Mudblood as an insult

[heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu]

No: HPFGUIDX 16256

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., naama_gat at h... wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi.h.tandy.c92 at a... wrote:
> 
> > (b) does Draco have any idea what an insult "Mudbloods" is 
> I presume you're seriously suggesting this theory, right? Tongue 
> firmly out of cheek? (just to make sure I'm not making an idiot of 
> myself...). Well, it's very ingenious and I'm more and more 
inclined 
> to read Surfeit but I really don't think that the canon supports it.
Oh, you really should. It's pretty intensely canon based, you see, 
and the missing scenes from books 3 & 4 are backed up by canon stuff. 

> 
> When Draco calls Hermione Mudblood for the first time, she had just 
> pointed out, in public, that he (Draco) is in the Slytherin team 
not 
> for his skill, but because of his money. He tells her 
(approximately, 
> I don't have the book here to check), "Nobody asked you, Mudblood". 
> This is an angry retort to a very pointed insult. Do you really 
think 
> it reasonable that in these circumstances he would use a term that 
is 
> *not* insulting? 
Oh, I am sure he knows that it's an insult. I said in my original 
post "what an insult" - I could have stated it clearer, but that does 
mean, translated into simpler words, "does Draco have any idea of how 
bad an insult the term "Mudblood" is?" In other words, in his realm 
of understanding, is it somewhere on the continuum closer 
to "jerk", "b*tch", or the word that begins with an N and rhymes with 
trigger? What level of insult did he think he was throwing at her? 


> Further more, on what do you base the Orchid Draco theory? I didn't 
> get any impression that he was shielded from common wizard culture 
at 
> all. In GoF, for instance, he has a subscription for the Daily 
> Prophet. At the Dark Arts store (beginning of CoS) Lucius tells 
Draco 
> that <paraphrase> it is not wise not to seem fond of Harry Potter 
> when "most of our kind" view him as a hero. You don't give 
> sophisticated, cynical advice of that sort to a hothouse flower who 
> is innocent of all knowledge of such things, do you? 

You're completely misstating what I said. I never used the 
word "innocent" and certainly wouldn't've used it in the traditional 
definition context, meaning "free from guilt or sin especially 
through lack of knowledge of evil" (merriam webster website 
definition #1). I think Draco has some knowledge about Lucius' 
interest in the Dark Arts, although it is clear in Book 2 that he 
does *not* know exactly what is going on with CoS, and it also can be 
reasonably inferred that between books 2 and 4, he has learned more 
both about the world and about the Dark Arts. And if you are trying 
to control what your little seedling learns and the perspectives on 
the world that he has, then yes, you do give him cynical advice, 
mischaracterize facts, and try to teach him to lie and cheat and 
manipulate if you youself think those are good qualities to instill. 

> Another point. To keep a child from realizing that 'nigger' (the 
> parallel of Mudblood) is an insult would argue insulation of such 
an 
> extroadinary degree, that it precludes almost any normal contact 
with 
> other people. 

To a large extent, that's true. You have to refrain from sending said 
child to school, to only invite playmates whose parents have similar 
beliefs over for playdates, keep the child away from television sets 
and radios, and screen the books that the child reads. How many of 
these things would be impossible for Lucius Malfoy to do? You don't 
think Draco could've had tutors instead of attending school with 
other children? You don't think that Lucius let any random wizarding 
child of the same age come over to play in Draco's magnificent 
treehouse? You don't think that if he really wanted such control over 
what Draco learned, he could have had it? 

> But Draco is sent to Hogwarts. If his father had this 
> plan of keeping Draco in a state of pristine innocence, would he 
risk 
> his being contaminated in Hogwarts?
The impression I have from the wizarding schooling system is that one 
cannot become a qualified wizard without having attended a wizarding 
school and taking OWLs and NEWTs. Therefore, Draco had to go 
somewhere - and I can think of at least 7 reasons why it's Hogwarts 
instead of somewhere else, but they're all non-canon based creative 
conjecture, so let's leave them for another time. 
Maybe the people who think that neither Snape nor Lucius knew about 
each others' activities reagrding Death Eater-ing are right, and 
Lucius concluded that in Slytherin, Draco at least would be in an 
insular enough environment that he wouldn't be terribly contaminated 
by Dumbledore's ideas. I mean, Slytherin House doesn't seem to be a 
hotbead of freethinkers or tolerance, does it? And again, I never 
said "innocence" - I said explicitly that the "hothouse" atmosphere 
was "pre-hogwarts". I add that by that point, Lucius may've been 
convinced that beliefs had been ingrained in Draco such that the 
foundations couldn't be crumbled by day-to-day Hogwarts life. 

> 
> BTW, I also don't agree with any of the "nice" interpretations of  
> Draco. He has lied, cheated, bullied, made trouble, used people and 
> told tales. He is a horrible boy. He is so horrible (and he's 
horrid 
> too!) that he seems almost to be an embodiment of the worst and 
most 
> extreme qualities of the Slytherin spirit.
Ron and Harry have lied to Snape. Ron has come close to bullying 
Hermione. All three of the "leads" have made trouble for Filch, Snape 
and each other, in varying degrees. Ron and Harry have, to some 
extent, used Hermione, for schoolwork-related purposes. All three 
have told tales to professors (Lockheart and Snape come to mind most 
easily) and Ron has told tales to the rest of the school with regards 
to the second task. But they're not horrible. They're not horrid. 
Yes, I do have issues with Ron, as I discussed in some of my earlier 
posts, but that's not the point of *this* post, is it? But maybe a 
look at Draco from a different perspective (I'm desparately avoiding 
shameless self-promotion here, aren't I?) would be good for you.