sixteen black cats

intersectional feminism & fan stuff & animals mostly.

Last update
2020-05-06 22:54:14

    i hope people realize that southern states reopening even when they shouldn’t is not because southern people are dumb. it’s because their mayors and governors want them to die. they care about the economy more than the people there.

    and because they don’t want to pay unemployment anymore. they’d rather people die than pay unemployment

    I live in Florida and I need y'all to know, this is 100% true. It is entirely and completely about the FL unemployment system being broken, not about any deep patriotic sense of freedom.

    <>‘Leverage’ Reboot Starring Noah Wyle Ordered By IMDb TV; Original Series’ Team, 4 Cast Members Set To Return

    EXCLUSIVE: Dean Devlin, John Rogers and Chris Downey’s cult 2008 crime drama series Leverage is coming back with a new lead. IMDb TV, Amazon’s free, ad-supported streaming service, has ordered a Leverage reimagening, headlined by Noah Wyle in a reunion with Rogers and Devlin after their collaboration on The Librarian/The Librarians franchise. It marks the first major original series for IMDb TV, whose content team recently moved under the Amazon Studios umbrella.

    The reimagining will include new characters, including one played by five-time Emmy nominee Wyle, who also will direct two of the 13 episodes. He will be joined by original cast members Beth Riesgraf, reprising her character as “Parker”; Gina Bellman as “Sophie Devereaux”; and Christian Kane as “Eliot Spencer”– who will all be series regulars — as well as Aldis Hodge, who will return as “Alec Hardison” in a recurring role, subject to availability from his Showtime series City on a Hill, whose Season 2 will likely be filming at the same time as Leverage.

    Someone on twitter just asked creator John Rogers to verify that it was a sequel with our original characters and not a true reboot, and this was his response:

    tweet from John Rogers: Your OT3 is safe.


    I never see positivity posts for greyaros so..

    To the greyaros who love it when they feel romantic attraction

    To the greyaros who don't

    To the greyaros who didnt feel greyaro until later in life

    To the greyaros who enjoy romantic relationships

    To the greyaros who feel excluded from aro spaces that focus on no attraction what-so-ever

    To the greyaros who usually feel romantic attraction

    To the greyaros that feel invalid because they experience attraction or notice little representation or validity

    To the greyaros who love romance even when they don't feel attraction

    You ARE aro enough. You are not confused. You aren't trying "win the most oppressed reward"

    You deserve love (platonic/romantic/familial/ect) if you want it. You deserve a place in aro spaces. Keep being you, and exploring yourself <3

    more examples of tenderness

  • “have you ever been in love?” “once.” “how did it end?” “it hasn’t.” (the get down, 2017)
  • “I try to be kind to everything I see, and in everything I see, I see him.” (hanya yanagihara)
  • when you kiss me, heaven sighs (la vie en rose / edith piaf)
  • “the heart is the toughest part of the body. tenderness is in the hands.” (carolyn forché)
  • oh, if only I could nestle in the cradle of your cabin, my arms around your shoulders, the windows wide and open (amoreena / elton john)
  • “the curtains stir. there you are on the bed, like a gift. like a touchable dream.” (carol ann duffy)
  • I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm, your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm (that’s no way to say goodbye / roberta flack)
  • “you’re in a car with a beautiful boy, and he won’t tell you that he loves you, but he loves you.” (richard siken)
  • love me always, love me always (oscar wilde in a letter to his lover)
  • “with you, intimacy colors my voice. even ‘hello’ sounds like ‘come here’.” (warsan shire)
  • if I could fly, I’d be coming right back home to you (if I could fly / one direction)
  • “do you want to dance?” “I don’t know how.” “me either. do you want to figure it out?” (stranger things, 2016)

    the very CONCEPT of bodyguards is so narratively juicy and excellent, and I don’t just mean like “character x is character y’s bodyguard so they can be in the same place and fall in love”, I mean the protectiveness, the tension of trying to balance personal and professional, the unified dichotomy of devoted guardian/loyal servant!  the power dynamic.

    and even platonically speaking??  again: loyalty!!  personal/professional!!  the sheer delight of watching someone kick righteous ass in defense of their principal!!  honestly it’s even good when the two people in question hate each other.  it’s always good.  write more bodyguards into your stuff, I’ll read it.

