Dumbledore and Sytherin's Bad Rap

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 41950

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> wrote:
> Darrin, dressed in a fetching judge's robe (although you should 
probably
> lose the wig) proclaimed from his bench:
> 


Banging my gavel is rather fun. I don't recoil from that description. 
What else are we to do as readers but judge the characters? 

I simply choose to see things in a bit less murky light, and try not 
to ascribe good characteristics to evil characters and evil 
characteristics to good characters at least in part because I got 
picked on in school.


> > Fact of the matter is, given the Slytherin record of cheating, 
racism
> > and bullying, they should count themselves lucky Dumbledore hasn't
> > done more to boot their butts out of the school. They deserve 
little
> > else.
> 
> It has been my thought that perhaps the current bad light shining on
> Slytherin may have been *since* the Voldemort years. The fact that 
so many of the convicted (and accused) Voldemort followers were 
affiliated with  Slytherin may have *caused* a lot of the current 
attitude. Certainly, Tom  Riddle's description of how he was seen at 
school (even filtered through his  ego) doesn't sound like the 
Slytherins were as disliked as they seem to be now. [I know, I know, 
a solid canon bridge cannot be built that clearly puts  Riddle in 
Slytherin, but I am allowing myself to be swayed by circumstantial
> evidence.]
> 

This I agree with. There may have been a time, pre-Voldemort, where 
the Slytherins were not viewed in this light. And I would go so far 
as to surmise that when Hogwarts was founded, Salazar's anti-Muggle-
born beliefs were probably much more prevalent, perhaps in the 
majority, than Godric's more liberal attitudes. I could also see that 
Salazar, wherever he is, is horrified by his attitudes being taken to 
such violent extremes. 

A similar thing happened with the philosopher Nietschze -- of 
the "Superman" theory -- and the Nazis, who misquoted his work to 
justify their Aryan supreme race. This of course is just one more 
nice little parallel in the overarching "HP as World War II" theme.

But this current "bad light" on the members of Slytherin being post-
Voldemort makes it no less real. And Crabbe, Goyle and Malfoy are 
making no effort whatsoever to distance themselves from that 
heritage, are they? Draco would clearly love to be in the Junior 
Death Eater Defense League and Crabbe and Goyle, as his loyal 
sidekicks, would join up as well. 

Let's be clear. We're not talking about kids who dressed in black in 
high school and listened to goth music. We're talking about children 
of Nazis who also espouse Nazi beliefs. We're talking about children 
who openly throw racist epithets around, cheat blatantly when losing 
and do everything possible to get rivals thrown out of school. 

JKR has had numerous chances to give us a softer Slytherin, and
 maybe that will happen as Harry gets older. But right now, there is 
no canon evidence showing us any good things about Slythern house.

> Between these two, I find Darrin's venom, well, venomous...... Some 
of the Slytherins cheat, some are racist, some bully. But our sample 
is small. Doubtless some Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, or other 
Gryffindors do these things too. 

Who held onto the "Potter stinks" routine, made fun of his scar 
hurting, and kept feeding information to Rita Skeeter LONG after the 
Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs had let go of the anti-Harry thing in GoF? 
The Slytherins.

We have canon evidence that the Slytherins we see and are important 
enough to get named are cheaters, racists or bullies or all three. 

>The Slytherin table stood for Cedric's toast, and some of them stood 
to honor Harry. Do not discount the group because of the bad behavior 
of the small sample we've seen.

Yes, this is interesting and maybe JKR will decide to show us these 
students in the future. But again, this doesn't dim the current bad 
light on the house because of the actions of some of its members. 

Until I see a Slytherin stand up to Draco and tell him to shut his 
mouth, I consider them aiding and abetting. Yes, I have my judge's 
wig on again, but what else do you call someone who remains friends 
with a racist? 

 Remember, Sirius did equally stupid things in his
> time at Hogwarts, Harry has broken rules, and Ron is racist at 
times, if  only in ignorance. Like anything, Salazar's mistrust of 
Muggle-borns can be carried too far, and may have had a reasonable 
kernel at the heart of it.
> 

Yes, and those that carry it too far are IN THE WRONG. Racism is 
wrong, no matter how much people want to murk it up. Carrying 
something too far is not a passive action that just happens to you. 
It is an active choice.

