Wizard attitudes towards Muggles

[jmyers at sunflower.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 30556

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" <oppen at c...> wrote:

While I understand your feelings, I ended up feeling quite
differently after having read the books. If anyone is
interested, here are my thoughts on it.

> 
> It occurs to me that acts such as Arthur Weasley's Muggle
> Protection Act might not be motivated by pure,
> disinterested love of us Muggles.  Instead, down deep,
> Arthur W. could be just as prejudiced against Muggles as
> Lucius Malfoy, but just express it differently, even to
> himself.  Instead of "those Muggles are scum, we should
> get rid of or enslave them," it might be more along the
> lines of "oh, those poor Muggles---they could never, ever
> handle the truth, they're so limited and feeble-minded. 
> As a wizard, it's my job to keep the truth from them,
> just as I would keep a charged wand out of the hands of a
> chimpanzee."

Hmm. Is that a direct quote of Arthur? I don't remember him
saying that. In truth, that really does not sum up the
'protection' that seems (to me) to be implied in the books.
I can, perhaps see Arthur saying parts of that, but in
another context. More on this below.

> Forgive me, but neither attitude really pleases me.  I
> think myself that many or most Muggles could easily
> handle knowing about the existence of the wizarding world
> (after all, the Dursleys know, at least---and if _they_
> can handle the knowledge without going mad(der), who
> can't?)  They say that we work hard to deny the existence
> of magic, while at the same time they've got wizards
> whose whole _job_ is to modify Muggle memories so that we
> don't know it's there.

The idea of the memory altering and such is to protect the
wizards. The reference to Muggle persecution of wizards and
witches in the past is quite prominent in the books. The
Dursleys represent this kind of Muggle mindset when they
were determined, against James and Lily's wishes, mind you,
to 'stamp out this nonsense' in young Harry.

The Wizarding World first and foremost seeks to protect
itself, both physically and culturally from the Muggle
World.

Also note a few other points made in the books.

First of all, it seems evident to me that quite a bit of
rescources are devoted to identifying new Muggle born
witches and wizards and inviting them to take schooling.
Hermione herself is the daughter of 2 Muggle dentists.

Second bit. There are, as you noted below, Muggles who are
trusted with the knowledge about the Wizarding World.
Hermione's parents. The Dursleys (and Mrs. Dursleys parents
when her sister Lily went to Hogwarts). Other Muggle born
students also made statements implying that they now knew
about it.

Based upon that second point, I think that the purpose of
the memory charms and all that is to protect witches and
wizards from the acts of the mindless mob and the
possibility of being deluged with endless demands for
magickal solutions to Muggle problems. From all of the
activity of the MoM, it seems plain that the Wizarding
World takes care of the magical end of things and lets the
Muggles take care of their own Muggle end of things.

> Although I love all the Weasleys, they do show a lot of
> the prejudice of their pure-blood wizard background when
> they say things like this.  I wonder how Hermione felt (I
> think she was around when Arthur was barbering on about
> how Muggles just couldn't handle knowing that magic was
> out there) since I'm sure that her parents knew where she
> went and why and what she was studying. In fact, I think
> that now that Lord V is back, she's probably had to tell
> them things that might disquiet them. "_This_ is safe
> enough to do, and so is _this,_ and so is _this._ On the
> other hand, _that_ is very dangerous...and, for Heaven's
> sake, if someone calling himself 'Tom Riddle,' 'The Dark
> Lord,' 'Lord Voldemort,' or 'He Who Must Not Be Named,'
> rings and asks for me---I'm in New Zealand and you don't
> know when I'll be back!" Just by being her parents, they
> are in the line of fire and have a right to know what's
> going on.

Most certainly, anyone in conflict with the Dark Side
should (and does, I imagine) take precautions regarding
their loved ones. I do disagree with the assumption that
Hermione would be offended. I think that for Mr. Joe
Muggle-onthe-street, she agrees.

> It would be interesting if Lord V's downfall came from
> underestimating Muggles, or the talents of a Muggle-born
> like Hermione, wouldn't it?

It is reasonable to expect that Hermione will continue to
aid Harry, and in doing so be a part of taking him down. Go
Hermione! :-) I too am eager to see Hermione 'break bad'
and use her considerable talents to take down a baddie. If
it is one that has underestimated her (like Lucius M.), so
much the better!

Regarding the Muggle Protection Act, I always gathered that
it was a stiffer prohibition against tormenting, torturing,
and abusing them. Arthur's fascination with Muggle ways and
his open admiration for the accomplishments of the Muggles
does not sound like a fellow who is anti-Muggle... to me
anyway.

Also keep in mind that although the Weasleys' disapprove of
the Dursley's treament of Harry, they have never been
hateful or even condescending. Arthur, following the 'floo
powder incident' in the Dursley's fireplace, did not wipe
their memories (neither did the MoM following the 'inflated
aunt episode'). Instead he attempted diplomacy.

Arthur's job deals with dangerously enchanted Muggle
artifacts. Dangerous either because the might fall into
untrustworthy Muggle hands or because of their nature. The
fact that he seeks, as his risky hobby, to merge Wizardry
and Muggle technology would seem to imply that he is
actually pro Muggle-Wizard openness/merging, at least if
done carefully and properly.

Ah, Harry Potter, so much to love and so much to ponder.
Heheh.. If you slogged through all this, thanks for
allowing me to share my thoughts with you.

-Jerry Myers