    The inherent eroticism of loyalty

    So I just now learned about Stagecoach Mary and how have I never heard of this absolute LEGEND of a woman before

  • She was born a slave and freed when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued (she was about 30)
  • She was about six feet tall and 200 pounds and once she was free she decided she’d never take shit from anyone ever again
  • When one of her close friends, a nun by the name of Mother Amadeus, became ill with pneumonia at her convent in Montana, Mary headed alone into the frontier to nurse Mother Amadeus back to health
  • After Mother Amadeus recovered, she gave Mary a job as the foreman of the convent. She repaired buildings, took care of chickens, made the long and dangerous journeys into town for supplies, and did other odd jobs.
  • She could drink most men under the table, and one saloon offered five bucks and a free shot of whiskey to any man who could take a punch to the face from Mary and remain standing. 
  • She was once said by a local paper to have broken more noses than anyone else in Montana
  • She was outspokenly Republican, which at this time was the liberal party in America, and would get into political debates with the more conservative townsfolk
  • One time a man insulted her outside the saloon so hit him in the face with a rock, and only stopped when other cowboys held her back.
  • On one supply run into town, her wagon overturned and the horses fled. Mary spent all night single-handedly fending off a pack of wolves with her guns before she righted the heavy wagon by herself and tracked down the spooked horses. The only thing lost in the accident was a jar of molasses.
  • She lost her job at the convent when she got into a gunfight with a male employee who did not want to take orders from a black woman. She reportedly shot him in the ass, which angered the local bishop.
  • After losing her convent job, Mary spent a brief time running a restaurant, where she welcomed and served all comers
  • When a job for a mail carrier opened at the local US Post Office, Mary got the job because she managed to hitch six horses to a wagon faster than any of the male candidates
  • <>She was sixty at the time
  • This made her the first black woman mail carrier, and the second woman mail carrier in US history
  • When the snows were too deep for the horses to manage the long and dangerous delivery routes, Mary would strap on snowshoes, put the bags of mail on her shoulders, and do it herself
  • At one point she apparently had a pet eagle????
  • She only retired from the mail route <>when she was about 70 years old, and instead made a quieter living by babysitting and running a laundry business in the town of Cascade
  • She was a huge baseball fan and often gave the local team a big bouquet of flowers from her garden
  • The people of Cascade loved Mary so much that they closed the schools annually on her birthday
  • When a law was passed in Montana that forbade women from drinking in saloons, the mayor of Cascade granted Mary an exemption. 
  • When her house burned down, the whole town got together to help her build a new one
  • She continued drinking, fighting, and going to baseball games until she died of liver failure at 82 in 1914
  • Mary (far right) and the local baseball team

    Anyway sorry for gushing I just now heard about her and I’m in love

    I’ve heard of her, but godDAMN, if her story doesn’t bear repeating. ^w^


    Please share the receipts about Harry Potter being a colonial fantasy! Reading stuff like that is so interesting 🙈 have a good day


    I’m glad you both asked!

    This argument will be divided into threemain parts. The subject of magical creatures in the wizarding world, thesubject of humans other than English wizards, and the subject of Harry’scharacterization in the novels. But before I can discuss the novels andRowling’s (probably mostly unintentional) colonial fantasies, we must look atthe background information of those colonial fantasies. To do that, I willoutline and explain certain elements of the 1800-century cultural and politicalsituation, reflected in the literature of the time. (See! This is why you don’tdismiss history as the unnecessary boring subject Rowling!!!!)  

    (In this text, I use the word wizard akin tothe universal man, as in mankind. I do this, because Rowling herself does this,referring to unisex groups of witches and wizards as “wizards.)

    Racial thinkingin the British empire was heavily influenced by pseudo-scientific theories likephrenology and race classification theory. Humanist sciences like sociologywere heavily influenced by “hard sciences” and there was a strong demand tofind a scientific justification for the existence of the empire. Thisjustification came with race classification, that was divided into twodifferent equally racist branches of theory. The idea that different human races were actually subspecies inside the human main species, and that these subspecies had evolved to fulfill different functions and behave in different ways. Roughly divided, the Anglo-Saxon subspecies had evolved into a rational thinker and a natural leader, the Asian subspecies into servile and effeminate role, and African subspecies into manual labourer. Now, in order for society to live in perfect harmony, that society has to be built in a way that each human species can follow their natural predilections and follow their species-natural behaviour. 

