Dissin' the Slyths, PS on Rights and Wrongs

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 38433

Marina:
>>>>No, the Slytherins have reason to feel humiliated because 
they got publically jerked around by their Headmaster. "Congrats, 
guys, you won! Come into the hall and sit down, look at all the 
pretty greenand silver banners, get ready to celebrate... Whoops, 
just kidding! You lose after all. Surprise!" Other houses don't get 
that sort ofthing pulled on them when they lose. I don't see how 
the Slyths could interpret it as anything other than a slap in the 
face. 
<snip>
Announcing the final standings before the feast and decorating 
the Hall in Gryffindor colors to begin with would not have been 
"tactfulbehind the scenes maneuvering" -- it would've been 
regular procedure. That's how it's done in all the other years. 
<<<<

Okay, now I am confused.  So far, we've had four years.

Year One: Dumbledore pulls his switcheroo

Year Two: no leaving feast mentioned. There is a special feast 
where Ron and Harry's four hundred points secure the House 
Cup for Gryffindor. There is  no mention of decorations or who 
was in the lead beforehand.

Year Three: Gryffindor takes the lead by winning the Quidditch 
Cup. The hall is decorated in scarlet and gold. No mention of 
last minute points.

Year Four: the hall is draped in black. No House Cup is 
awarded. The House Point totals are not given.

The only thing I can conclude from this about the standard 
procedure is that there isn't one. <g> Maybe in Year 7, 
Dumbledore *will* announce a four way tie, stand on the table 
and dance the Macarena. <g> For all we know, last minute 
points are handed out all the time. It's happened twice so far.

I said:
> 
> Switching the banners is a show of force, and that is the way to 
> reach Slytherins. 

Marina:
>>>I don't understand. How is it a show of force? What power is
Dumbledore demonstrating that would not have been 
demonstrated without the switch?<<<

The message being given to the reader, and what Slytherins had 
to be shown, is that no matter how certain they are that they've 
won, everything they have can be snatched away when they least 
expect it, maybe because the powers-that-be are capricious or 
maybe because they had it coming, but mostly because that's 
the way the world works.  The Slytherins boast and cheat 
because they get a feeling of power from doing it. They need to 
understand that the sense of security they get when they feel 
powerful is meaningless. 

The green banners vanish, just like the Biblical green bay tree. If 
that makes the Slytherins angry, so be it. Better they should rage 
and have tantrums now, while they are young and controllable 
and Voldemort is just a shadow on the horizon. 

Was it in poor taste? Of course, but no poorer than to have a 
school house devoted to power-hungry Machievellian schemers 
in the first place, not to mention those often self-righteous 
"daring, nerve and chivalry" Gryffs.

Quoth the Catlady, quothing me:

>> Although Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the 
Dursleys, he  upholds their right to be Harry's guardians, and 
their right to  raise him as they see fit. 
(snip)
Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally
 those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to 
 liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"?<<

>Such as, does baby Harry have a right not to be abused even 
>tho' his closest adult relatives want to abuse him? 
 
And Eloise chimed in:

>>But are there not other ways in which the WW trespasses on 
human rights, ways which the WW still accepts? The Dementor's 
Kiss? Locking up a man in Azkaban without trial? The mental 
cruelty inflicted on an unfortunate student by a sadistic teacher? 
The traditional Toughness of the WW sometimes seems to 
militate against this moral view.<<<<<

Good points. There doesn't seem to be any right to protection in 
the WW, for babies or anybody else. The whole idea of the life 
debt is that if someone saves you, you owe them big. James 
protected Snape, so Snape is in his debt. That wouldn't be the 
case if Snape had a right to be protected, would it? 

 So Draco's family has a claim against the Hippogriff for injuring 
him, none against Hogwarts or Hagrid for not keeping Draco 
safe. This being the case,  Dumbledore has to be careful not to 
overprotect his students, both to make them Tough, and perhaps 
to keep them from incurring magical obligations to him. Hmmm, 
I wonder what it means that Dumbledore saved Harry's life at the 
end of SS/PS and GoF?

Dumbledore claims no authority over the Dursleys, and so, 
much as it may pain him, less right to interfere with them than 
with Snape, although he does send Hagrid, who as Dumbledore 
well knows, is inclined to throw his weight around a bit. 

Pippin