Hagrid's Bigotry (was: Hagrid's Reliability and Sirius' House )

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 40843

I wrote:

> Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that 
> Harry *must* be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason 
> that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." 
> (I find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know 
> about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.)

Darrin replied:

> Wellllllll, the first one is definitely xenophobic. 

> But as for the second one, he's hardly the only one the believes 
> Harry Potter will be great.

It's not that he believes that Harry Potter will be great that I 
object to.  It's the fact that he chooses to express this belief in 
terms of genetic inheritance.

> And hey, the third one has certainly proven to be true. Lucius is a 
> Death-Eater and Draco is a little punk.

No, it has *not* been proven to be true.  That Lucius and Draco are 
both rotters does not mean that the Malfoys have "bad blood."  "Bad 
blood" would mean that their nastiness is in some way genetic, 
heritable.  There is absolutely no evidence that this is really the 
case, and if it were true, it would completely undercut what 
Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of CoS about the importance of 
choice.

I find it particularly ironic for *Hagrid* of all people to suggest 
such a thing, given that it is precisely people like Hagrid whose 
victimization the "bad blood" rationale would be used to justify, 
should DEs like Lucius Malfoy have their way. 

> Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly 
> doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly 
> refutes the whole mudblood garbage. 

No, he doesn't adhere to the Malfoy's beliefs.  He does, however, 
slip into precisely the same mode of thinking when he talks about the 
classes of people that *he* doesn't like.  That he may have perfectly 
legitimate reasons for not liking certain people is really not the 
point.  That he is prejudiced in his thinking is.

This is a topic very dear to my heart, you know, because it's how I 
made my very first enemies on this list.  ;-)

Back in January, this is what I wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

<excerpted from message from January 22>


No, my problem with Hagrid is that his thoughtlessness
all too often leads him perilously close to bigotry.

I don't think that he's a bigot in any deep, philosophical
sense, no. Far to the contrary, he is one of the most
consistent and vocal antagonists to the entire "pure-blood"
aesthetic throughout the books.

But.

He's also a bigot himself, and a very particular type of 
bigot: the thoughtless man whose fondness for sweeping 
generalizations and snap judgments leads him to make 
statements that are not only deeply prejudiced, but also 
frequently Just Plain Not True.

"Not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in 
Slytherin," for example. Or that bit about how you can't 
trust foreigners. Or his comment about the Malfoys having 
"bad blood" -- which really is _rich,_ you know, given the 
big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet. 
Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely 
grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad 
like yours, what else would yeh be?" 

Hagrid is *not* a believer in the primacy of blood. He 
really, really isn't. But when he isn't thinking too hard, 
he just kind of...slips back into that mode of thinking, and 
starts going on about "bad blood" and Harry's rights of magical
inheritance and so forth. Just as he is *not* a muggle-hater, 
and yet, and yet, and yet...

"I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him." 

"...it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest 
Muggles I ever laid eyes on." 

"Look at what she had for a sister!"

And so forth.

I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory
tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing
us the power of institutionalized bigotry. Hagrid's a product 
of his culture, and his culture is not an egalitarian one. He 
*does* believe in egalitarianism, very strongly. But when he 
isn't watching himself, the ugly underside of his own culture 
slips through the cracks, and he betrays himself.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


That's pretty much still my take on Hagrid.


Darrin:

> Now, you could argue that Hagrid's xenophobia and skepticism of the 
> Malfoys (thinking Harry will be great is neither bigoted nor 
> unthinking) is on the same level as the vile venom that spews from 
> Draco's mouth about Muggle-born wizards.

No, it's not at all on the same level.  I really can't imagine, for 
example, that Hagrid would ever advocate genocide.

It is the same *logic,* however, and it's a logic that I consider 
dangerous.  It's a logic that gets used to justify some very nasty 
things, both in our reality and in the Potterverse.