    The other branch of scientific sociology argued that all humans had the same potential for civilization, but that all human societies were also in different evolutionary stages. Human societies were seen to evolve in a neat line, from promiscuity-matriarchy-transitional patriarchy-patriarchy. All human societies therefore started from hunter-gatherer tribes and would eventually turn into enlightened British style modern societies. As the British already had reached the top of the societal evolution, it was also their right and burden to protect the societies that had not yet reached this top evolutionary form. It is very important to remember that while the British empire was filled with straight up hateful and vile racists that saw genocide as a fun past-time, there were equally many people who condemned the mistreatment of the empire’s subjects and fully believed that the empire was in truth necessary in order to help their less-evolved human compatriots.

    Another important note to make about the imperial mindset is how these rational leaders were created; in boarding schools. The future leaders of the empire were all sent to a boarding school, somewhere around the age of 10. These schools, rampant with bullying, pressure and straight up rape, were not places that a young boy was supposed to become a scholar or an athlete; his job was to make connections and learn to become charismatic. Doing too well in your subjects was not desirable, as a book-worm is not what the empire needed. Being good at sports was good, but not if you had to sacrifice time to practice too much. Sports and sciences were there to support the student’s growth into a proper English gentleman, not as an educational goal themselves. Debating, public speaking, and aggressive confidence were much more important skills to master for the future overseer of a colony. Your job as a student in, for example Eton, was to network and grow a stiff upper lip. A terrible educational system for sure, which caused damage to the British psyche that people today are still trying to understand; with Boarding School Syndrome and its consequences important when trying to understand the problems in British politics today

    How do these facts then relate to Harry Potter? Well, let’s start working our way through from magical creatures. In the Harry Potter universe, the world is filled with creatures with human-sentience that however do not, at least in Britain, mix with the dominant human population. We know that there are house-elves, working as servants, goblins, working as bankers, centaurs, keeping away in their forest, as do merfolk in their lake. Dwarves were employed as cupids (entertainers) in Hogwarts by Lockhart, and there are veelas that work as exotic dancers in the quidditch world cup.

    At first glance, you might think that Harry Potter and Dumbledore are on the side of the creatures. Dumbledore is noted for being a great advocate for non-humans when defending their right to exist, as opposed to the more genocide-minded goons at the ministry. Voldemort is happy to employ creatures that he deems “dark” and ignore the rest. At first glance it would even look like the narrative is advocating for tolerance, and it is, but it is not advocating for equalitybetween humans and non-humans.      

    The centaurs and the giants have lost their native lands to humans, and have been forced to live in reservations, as most notably pointed out by Dolores Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix. “Ministry of magic permits you certain areas of land.” (p.665) At the same time, the books do not portray either the giants or the centaurs in particularly sympathetic light. Centaurs are shown to be violent and even unreasonable towards any humans who would want to have contact with them. Giants are shown to be simply so stupid that they are killing themselves into extinction. (Order of the Phoenix p.377) Meanwhile, the races that do mingle amongst wizards all have something to offer to humans who allow them in their society. Goblins are useful to have around because of their hold over the banking industry and their superior metal-working. House-elves are useful as domestic servants. The creatures that wizards label as “dark” are all creatures that do not have any filled role that they can perform for the benefit of humans, (vampires, hags, werewolves), segregated from the wizarding society proper, and are therefore shunned as undesirables. Veelas on the other hand are blatantly fetishized, and they are only shown in two roles in the books. Either as entertainers or as married to wizards. The narrative does not even hint that a veela might have any non-sexual role in the society. It would seem, that all the magical races have either been pushed out of the wizarding community, or they fill some niche purpose in society that the wizards find useful, and that the wizards themselves do not want to perform.This structure of society, built upon the assumption that there will always be creatures fulfilling certain roles for the society, is not questioned by any of our heroes.

    Dumbledore is happy to advocate for tolerance, but not inclusion. He is happy to create a dialogue between humans and centaurs- aslong as it is not humans who have to make any concessions in theirrelationship. Same goes for merfolk. Dumbledore advocates for their right toexists in their own segregated patches of land, and in return they will helpDumbledore. Merfolk will allow themselves and their home to be used as obstacles in the tri-wizarding tournament and the centaurs will let wizardstraipse through their forest. Inside the centaur society, we are supposed tosee territorial Bane as the “bad guy” and the meek Firenze, who argues thatcentaurs should take sides in a human war, and eventually accumulating into the human society (by becoming a teacher in Hogwarts, but only after he has been banished from the Centaur society and therefore is not a centaur culturally anymore), as the “good guy”. After all, Firenze placed the needs ofhumanity above the needs of his own species.   

