Wizards regarding Muggles (was:Re: TBAY: Kirstini's big Theorising Adventure)

[KathyK]

No: HPFGUIDX 79208

Nicholas wrote:

>>I'm sorry but I don't go along with the moral indignation of the 
posts concerning the WW's poor treatment of Muggles. Sure Muggles 
are treated badly by some wizards but the books don't endorse their 
behaviour. Frank's death in Chapter 1 of GoF was to show us what a 
baddie big V is and that is true of all the Muggle mistreatment in 
the series. The bad guys do the bad things to Muggles, the good guys 
stand for humane treatment of Muggles, like the way Harry and Ron 
leap to Hermione's defence every time she's called a mudblood.<< 

KathyK:

Well, true, the books obviously don't show killing and tormenting 
Muggles as a good thing.  But I am very hesitant to dismiss the idea 
that the WW mistreats muggles.

I'd be curious as to what you think about the Muggle campground 
manager whose memory was constantly being modified in GoF.  Because 
personally, I find the WW's treatment of muggles in this respect to 
be the most offensive.  To rob someone of their own memory is a nasty 
violation.  It may be wizarding law, and it may be for the good of 
the WW, but it doesn't make it right.  

I take this moment to apologize because in this rare moment I don't 
have my books on me, but I will plunge on regardless.  

If I recall, Harry actually does express some sort of concern for the 
campground manager who looks quite unwell after a Ministry official 
modifies his memory.  Mr. Weasley (I think) assures him he need not 
worry as the man will be fine and the dazed effect will wear off.  
And the whole matter in the book was written very lightly.  

That was a case of the WW clearly abusing muggles,IMHO, and it wasn't 
Death Eaters doing it, but everyday wizards just doing their jobs.  
And even muggle-loving Arthur Weasley is not concerned about what is 
going on. 

So in this instance, JKR treats the abuse of muggles very casually, 
as if nothing is wrong with it.  I'm sure others don't see it that 
way, but it has always bothered me.  


>>The books  moral postion on Muggles is set by Dumbledore who IMO 
exemplifies the moral centre of the Potterverse. Dumbledore accepts 
and includes all kinds: free house elves, half-giants, were-wolves, 
Muggles, centaurs and vampires if Snape turns out to be one. He 
lectures Harry about how wizards have done terrible things to 
other 'races' and are now reaping their reward for past unjustice. 
The destruction of the Fountain of Magical Bretheren is symbolic of 
the forces of good ushering in a new order in which all wizard and 
muggle kinds will be accepted.<< 

I see Dumbledore accepting muggle-born witches and wizards.  Where 
does it show that he accepts any muggle into the fold?    In general 
I do agree Dumbledore does set a good example for wizards in his 
acceptance of all magical beings, but I just don't see it extending 
to muggles.  Someone else wrote recently (apologies for not 
remembering who and being in too much of a hurry to look it up) 
regarding Dumbledore's treatment of the Dursleys when he shoved an 
unwanted Harry right onto them.  How much choice did they get in the 
matter?  How is that respecting and accepting muggles.  True, this 
was the special case of Harry Potter, but still.
 

>>Love is what saves Harry and it's what's going to destroy big V. So 
please don't pretend that JKR endorses the poor treatment of 
Muggles. The fun that is poked at them is just that, *fun* and is no 
different to the pokes she takes at wizards (the bureacracy for 
example).<< 
 
Oh, I think she more than pokes at the wizard bureaucracy.  I think 
there she sends a strong message.  

>>Nicholas (hoping he hasn't missed the point here)<<

KathyK (glad to have a little to say)