WW versus MW

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 46047

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:
> Melody:
> > If a muggle did *need* magic, then I am sure the likes of 
> > Dumbledore would share his gift.  Yet, he does not work to join 
> >the two worlds. He, above all wizards, would see the advantages 
> > and disadvantages of combining the worlds, yet we have no 
> >evidence that  he is working to join the worlds or "out" the WW.
>> Catlady replies:
> 
> Dumbledore reads the Muggle newspapers and keeps up with what 
> Muggles are doing, and I don't recall him saying anything 
> patronizing about  Muggles. He may well believe that wizarding 
> folk have much to learn from Muggles, but not bother saying so 
>because no wizard would  believe him and he has more immediate 
>struggles. It is less clear  that Muggles need anything from 
>wizarding folk: we already have our  own bigotries, class system, 
> poverty, cheating, etc. Our technology already does some things 
>their magic apparently doesn't (television,  mobile phones,        
> Internet) and is working on doing all the things their 
> magic does (yes, on regrowing bones and nerves and so on, altho' I 
> doubt we'll get Apparation (Strek transporter) and time travel).

Non - tangible things, I think. I argued in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/45981   on this 
thread that the removal of magic, and magical creatures from our 
world has deprived us of a great sense of - wonder? mystery? A sense 
that there are things in the world beyond the everyday?

I agree that in some ways we don't need their magic (though 
quidditch would be a fantastic spectator sport, which would probably 
make millions in TV rights)- but are the Dursley's so deeply 
unpleasant *because* they want nothing beyond being 'perfectly 
normal, thank-you'?

Let's make this clear - uniting the two worlds is either going to be 
a) a complete accident, caused by Voldemort and his Death Eaters 
committing acts so devastatingly atrocious that the existence of 
Wizards *cannot* be hidden from muggles any longer, or b) a post-
Voldemort project [hence outside the scope of the seven novel 
series] which the Trio have realised is necessary by the end of Book 
Seven. I don't think either Dumbledore or Harry are going to have 
the *time* before Voldemort is defeated.

After all, Harry has his OWLS and NEWTs to think of as well. That, 
with saving the world from Voldemort, is going to make up a pretty 
full timetable. :-)
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that Dumbledore, in his great age and 
> enlightenment, has a non-standard idea of "need": people don't  
> *need* to stay alive, they need to live and die honorably and go 
> on to "the  next great adventure"; people don't *need* to defeat 
> Voldemort (or whatever current great Dark Wizard), they need to 
> try their damndest to defeat him honorably and leave stories that 
> will encourage future generations to fight heroically against Dark 
> Wizards. 

Despite this, he has tried like heck to keep Harry alive, and is 
currently trying hard to defeat Voldemort.

I think there is a difference between saying 'people don't *need* to 
stay alive' and saying that 'sometimes there are things that people 
need *more* than staying alive' - which is closer to Dumbledore's 
viewpoint IMO. 

> It's kind of a long view of things: "in the long run,  
> everybody dies" and "this,too, shall pass." For selfish little 
> people like me, it is a terribly gloomy viewpoint: I want *me* to 
> be happy, not want me to be heroic so that future generations     
> might be happy.

Very personal decision, that. Going back to on-topic canon, how 
happy do you think Lily would have been had she, for example, 
decided to accept Voldemort's offer of sparing her life if she would 
only stand aside and let him kill Harry?

I think Lily's sacrifice was partly a decision that she was not 
going to stand by while her son was killed - she would far rather 
*die*, even if it only delayed Harry's death by seconds. Fighting 
for her son's life was more important to her than staying alive.

>  Christians cheer it up 
> by believing in rewards in an afterlife. 

> Speaking of which, probably 
> it's just me, but, Melody, I found the post to which I'm replying
> just a bit too Christian for my taste .... 

Melody was replying to a post or two of mine, ( 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/45981  and 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/46025  )in the 
first of which I mentioned several times that the argument was being 
based on Christian Theology (and quoting New Testament passages is 
also a pretty good clue that we're relating HP to Christianity). 

Discussing canon from the viewpoint of any religion is allowable - I 
remember a particularly good post once where the (Buddhist)poster 
discussed whether Dumbledore was in a Buddhist state of 
enlightenment. And there was a major discussion of the 'Thou shalt 
not suffer a witch to live' line in Exodus some months ago, where  
Jewish, Christian and Pagan viewpoints were used.

[Besides, it gives the Mods ulcers, which is always fun ;-)]

Melody:
> 
> > Why don't the wizards take over the world?  They have the
> > advantage, don't they?  (snip)
> > I still say the reason why the worlds are kept separate and in 
> > the dark is for the WW protection.  The MW would overwhelm them 
> > with requests and desires.  
> 
Catlady replies:
> I put these two quotes together for one answer: Yes, the worlds  
> are kept separate for WW protection. Protection from Muggles 
> persecuting  and killing them, not protection from Muggles 
> overwhelming them with  requests. The latter is the self-praising 
> fable wizarding folk tell  their children, but Binns the historian 
> knows better(Binns, CoS: The  Founder "built this castle together, 
> far from prying Muggle eyes, for  it was an age when magic was 
> feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much    
> persecution."). 
> 
<Snip evidence that Wizards feared Muggles killing, torturing and 
persecuting them.>
> 
> It seems to me that their whole big deal of despising Muggles is 
> part of a pattern of denial. Unwilling to admit that they are 
> scared of Muggles, they build up and up and up their claim that 
> Muggles are inferior.

Agreed. I think the DE torturing and killing of Muggles for sport is 
a way of gaining control over, and revenge for, this fear of 
Muggles. 

Which is why I think the WW would actually be a lot healthier in 
itself if it decided to face the Muggle prejudice, hatred and fear 
of magic openly, and fight for a place in the world. 

They've run away. They've hidden. And, as you say, the adults 
realise this. *Why*, for example, can't Arthur Weasley spend a few 
hours in the Muggle pub at Ottery St Catchpole, if he's so 
interested in muggles? Not as if it would be terribly complicated, 
once he's changed some money at Gringotts.

"And what do you do, Mr Weasley?"
"Oh, I'm a minor civil servant. Very boring, really. Spend all day 
reading applications for import licences."

But no. No contact whatsoever. The postman doesn't even know where 
the Weasley's *are*.

And so the Malfoys and the Voldemorts, frightened that Muggles will 
destroy them and the power base they have built up, or resentful of 
Muggle treatment towards them, have fear and ignorance of Muggles to 
build on. To misquote Moody:
'Frightened people are so easy to manipulate'

Pip