    The same happens with goblins. They are at every turn shown to be unpleasant, unreasonable, and impossible to work with, and when Harry Potter shows the bare minimum of respect- acknowledging that goblins have their own legal system that defines ownership of an object differently than a human would, it is framed as the greatest height of progressiveness that anyone could ever show towards a goblin. Never-mind the fact that the books explicitly mention that goblins are denied<> the use of a wand by the dominant human government, which is neither an interest nor a concern to any of our heroes. Note of interest is also that most non-humans taking action against the status quo are antagonists. There are no creatures in the order of the phoenix fighting against the dark lord, (Remus Lupin identifies as a human with an unfortunate condition.) but there are several under the command of Voldemort. (Order of the Phoenix p.88) The most positive attitude towards non-humans comes from the heroes who show tolerance towards non-humans, but who also do not try to reach any deeper understanding about non-human experiences in the wizarding society.

    The house-elves are the most blatant piece of yikes when it comes to the issue of creatures. The enslavement of house elves is explained away as a natural order of the world.  At the end the series, even the protagonist Harry Potter accepts this natural order and becomes himself a master of the house elf Kreacher (Half Blood Prince p.55). Harry’s slave-master position is accepted,because we trust Harry to treat his slaves decently, there is never anyquestion what the condition of being a slave-master can psychologically do tothe master, or that slavery as an institution is too immoral to accept, nomatter the conditions. The reader is shown that the elves are not capable oftaking care of themselves without a master by examples of Dobby and Winky, the only freed elves shown in the books. Winky, after being freed, becomes an alcoholic. (Goblet of Fire, p.564) Dobby, while enjoying freedom, would be unable to support himself without the help of benevolent Dumbledore, to whom Dobby works in the same way as the other slaves in the castle, even if he is namely free. (Goblet of Fire p.400) (Both alcoholism and “frivolity” were anti-abolitionist talking points in the southern states in the antebellum era). Theimplication is that some races are simply born subservient, and the morally decent thing to do is to keep them in slavery but treat them kindly. 

    Hermione Granger, who in the books argues that slavery as an institution is by itself something that cannot be accepted, is presented with her views as ridiculous and misguided. On the other hand, those who argue for the institution of slavery appear as rational and reasonable. There is no way for anyone to think of her S.P.E.W badges as anything but childish and stupid. In Chamber of Secrets, the readers do see Harry freeing the house elf Dobby, after Dobby has personally helped Harry. However, the implication is that Dobby suffered from an unfit master, not from the slavery itself, and that his freedom came as boon after he had done a personal favour to Harry Potter. In the world of Harry Potter, slaves are happy to be slaves, as long as their masters are decent masters.

    But if you stop and think of all this, it should not be rationally possible for a society like this to exist. If the giants truly are so stupid and violent that they are accidentally killing themselves to extinction, they should also not be sentient enough for humans to breed (and even create emotional bonds, as Hagrid’s family) with them. If these creatures have a society, they are sentient enough to realise the peril they are in and who their true enemy are. Same with the centaurs. Segregating an entire culture to a small reservation is not pretty, and it does not happen peacefully. Still there is never any indication that the centaurs would be actively fighting back to regain more land or that the wizards would be actively curbing their numbers in order to keep them in check. No creature segregated in their little reservation wants to leave that reservation, choosing to rather waste away amongst their own kind than pushing for their species to be integrated into the wizarding culture, or gaining more land from the wizards. The mythical tale of the noble savage who quietly goes into the good night, is real in the wizarding world.   

    Those creatures who do live and work alongside wizards are equally content with their narrow roles. No goblin wants to work anywhere else expect the bank, no house-elf wants to open a business, no veela wants to study in Hogwarts. Half-breeds might be allowed in, if the headmaster is eccentric enough, and as long as they are able to “pass” as humans. The fact that their creature parents would never have that change is not even acknowledged as the tragedy that it is. It is easy for the heroes to appear as progressive, when the only thing the creatures want is to be allowed to exist in their pre-ordained roles and be treated with the most basic decency.            

