[HPforGrownups] Racist! Draco (was Fred and George: The bullies you know)

[yr awen]

No: HPFGUIDX 43097

I have the feeling I've repeated myself a lot here.

Darrin wrote:
3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To 
apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. 
Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily 
prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. 
They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.>

Okay,first of, I have seen NO cannon that points to Draco being a racist.  YES he strikes out against those different then him and some could classify Hagrid as being the target of such but you do need a different RACE to be a racist.  Mudbloods (or muggle-borns for those who prefer) are not a different race, their a genetic miracle.  While the words could have the same...feeling of certain words I will not say here out of respect of the list, it's not a racial remark.  Mudbloods are still humans, still wizzards, still of the same race.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Correct there. However, the notion of 'racism' as a phenomenon is founded upon the erroneous notion that there is such a thing as a 100% pure, homogenous group of people whose genetic heritage has been rigorously guarded against intermingling of outsider blood (here I'm thinking of the thoroughly erroneous concept espoused by Hitler & co. of the Aryan race, and the eugenics movements of the early 1900s.) Racism *inevitably* includes an argument at the genetic level -- usually, as I have said, incorrect -- that it uses to justify its claim to superiority over another group.

In this sense, Draco is very much the racist. His attitudes toward Muggles and Muggle-borns is one of utter contempt. In the case of Muggle-borns, he is actively intolerant and blindly so. He bases this on purity of wizarding heritage, something Ron is quick to point out is utter bunk:

"It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his sweaty brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out."

Elitism is defined more through social standing as it pertains to money, position in society (or one's rightful position in society.) As I've said, elitism and racism are occasionally cocomitant, taking up space in the same nearsighted, narrowminded person, but elitism is rarely ever intolerant or actively condemnatory of the plebians, so to speak. If anything, it may view the masses as a necessary evil and may willingly marginalize them, but you don't see CEOs going out and advocating the mass slaughter of factory workers (they simply lay them off for profit.)

Saitiana:
Draco strikes out against that which he fears like most humans do.  He fears that something that should be below him (elitism not racism by the way is shown here)is doing better then he is.  Hermione AND Hagrid fall into this category. <<<<<<

Really? Both Hagrid and Hermione are, by Draco's definition, freaks of nature and possessors of corrupted blood. Hagrid is the son of a giantess. Hermione is a Muggle-born -- both of them are defined _by_their_genetic_heritage as being "below" purebloods. And yet Ron points out the fallacy of Draco's belief, as I've stated above, and the research of anthropology and sociology backs him up, even if Ron's not aware of it. Hermione and Hagrid should be below Draco because they're genetically (read: racially) inferior, which in Draco's mind -- and the mind of the Malfoys, and others -- dictates proper social standing, intelligence, priority of claim in the wizard world, etc.

Saitaina:
Hermione is top witch, the best of the scholarly best, and she is a mudblood.  In Draco's mind that shouldn't be possible, shouldn't happen.  It also pisses off Lucius and frankly, Lucius doesn't seem the type of father you should piss off. So why not strike out against a mere girl who does things she shouldn't.  In his mind, she needs to be reminded of her place in wizzarding society.  This is elitism at it's worst, not racism.<<<<<<<<<

You could probably say the same thing about the people who stood outside school buildings in the South and protested during the early stages of desegregation in US schools during the '50s. The elitism you're talking of is what I posted about elsewhere (and no one ever reads my stuff, so I have no idea why I'm writing this); it is closely allied with perceived priority of blood, and *that's* racism.

My argument is that elitism employs racism, and the other way around. Draco and other like-minded individuals function latterly; they espouse the idea that purebloods are inherently better, and therefore Muggle-borns/Muggles and their "inferior" status is a direct result of inferiority of blood.

Saitana again:
Cannon does NOT show his racism.  It shows his elitism and the fact that he's not creative enough to come up with his own insults.<<<<<<<

If canon illustrates his elitism, Draco would be saying, "Death to the poor wizards among us! Death!" *That's* elitism. But instead he takes great glee in telling Harry that it'll be "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first" at the end of GoF. When he refers to Hermione and Ron as riffraff, their societal status as being below him is defined by blood; Hermione is a witch of corrupt lineage, while Ron's family sympathizes with regular, genetically inferior humans.

