Ron: prejudices, meanness

[Ebony AKA AngieJ]

No: HPFGUIDX 16455

I *know* I should stay out of this, but...

Heidi wrote:  
"Zsenya, you yourself are listed as a "headmistress" on the 
Sugarquill site, so it would be a bit disingenuous to now state that 
things which are specifically listed as "purpose[s]" on the 
Sugarquill Site are, if mentioned by someone who is not part of 
your "staff", prejudiced comments."

Zsenya wrote:
"I'm not saying that at all.  I was, in my original email, simply  
pointing out that for some reason, SugarQuill seems particularly, and 
 rather passive-aggressively targeted and joked about here.  I'd like 
to keep it friendly."

I can't speak for her, but I don't think Heidi was trying to attack 
you or your website, Zsenya.

What I do think she was pointing out is that you and others have 
repeatedly referred to the SugarQuill site.  Why take offense to 
Penny's use of the term "SugarQuill" when referring to the 
webmistresses when this is how you have described yourself?

That'd be like me taking issue (either joking, seriously, or 
sarcastically--shades of emotion are often lost in online discourse) 
with someone calling me a teacher, a vocal H/Her, an English grad 
student, or even black/African-American.  I've used this terminology 
to describe myself... and if someone uses it in a way that might 
cause me to raise my eyebrows, I let it go.

But again, that's just my third-party take on things.

Zsenya wrote: 
"Which is EXACTLY the point I was kind of trying to make, which is  
that (to bring this whole discussion back to Ron) one of the 
arguments against Ron in recent threads is that he is somehow racist 
or prejudiced as a person because he has preconceived notions about 
giants, werewolves and house-elves."

Encarta's World English Dictionary has this to say:
1)  racism--prejudice or animosity against people who belong to 
another race
2)  prejudice--a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based 
on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate 
stereotypes.

Let's use this scenario:  say, for instance, 90% of the coverage that 
the wizarding news media provides about giants, werewolves, and house-
elves is negative.

You meet a giant, a werewolf, or a house-elf who's not like the ones 
that the news media has told you about.  You befriend them.

Do you 1) revise your notions of ALL giants, werewolves, or house-
elves?  2) decide to take each individual giant, werewolf, or house-
elf as they come? or 3)  decide that the giant, werewolf, or house-
elf that you have met and befriended, who's "not like *them*" is the 
exception rather than the rule?

As someone who is from that giant/werewolf/house-elf category in the 
Muggle version of the world, I've lived with people who select #3 
when dealing with me my entire life, and I absolutely, positively 
hate it.  As a matter of fact, it is one of the qualities that I 
dislike most when I detect it in a person.

So yes, one IS accountable for accepting the societal norm if that 
societal norm is morally questionable.

And Ron's having grown up in the wizarding world is no excuse... just 
as Draco's having grown up in the Malfoy family doesn't justify his 
nastiness either.

Explanation is one thing--justification is quite another.

--Ebony AKA AngieJ