Ron is racist at times? Are you talking about the werewolf thing? 
Certainly, that was out of ignorance, which is part of what gives 
birth to racism. Do you think Ron is racist toward werewolves now, 
after he has learned about Lupin?

Draco knows in his little heart that Hermione is just as good, if not 
better, than most pureblood wizards of her age and that Harry, just 
two generations away from Muggles on his mother's side, is certainly 
talented. Yet he chooses to hold onto his beliefs.



> > Remember, the only reason Gryffindor
> > had to make this miraculous comeback is because Draco skulked 
around
> > like a little weasel, getting Harry, Hermione and Neville in 
trouble.
> > And this took place AFTER Harry and Hermione did an honorable 
thing
> > in trying to help their friend Hagrid find a home for his dragon.
> 
> Yes, but rules *were* broken, by everyone involved. And Draco got 
his for
> skulking, too.


I've responded to this point before. I find it hard to believe that 
Draco set himself up as hall monitor just for the good of Hogwarts. 
Judgement call here, but I'll take a friend who breaks a rule to help 
me versus a friend who breaks a rule to get others in trouble.
 
> > OR... they hate them because they are cheating bastards. When has
> > anyone has ever forced a Slytherin to use the word "mudblood" or 
to
> > use a leglocker curse on an inferior (so far) wizard, for no other
> > reason than he can. Yes, Neville was such a threat to Draco that 
he
> > had to "defend" himself.
> 
> No one forced James et al. to illegally learn a regulated spell; no 
one  forced Lupin to remain at the school when he realized he could 
easily be a danger (either time); no one forced Fred and George to 
decipher the map and use it; no one forced Harry out to Hogsmeade to 
drink butterbeer. Etc.
> 


Except for the Lupin situation, which he has shown remorse for, what 
is the key difference between using an illegal curse on Neville and 
racist epithets on Hermione and the examples you mentioned?

James learning Animagic, Fred and George exploring and Harry going to 
Hogsmeade hurts no one and only endangers themselves. And Lupin did 
not intend to hurt people, it was rather through is neglect that he 
could have hurt people.

Draco's actions are against people, actively trying to hurt them. 
There is a difference there. 

And the original response I made was after someone speculated that 
the Slytherins behaved the way they did because everyone hated them. 
I responded that Draco bullying Neville was hardly self-defense and I 
compared the notion to someone that does everything possible to 
alienate colleagues or classmates and then whines about not being 
liked.

> The point is, between limited perspective and the perceiver's
> interpretation, I don't think any House is lily-white. You seem to
> categorically condemn all Slytherins because they are Slytherins, 
based on the behavior of a few of them. Isn't this sort of broad 
judgement what you  are *against*?
> 


To quote Martin Luther King Jr., when just men remain quiet, evil 
flourishes. So, if there are any just Slytherin out there, speak now 
or forever hold your peace, because evil within the house is 
flourishing.

Draco and the gang were only first- and second-year when a lot of 
this nonsense was going on. If they are a minority within the house, 
wouldn't a prefect or a sixth- or seventh-year yank them up by their 
scruffy necks and stop them? And they have not. Gryffindors certainly 
shunned Harry, Ron and Hermione after their actions cost them points.

Now, again, this could be an oversight on JKR's part, or a conscious 
decision on her part to not overly grey up the good vs. evil 
conflict, but it is extremely glaring to me. 

Do I mean to come out and say: "All Slytherin bad"? No, I don't. But 
the Slytherins we have been introduced to, which are the ones the 
author wants us to see, ARE bad. 

There is not one single redeeming feature in any Slytherin -- 
excluding Snape, and his only redeeming feature so far is the side he 
chose --  that we have been introduced to by name. 

Does that mean there aren't any? No, it doesn't. But when do we get 
to meet those kids? And if we never do, what does that mean?

 Darrin
> > -- who couldn't care less what group a person is in so long as 
they don't cheat, lie, steal, bully or espouse racist beliefs.
> 
> Unless it's Slytherin, for it really sounds from your post that by 
that fact
> alone, they *must* do all those things.....
> 
> --Amanda


Darrin
-- When JKR gives us a good Slytherin, I'll reevaluate. But the ones 
we see are loathsome little bastards. <banging the gavel> Court 
adjourned.