(OT) Purity of Bloodlines

[Ebony Elizabeth]

No: HPFGUIDX 2455

Hi, everyone!

Alix--heavens no, I wasn't offended.  :)  To be quite honest, I can't 
even recall what you wrote that led to Sis. Mary's reply.  I just 
thought Sister Mary's observation was apt and posted on it as it is a 
subject of interest.  It also relates to the way I read and teach 
certain aspects of Harry Potter.

Amanda--I followed your reasoning with interest.  It was quite 
familiar.  The points that you raised are what *all* of us learned in 
high school and college--categorizations such as Negroid, Mongoloid, 
Caucasoid, etc. and the accompanying physical phenotypic features are 
what designate "race".

The reason why I *know* (not think) race is a modern psychosocial 
construct is because I could see the holes in the textbook definition 
even when I was a young child.  While seemingly inherent in our 
species, the us/them hierarchical tendencies of humanity prior to the 
rise of Western civilization were not primarily based upon the 
aforementioned characteristics until a number of historical events 
occurred, quite a few of them predating the age of European 
expansion.  

A very fascinating study is to examine world history (not just 
through the usual lens of history with entire continents footnoted) 
from the decline of the Roman Empire until 1492.  We know a lot about 
the Middle Ages in Europe.  What was everyone else doing during this 
particular millennium?  What were the contemporary views on race, and 
how did the rise of Christendom influence these?  Who was first to 
use the term "pure blood"?

(Sidenote:  Card thought of some of these questions as he did 
background research for *Pastwatch*.  He cites Tzvetan Todorov's *The 
Conquest of America* (translated from the French by Richard Howard) 
as "the book that made me want to do this novel".  The inspiration 
for the more scholarly bent to my search for "truth" is controversial 
anthropologist Ivan Van Sertima.  I met him as a college freshman.  
He is no pseudoscientist, yet his research articles have to have 10 
times the normal amount of citations b/c what he is finding in the 
gaps challenges what is in the textbooks.)

I could go on and on--but I won't.  E-mail me off list to discuss 
further.  I don't mind discourse about this topic at all--indeed, it 
is welcomed!

When all is said and done, I *still* maintain that the validity of 
any pure blood theory in HP and in real life is questionable.  I 
become very concerned when pure blood theories are justified by 
science.  After the categorization is over and everyone is neatly 
pidgeonholed, then the ranking begins.  Remember, we humans tend to 
be hierarchical by nature--our Achilles' heel, according to the 
Oankali (aliens in Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis sci-fi series).  
Which one is best?  

This rating system has *very* uncomfortable historical echoes--some 
of them very recent, some of which parallel the pureblood/Mudblood 
theme in Harry Potter.

The idea of ethnic genocide is no sociological Athena.  It did not 
spring up fully grown.  It, like the modern concept of race, evolved.

Again, I'd love to continue this discussion off list if anyone is 
interested.  Perhaps this is fairly OT, but as some of this relates 
to one of my FAQs, I wanted to address it.  

--Ebony (whose classes will begin reading *Number the Stars* and 
delving into a unit on World War II and the Holocaust next week)