Mudblood may be up there with n- but that doesn't justify Mudbloods as their own race, which they're not.  They're still British (or what have you) wizzards who happen to have won the genetic lottery. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"British" is not a race, it's a nationality. Big difference.

I would suggest here that perception of 'race' (as fallacious as that concept may be, but I'll employ it for ease of argument) in the wizarding world is not the same as what we would call an ethnic group, but rather centers around the possession of a certain genotype -- that is, pureblood, halfblood, Muggle-born, and Muggle.

My reasons are as follows:

1.) The existence of a Muggle-protection act, signed into law by Arthur Weasley. As much as the Muggles may seem to be a large, exotic tribe to Arthur, they are nonetheless recognized as a group that can be marginalized and potentially persected by wizardkind, and this persecution can extend from simple "Muggle-baiting" to....
2.) The constant persecution of Muggles at the hands of Death Eaters, who presumably torture and kill Muggles for kicks, among other unsavory activities. Their notion of genetically-given superiority, though, finds a disturbing echo in....
3.) The persistence of belief in pureblood superiority in the Ministry, which makes the Muggle-protection act necessary in the first place. Dumbledore expresses this eloquently (GOF36, US hardcover):

"You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be! Your dementor has just destroyed the last remaining member of a pureblood family as old as any -- and see what that man chose to make of his life!"

Molly also says that Arthur's love of Muggles has kept him from advancing up the Ministry hierarchy, because Fudge thinks he lacks "proper wizarding pride." Pride of group for wizards is defined, at least by Fudge and other like-minded people, as being INBORN. By extension, inferiority is inborn as well -- and that's a basic argument advanced by racists. And Draco advances it on more than one occasion.

Saitaina:
You could do that, you could also delve into the world of homophobia and say fags and fag-lovers.  You could transfer many words into those two and ignite the same anger and same hatred.  That just proves he had no imagination and really doesn't like Hermione.  Doesn't prove he's a racist.<<<<<<<<

But he doesn't limit his dislike to just Hermione! She happens to be the most available target, and the one we hear most about because she's with Harry. As seen in my above reference of GoF, and seen abundantly throughout CoS, Draco views Muggle-borns as being worthy of purgation by either the Dark Lord or the basilisk.

Saitaina:
People, children especially will strike out at those they don't understand.  Draco is a classic example of this. <<<<<<<

Yes, and people with the mindset of children will strike out at what they don't understand -- or, more accurately, what they refuse to understand. It is endemic to our nature and, in my opinion, thoroughly inexcusable in any civilization that has the nerve to call itself civilized.

I can do no better than to quote one of my favorite authors, Paul Tabori, from his 'The Natural History of Stupidity' (excellent book), in reference to fear and prejudice:

'... If racial prejudice (accounting for much of this particular idiocy [prejudice in general]) is simply a matter of "group menace," how is it that people are guilty of it who are not in the remotest way menaced by Negroes, Chinamen, or Jews? And there are sufficient exceptions to the rule in places where such a menace *does* exist -- or at least looks as though it existed [this is in Tabori's refutation to GM Stratton, who argues that racial prejudice is a result of one group feeling endangered by another]. In spite of the eminent Mr. Stratton, I feel that, to be prejudiced racially or in any other way presupposes a mental condition we must call stupidity if only for want of a better word. It is not innorn -- here we can agree with the author of "Social Psychology of International Conduct" -- and it is not natural. But if no individual is entirely free from prejudice, it is the _effect_ of his prejudices on his actions that makes him a stupid bigot or a balanced human being."

Saitaina:
Feel free to pick apart my post, but please, come up with something more then just what we see on the surface.  Humans are made up of much more then the face we show in public, even Draco.<<<<<<<<

Well, I'll believe it when JKR shows it to us.

HF.
--
Habent sua fata libelli.
/Books have their own destiny.\
+ terentianus maurus +


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]