Grindelwald and evil

Tue Feb 18 09:37:46 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 52420

bboy_mn:

<<Isn't that pretty close to what Hitler, Mussolini, and the Emperor 
of Japan said?  In essense, we are the superior race and the minions 
will bow to us.

<snip>

Dictator's always have benevolent excuses for their brutality, but
that doesn't make it any less brutal. 

If Grindelwald was recognised as a Dark Wizard, then he called on 
Dark Forces in his magic, and he used that magic to do dark things.

So while it was a great little story, and painted Grindelwald in an
/apparent/ benevolent light, he was still just another psychotic Pol 
Pot.

Of course, that's just my opinion.>>

Torsten:

<< <snips stuff about X-Men, since I'm not too familiar with it>

The wrong way? Yes. But also understandable and realistic ... one can 
take only so much negative experiences and desperation before 
stopping being what others might call sensible and good.

Wether something was good or evil depends mostly on who wins and 
writes the history books. Had the fanfic Grindelwald won and had his 
way, he'd be the greatest hero of the WW by now, the saviour who set 
things right and created justice.>>

My opinion:

This is a really difficult and complicated issue, but I tend to agree 
with bboy_mn.

We don't know why Grindelwald was considered evil. But if he really 
was interested in world domination and getting rid of the Muggles 
because they are so annoying and they keep destroying the world and 
killing each other, then no matter how good his intentions are (no 
prejudice against the WW, care for the enviroment, "no more war, no 
more bloodshed", etc), he *is* evil, because he wants to control 
other people and make them do what he wants them to do.

Torsten wrote "one can take only so much negative experiences and 
desperation before stopping being what others might call sensible and 
good."

Do people say the same thing when a man beats up his wife? Or when he 
molests the kids? "yes, what he did was bad, but he had a terrible 
childhood, his parents didn't love him and didn't buy him an electric 
train for Christmas"? I don't think so. Why should people want to 
give that sort of excuse to an Evil Overlord? "Grindelwald really is 
a very bad wizard who is bent on World Domination, but we should 
forgive him because his mum and dad didn't really love him and didn't 
allow him to keep his pet Werewolf, or his favorite flying carpet, 
and never allowed him to play Quidditch."

Like Dumbledore says in CoS, when Harry asks him about the similarity 
between himself and Tom Riddle:  "It is our choices, Harry, that show 
what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

As a far more optimistic example: look at all those people that lack 
one or more limbs, yet they still manage to get gold medals at the 
Olympics. They could easily stay at home, and do "easy" work, or 
receive Social Security money, yet they don't.

It seems to me that the fact that, for example, James and Lily 
couldn't possibly be killed in a car accident, could be extended and 
made a rule that Wizards don't get easily killed by Muggle methods. 
Like when Neville was thrown out of the window by his uncle (I'm 
sorry if I get the details wrong), and all he did was bounce off the 
floor.

~~~~~~~~

Ffred:

<<Well, of course, we have no evidence of anything about him other 
than his name, the date that Dumbledore bested him, and the fact that 
he was a black-robe. I don't think I see him as a hero - I'm sure 
that Dumbledore would have responded from the standpoint of 
_compassion_ in my little excursus. But I keep coming back to the 
question of why dark wizards recur, and what attracts followers to 
them.>>

My opinion:

It's part of humanity, all that stuff about yin and yang, good and 
bad, black and white. They all contrast, and one couldn't exist 
without the other.

If a person learns some martial arts, doesn't mean that he wants to 
be able to severely hurt other people in the skill of his choice, 
does it? It just means that its something that interests him.

There's a difference between `dark wizards' and `evil wizards'.

~~~~~~~~

Ffred:

<< <snipping WW political views>

Incidentally, I still come back to the question of exactly what 
Voldemort's pitch was, to attract so many supporters. Surely someone 
as sophisticated as Lucius Malfoy would not have been convinced just 
by "I'm the dark guy, I hate my parents, it's really unfair!" (which 
I know makes Tom Riddle sound like Kevin the Teenager...)>>

My opinion:

Why wouldn't he?

I don't think that Voldemort would go about ranting endlessly about 
his evil Muggle dad. He would, however, go about ranting about how 
Muggles and Mudbloods are infesting the world and how the WW isn't 
what it used to be, and how those wizards (or witches) that get 
involved with Muggles are really mixing with "riff-raff", or, if they 
are muggleborn themselves, then they *are* riff-raff, and how much 
better pure-blooded wizards are so much better than Muggles and 
Muggleborns. Someone like Lucius Malfoy, who is probably from a pure-
blooded family (and if he had an accountant in the family, then 
that "embarassment" would probably be kept very hushed-up, or said 
cousin (or brother, whatever) would be killed or memory-charmed to 
make him forget about the WW), would be easily convinced of those 
views, that Wizards are superior to Muggles (if he didn't think that 
already).

Crunchy Chocolate Frog (with a card of Wendelin the Weird)