
I just remembered, in America they are call “Derwoods.”
Negro is still not offensive. It may indicate that the speaker is old or not current with language, but it is not offensive.
Negro was replaced by black beginning around 1968. Black continues to be an acceptable term.
African-American was coined by a particular group for a particular purpose in late 1989 and has continued in that specific usage.
Your point may have some merit, but your history is a bit off.
If you said it’s not always offensive, you’d be correct: United Negro College Fund isn’t an offensive name. But Merriam Webster is correct that it’s often enough offensive that the careful speaker ought to be circumspect around the word.
[quote=“Gagundathar, post:16, topic:662340”]
[ul]
[li]Squibs (a much more derisive sounding word than ‘muggle’ in my opinion) are humans who may have had non-muggle parents, and who have the ability to sense magic but not to actually cast spells. They are a part of the wizarding world and are usually relegated to menial tasks or as spies in the muggle world. [/li][/quote]
[/ul]
No.
They are ‘duds’ - magic born with no ability to do magic. They misfire, they can’t ‘fire off’ magic. Not “may have had non-muggle parents” they are wizards with no effective use of magic.
This one is upset at your spelling error. Khajiit has no words for you!
Moved to Cafe Society from Great Debates.
Yep, as others have said I think JK has quite deliberately made the term edgy and an allegory to “negro” or even “nigger”. It can be and is used with no negative intent mostly, but could quite easily slip over into being - or being used as - a term used condescendingly or belittlingly.
so he was a Wuggle?
Muggle please.
I’d say it’s not quite racist (although it’s allegory for it) but a lot closer to the way “retard” or “crip” would get used - the view is that Muggles are humans like wizards, but lacking an important faculty that defines a completely abled or, even better, fully-aware person. cf. Fandom and SCA use of “Mundanes”
Mudbloods are the racism allegory, not muggles. Muggles just are. They are not of much interest to the “racist” magical world, they are not oppressed or hurt in any way.
Mudbloods are excluded, derided and oppressed by the “racists” who are obsessed with blood purity of wizards. Although because of the idea of “blood mixing” they seem similar to mulattos, that’s just not how the allegory functions. The mudbloods are the Jews or the black people, the ones the evil racist purebloods want to extinguish.
This is also clear because there is no reason for the distinction, which shows the ridiculous nature of racial segregation and differentiation. Mudbloods are exactly the same as any other wizard. It shows the “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” Muggles are actually different, not racially different and not inferior, just different and of another world.
/subscribe
We really don’t mind if you sit this one out. 