Neo-racism in the WW (was; Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin)

[jodel at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 51398

Pippin suggests;

>>It could be that Riddle, with his "intimate friends" was responsible for 
re-introducing anti-Muggle prejudice into Slytherin House.<<

This is certainly the model for the reading I have come round to. Because the 
whole general "flavor" of the bigotry which we are seeing in the current day 
Slytherins is excessive to what it would be if it were a long-established 
viewpoint. The kind of bigotry you get after an uninterupted 1000 years is 
the sort of unthinking acceptance that Ron shows over the enslavement of the 
House Elves. Totally unfair, but also totally accepted and *never* examined. 
I'm sure the Slyths can give you detailed, "proven" evidence for all the 
reasons one should despise "mudbloods".

I posted my interpretation of the kind of faction that enlisted Tom Riddle as 
a poster child of the "Ancient linage" hard-liners earlier this week. I've 
since given the matter a little more thought. I suspect that they were 
prepared to use his halfblood status as a selling point to make their message 
more palatable to the WW in general. I now think that Grindlewald's geezers 
were a political faction which had intended a fully legitimate *political* 
takeover (well, it would have been dirty politics, but it could have been 
made to *look* legitimate) of the MoM and its policies. With them as, they 
believed, his "handlers". (More fools they.) In the end, it was their private 
lives, in which they tended to regard the regulations that governed the use 
of Dark magic as pretaining to everybody else, which brought their leaders 
down in a storm of tabloid noteriety, after which they sunk without a trace. 
Grindlewald is only a name on a chocolate frog card today. If their plans had 
come to fruition, there would have been no Voldemort, and Tom Riddle would 
now be Minister of Magic, actively and effectively furthering the aims and 
consolidating the advantages of Malfoy and his ilk. 

Unfortunately, their poster child was more intelligent, and less grateful 
than they gave him credit for and at some point he saw through their 
intentions. It must have been a profound disillusionment. His utter contempt 
toward wizards is just as clear to the reader as his resentment of Muggles. 
Young Tom decided that he did not choose to have his talents exploited for 
the sake of a lot of has-been loosers. No, *he* would use *them*. He did not 
pass the information of the Chamber and its monster on to his mentor. And at 
the earliest convenience, he shed the lot of them and their plans for him 
with a simple public act of private murder, thereby killing four birds with 
three AKs. (Before the geezers had their wits about them to figure out what 
had just been set in motion, he had gotten one of them to arrange for his 
dissapearance, and probably obliviated the old coot.) 

But he knew their party line backwards and forward and could quote it chapter 
and verse. And when he decided it was time to make his move towards setting 
up his own rule, he was able to reel them and their decendents back in terms 
they certainly could, but probably would not refuse. He has no intentions of 
fulfilling his promises to them. When they have served his purposes, he will 
slaughter them like sheep. (Side note: I find myself wondering if the elderly 
Nott is one of the last of the original geezers who had taken him in -- and 
vice versa -- when he was a boy at Hogwarts?)

The sort of bigoted mindset against Muggle-borns that we are seeing in canon 
is so closely parallel to the kind of racism we've seen in this countrty 
*since* the Reconstruction that it is difficult *not* to regard it as having 
much the same source -- the bitter anger and resentment of the *losing* side 
in a major conflict who have solidified and focused their views of everything 
that is wrong with the world on a single issue. This kind of focus doesn't 
last over a thousand years. It is clearly a more recent inrtoduction which 
has latched onto some [perhaps spuriously] similar historical detail *as a 
justification*.

I do not know whether Rowling had any specific example in mind when she built 
her anti-Muggle biases and assigned them to the fanatic pureblood faction, 
and there is no question that the Eurpoean models were a lot closer to her 
own vantage point. But it is the American model which it appears to conform 
most closely to. And her Death Eaters resemble the Nazi party a damn sight 
less closely than they do the Klan.

And the pro-Muggle faction look a lot like the bleeding heart faction 
vis-a-vis the racial issues. Complete with the patronizing "aren't they 
clever, bless them!" attitude. 

And this didn't happen by accident. The glimpses we've gotten of the textbook 
version of wizarding history with it's oficial view that "we hid ourselves to 
avoid being exploited" is specifically geared to teach young wizards that the 
"big bad Muggle" can't possibly pose any kind of threat to *him*. I get the 
distinct impression that at the time seclusion was imposed, the average 
wizarding view of Muggles was probably a lot closer to Ron's attitudes 
concerning Giants.

In short, I believe that *neither* of the polarized oppinions concerning the 
proper treatment of Muggles, or by extention Muggle-born magicals is a 
traditional view, but instead are two opposing reactions to the necessity of 
having to loosen up the terms of their seclusion, in fairly recent history, 
in order to survive as a culture.

Because if they don't, their numbers will fall to the point that the Goblins 
will easily overthrow them.

Forgot about the Goblins, didn't you?

Big mistake.

-JOdel (the Goble-ins will "gitchya" Ef y' Don't Watch Out!)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]