    We don’t know what Dumbledore’s answer would be if a young goblin wanted to apply as a student at Hogwarts. We don’t know what any of our heroes’ reactions would have been, if the centaurs demanded compensations for Hogwarts’ rights to use the Forbidden Forest. Or if Dobby would have been competent enough to actually start campaigning alongside Hermione for abolition. We don’t know, because the wizarding world is in perfect harmony, as long as the creatures are allowed to exist peacefully in their roles, without corrupt, dark wizards abusing them needlessly.

    What about humans then. Not all humans are created equal either. We don’t really see about the state of the wizarding world outside of Britain, but we are given the implication that the political situation in Britain is equal to the fate of the world. Harry Potter is not fighting for a political cause in UK, he is saving the world. British politics are world politics. The international wizards we do see, are also almost as much stereotyped as the creatures are. The French boys and girls from Beauxabatons are vain and frilly, while the girls and boys from Durmstrang are brutish and coarse. And in the European stage, UK and France gets their own wizarding population, while the eastern Europe is apparently lumped together in a way that makes you suspect that the Soviet Union never fell in the magical world. (considering when Rowling was creating these stories, that is not impossible. Rowling started writing Philosopher’s stone a year before the Soviet Union was dissolved). In the world politics, these three are the only ones important enough to be included in the tri-wizarding tournament, (tournament that the British dominate easily in book four), and therefore clearly hold the political cards of magical Europe. What we do know is that British wizards have no trouble finding work overseas, while we do not see any foreigners living or working in the British wizarding world. Britain’s importance as the centre stage of magical world politics is simply a given fact of the world.

    (Note that I havedecided to omit all nonsense that Rowling has added to Pottermore in her effortto world-build but rest assured that it makes the situation simply much worse.)  

    There is also the clean divide between muggles and wizards. The wizards once again are honour-bound from their superior position to protect the muggles. The books make it clear that it was not for the safety of the wizards that the worlds were divided. It was simply that muggles in their ignorance kept burning other muggles during the witch-hunting times. The idea that muggles, if confronted with an existential threat like the death-eaters and their genocidal tendencies, were to win the fight, is not even floated as an idea. The moral implications ofkeeping the muggle world ignorant about a part of UK population that wants to kill them, and has succeeded in several terrorist attacks against the commonpopulation, is not discussed at all. The wizards simply have the right to sacrifice the lives of muggles in exchange of keeping their society hidden from the “common folk”. The wizards who do show any interest in muggles, do it in the most condescending way possible. Arthur Weasley, who has spent years working in the ministry of muggle-affairs, cannot pronounce the word electricity or know what a rubber duck is. How exactly does someone work for muggle-affairs if one is completely ignorant of said affairs? Why are muggleborn’s not automatically working for muggle-affairs? How is it, that muggleborns all simply choose to embrace the wizarding culture without there being any underground muggleborn culture running counter the pureblood establishment? Hermione Granger wants to be seen as one of the witches, not as someone whose cultural knowledge of muggles could in on itself be a strength. Rowling really wants you to believe that the British wizarding culture is naturally so desirable that no counter-cultures have born inside it, or that there ever could be any other problem expect that muggleborns are restricted from accumulating into it.

    And then we come to Harry. Our hero. At first look, he appears to be the underdog fighting against the unjust establishment of the wizarding world. However, if one takes a closer look at the story, Harry Potter is not an underdog at all. In the beginning of the story, he acquires a great inheritance from his exceedingly wealthy parents. (Philosopher’s Stone p.85) In every other character exceeding wealth seems to be a negative trait, but curiously Harry’s status as an heir to a fortune is never properly addressed in relation to Harry’s moral character. Harry is also a son of esteemed and powerful magical parents, both highly regarded in the wizarding society. From his father’s side, Harry can claim a connection to an old pureblood house, making him part of the purebloodwizarding establishment. Both the wealth and the bloodline inherited from thePotter family guarantees a place in the upper class of the magical society foryoung Harry. Even the extremely racist Draco Malfoy in the first book seemseager to make friends with Harry. (Philosopher’s Stone p.120). It is only Voldemort who has robbed him of his natural heritage and privileges and forced him in to hiding with his brutish and cruel (muggle) relatives. 

