Definitions

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 46927

Janet Anderson wrote:
> I'm not sure this is correct, because Lily's being Muggle-born 
> doesn't seem to make any difference to Harry's social standing even 
> with the Malfoys of this world. His parents were both Wizards; that 
> seems to be that. They may despise his politics, his morals, and his 
> choice in friends, but they don't despise his ancestry, and you know
> that if there were a chance to do so, Malfoy would have done it.

There is a very important difference: Harry is a half-blood, while 
Hermione is mud-blood. Since most of the people in the WW are 
half-bloods (I sugested a few posts back that that meant a muggle 
within the last seven generations, to give a "typical" number, although 
it could be anything between 2 and 20, for all we know), not even the 
pure bloods are so stupid to iniciate a campaign against them. To try 
and understand the warped logic of this racists, look at as if we were 
talking about rich people:

For a long time, "old money" was considered "better" than new money 
(although I've never had enough of either to tell the difference - 
Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms). Those people who had inherited their big 
fortunes from their parents believed themselves "better" than the 
"noveau riches" ("the new rich", in case my French is horrible). Their 
sons where all right, but the originals where considered discusting, 
and their company was undesirable. The same thing happened in the 
Middle ages with nobility: Someone who had just been made noble was not 
very apreciated by his peers, since he came from a lower status and 
thus they had despised him before. But their sons (if born *after* 
their parent had been titled) would normally have easier acces to other 
nobles, especially if they had been educated as nobles themselves.

I hope that helps you to understand what's going on.

> As someone has pointed out, this means that if Hermione (for example) 
> marries Harry and has a child, the child will be a "pure blood," 
> although Hermione will continue to be scorned as a "mudblood." This 
> makes about as much sense as racial prejudice ever does.
> 
> Janet Anderson

Yep, I agree. The idea of "mud-bloods" being inferiors is ridiculous 
and doesn't make sense. It has been devised by people with large egos 
that need to find ways to feel superior to their betters or to those 
they secretly fear. In this case, people with new ideas, instead of the 
"old traditions" of the "pure bloods".

 
Julie wrote:
>>> Could there be other good Parselmouths besides Harry? 

I wrote:
>> There is at least one other: Voldemort, but I don't think that's the
>> answer you were looking for... 

Klei said 
> I think he meant "good" as in not evil.

Oh, sorry for that. I though she meant "good" as in "I'm good at 
English" i.e. that you know the language well enough to hold a 
conversation, instead of just knowing "hello" "goodbye" "the note, 
please" and "where is the bathroom?"

> > ... and at least the mermaids have their own language, ...
> 
> I think they don't have a language, they just sound odd above water.
> 
> Katsmall the Wise

By that reasoning, Americans don't have a language, they just sound 
weird to those who don't speak English. I clasify Mermaid as a language 
because Harry does so: at the end of the second task, Dumbledore speaks 
to the mermaids, and Harry says that "Dumbledore seemed to know 
Mermaid". This is tricky, since, like in any language, you need to 
learn the sounds that make up the words, as well as the meaning of the 
words themselves. Also, we cannot discount that it is an altoghether 
separate langauge and that what came out of the egg was only English 
distortioned so it could only be understood under the water.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf