Wizards vs. Muggles (was Re: In Defense of Salazar

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 41018

Liz wrote:

*****In Defence of  SS*****
First, I'd like to applaud Pippin for thinking outside the box. 

Thanks, but I can't take credit for Defensible!Slytherin...that 
belongs to Treyvan

-Naama:
> You know, the whole "wizards had been persecuted" thing has 
always seemed FLINTy to me. I mean, we have Harry reading 
the amusing tale  of Wendolin the Weird and the flame freezing 
spell - which goes to  show that witch hunts were completely 
futile. On the other hand, we  have this vague tale of wizard 
persecution as what led to the  establishment of Hogwarts.<<

Lucky Kari:
>I absolutely agree! What makes it even more confusing for me 
is that witch-burning only began in the Late Middle Ages and 
reached its peak in the 17th century! I was reading "Fantastic 
Beasts and Where To Find  Them" and the introduction seems 
to square with that historical fact, but...<<

 What began in the year 1000 or so and squares very nicely with 
"bloody periods of history"  is the persecution of heresy.  It is 
possible that "history as we know it" has been tampered with 
and what we recall as the persecution of heretics, including 
burnings,  were ::really:: persecutions of witches and wizards. 
Even if this is not the case, the climate of intolerance for heresy 
often engendered hostility toward other minority groups, and 
wizards would have been subjected to hatred and suspicion. 
Living in such a society would be very unpleasant even if there 
were no physical  danger.  

There is also the possibility that wizarding history is also 
distorted, especially as presented in textbooks suitable for 
thirteen year olds. As Hermione has lately learned, there's a 
tendency to gloss over unpleasant aspects. There's also what 
Pratchett calls lies-to-children.  "Witch-burning in the fourteenth 
century was completely pointless" sounds like a parody of the  
oversimplification that stems from trying to introduce a  complex 
subject  to  beginners, like saying "The American Civil War was 
fought to end slavery."

My own take on Slytherin is that he was  like Saruman: a once 
noble wizard corrupted by the desire for power and 
a disdain for lesser folk, whose descent into evil was so gradual 
that it wasn't obvious.  Apparently he compromised on the 
admission requirements for Slytherin House, because Tom 
Riddle, a half-blood, was admitted to it, and because Ron was 
unaware that the pureblood ideology was associated with 
Slytherin.  Probably Slytherin covered his tracks well enough that 
the wizarding world never reached a consensus about him.

It may not be possible to remove Slytherin's influence from the 
school if  his spells are intrinsic to its existence. I have this 
theory that the Founder's spells are aging and will shortly have to 
be renewed by the Heirs, and that this is why Voldemort would 
want to eliminate the Heir of Gryffindor, but it is sheer 
speculation.


Pippin