    The story of Harry Potter is not of someone who fights for acceptance, but of someone who returns to his rightful place on top of the wizarding society. characters who do not naturally have this privilege, gain prestige by being helpful and loyal to Harry. It is a deliberate choice by Rowling to make Harry a pureblood fighting for the rights of muggleborns and those lower than him in the wizarding societal ladder. He is the archetypical English gentleman hero, because he has both the privilege and the proper character to carry that privilege. Voldemort, Malfoy, and other “dark-siders” from the pureblood establishment have abused this privilege and are therefore unworthy of it.

    Another important part of Harry’s character is that all his powers and abilities that help him champion against Voldemort are either inherited or inherent. Harry does no need to labour for his victory. His mother gives him “blood-protection”, his father and mentors give him magical items to help him on his journey, and he simply has skills that others don’t. His flying abilities making themselves known the first time he hops on a broom, and his inexplicable talent to resist the imperio-curse is never explained expect with “a strong heart”. What he is good at, he doesn’t need to work for, and what he is not good at, he never improves on. If there is something he doesn’t have the innate talent for, he has friends who will do it for him. When Snape claimed that all of Harry’s successes were due to luck and more talented friends…he wasn’t wrong. And the kicker is, that that’s the point. Harry’s main strength is the fact that he is good at networking and having a brave heart. That is the ideal that thousands of young Englishmentried to mould themselves into during the imperial days. Harry doesn’t need tobe the “smartest wizard of his age”, he needs to be charismatic enough thatothers will follow him into the battle. He doesn’t need to be shrewd, or ambitious,or smart, or even kind, he needs to know how to apply his inheritance correctlyand how to manage those in the lower position than him, in order to return thestatus quo into the wizarding world.

    When both Harry’s already existing place in the magical society, and the question of how the books treat the magical creatures are considered, the main conflict in the book seems to be reduced to an inner struggle between the higher classes of wizarding society. Voldemort and the death eaters are evil because they misuse their power over the lower classes, and because they discriminate against other witches and wizards. Therefore, it is the duty of Dumbledore and Harry Potter to return the wizarding world to its former and rightful order. The narrative supports the idea that now that the proper people, the naturally noble-minded heroes, are once again in power all the social issues of the wizarding world will disappear. Those on the top of the social pyramid will treat those under them with tolerance, and those at the base of the pyramid will stick to their place.In other words, the world of Harry Potter has fulfilled the colonialist fantasy of the British empire, where everybody has their place in society, and theinferior races truly are without ambitions or nuances.     

    The wizarding world has the structures that the British empire had, but none of the problems that come with those structures. In the end, the wizarding world returns to peace. “all was well.” The house-elves are given laws that punishes a master that mistreats their slave. The goblins continue in their segregation. The centaurs and merfolk are given a promise of no genocide. The British muggleborns are promised a place in the dominant society, as long as they perfectly emulate their pureblood peers and don’t bring muggle culture with them. The superiority of British wizardingkind has been proven, and they benevolently reside over their less evolved subjects, making sure that they are allowed to fulfill their roles in the society, as they naturally desire, in peace. There are no troublesome creature-rights activists causing havoc on streets. There are no muggleborns who would wish to side with muggles against the wizards. There is no empire, there is only the natural order of things.  



















    This entire post is golden, especially the analysis regarding the British Empire, Europe and the treatment of non-witches/non-wizards in HP (goblins, creatures, house elves etc).

    This section in particular resonated with me, as it touches on the arguments I often make with regards to class in HP:

    The story of Harry Potter is not of someone who fights for acceptance, but of someone who returns to his rightful place on top of the wizarding society. characters who do not naturally have this privilege, gain prestige by being helpful and loyal to Harry. It is a deliberate choice by Rowling to make Harry a pureblood fighting for the rights of muggleborns and those lower than him in the wizarding societal ladder. He is the archetypical English gentleman hero, because he has both the privilege and the proper character to carry that privilege. Voldemort, Malfoy, and other “dark-siders” from the pureblood establishment have abused this privilege and are therefore unworthy of it.

    Another important part of Harry’s character is that all his powers and abilities that help him champion against Voldemort are either inherited or inherent. Harry does no need to labour for his victory.

    Harry is artificially trapped by poverty; the Dursleys do not lack (they are squarely middle class) but their behaviour causes Harry to lack.  However, this is fixed for Harry as soon as he is informed that he is special - he isn’t simply told that he is a wizard, but he’s shown that he is a rich wizard with a vault full of gold.