I can't imagine Hagrid ever advocating genocide, but advocating some 
other ugly things?  Well, who can say?  He does insist that the House 
Elves enjoy bondage as a matter of racial disposition.  Maybe he's 
right about that, and maybe he's wrong.  Only time will tell us 
whether that statement is actually canonically true.  But when you 
view this belief in light of Hagrid's general tendency to believe 
that "blood will tell," it does start to look a little bit ugly, 
don't you think?

It's ugly in precisely the same way that Harry's Aunt Marge nattering 
on about Harry himself having "bad blood" is ugly.  What makes it 
ugly isn't that Marge happened to be *wrong* about what the Potters 
were really like.  Even if the Potters really had been criminals and 
drunkards, the assumption that their son must therefore be 
intrinsically worthless would still be completely vile.


I wrote:

> Nor does Hagrid take any particular care to make certain that his 
> statements are in the least bit accurate. In truth, the fact that 
> Harry's parents were magically powerful is *no* assurance that 
> Harry himself will be: Squibs exist, and they can come from the 
> very best families, right?

Darrin wrote:

> Given that Harry, as a baby, deflected a killing curse from the 
> most powerful evil wizard of modern times would lead MOST of the 
> Wizard community to believe Harry was powerful, no? Dumbledore 
> knows the truth, that Lily's charm did the deflecting, but I don't 
> see this as being common knowledge. So again, Hagrid is HARDLY the 
> only one who thinks Harry is powerful.

Again, I think that you're missing my point here.  The point isn't 
that Hagrid believes Harry to be powerful.  *Everybody* believes that 
Harry is powerful.  That Harry Potter defeated Voldemort at the age 
of one is common knowledge in the wizarding world.  That's not what 
I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is Hagrid's tendency to view things in terms 
of the primacy of blood. "With a mum an' dad like yours, what else 
would yeh be?" 

> And within a few minutes of meeting Harry, Hagrid learns that Harry 
> has shown magical ability, in the form of things "Harry couldn't 
> quite explain" which seems to rule out Squib-ness.

> So, knowing that Harry ISN'T a Squib, it's hardly the greatest leap 
> to figure that given his parentage, Harry will be pretty good.

Why?

Both Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley are Muggle-born, aren't 
they?  Neither of their parents are magical.  Yet I think it clear 
that Hermione is *more* magically talented than Justin is.  

I don't see why you would assume that the child of two magically-
powerful people is likely to be one of two things: either magically 
strong, or a Squib.  Children of Muggles can fall anywhere along the 
spectrum of magical talent, so why would the children of wizards be 
any different?


<We agree, at least, that Sirius was in House Gryffindor -- or at 
least *not* in House Slytherin>

> Agreed. I think what Hagrid said is either a FLINT, an 
> exaggeration, or a desire to shield Harry from the knowledge of his 
> godfather going bad and betraying his folks.

> But I disagree that it's based on Hagrid being a bigot.

I think that it's a bit of exaggeration, and a bit of prejudice.  
Hagrid does, after all, have some very *personal* reasons to dislike 
House Slytherin.  Even aside from the fact that so many of its 
members supported Voldemort during the last war, one of them also was 
the one to get him expelled from Hogwarts.

As for shielding Harry from the knowledge of his godfather, I 
certainly accept that Hagrid never mentioned Sirius to Harry for just 
this reason.

But I honestly can't believe that Hagrid is thoughtful enough to have 
deliberately altered his phrasing from "There's only been one wizard 
who ever went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" to "There's not a single 
witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" just to 
forestall Harry asking who the exception was.  That's just not 
Hagrid.  He's not that kind of strategic thinker.  He *blurts* 
things.  Constantly.  That's just what he does.

Also, I don't believe for an instant that Sirius (or, rather, 
Pettigrew) was really the only non-Slytherin ever to go bad.  Not 
only doesn't that seem at all plausible, it also strikes me as 
completely inconsistent with the descriptions that both Hagrid
and Sirius give of what life was like for the wizarding world during 
the days of Voldemort's first rise.  People just didn't know who they 
could trust, right?  Hardly likely, if members of House Slytherin had 
really comprised Voldemort's only supporters.


-- Elkins