Democracy and Prejudice in the WW (WAS: Why do 'purebloods' hate Muggles?)

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50572


ON DEMOCRACY:

Has anyone noticed that the WW is for the most part oligarchic?  
Canon seems to support the notion that a small group of elites rules 
the wizarding world.

Consider: The Ministry of Magic. From what we know, the MoM is the 
sole arbiter and source of ALL policies in the British WW. I mean, 
we've never heard of any kind of referendum to "the people" in order 
to determine any kind of policy. I don't have GoF handy, but 
somewhere in there, I seem to recall a mention of Fudge 
being "appointed" to the post of Minister of Magic as an alternative 
to Barty Crouch, Sr., who, I believe, was tarnished politically by 
the involvement of his son with the Death Eaters.

So, anyways, if people are "appointed" to these posts, who exactly 
does the appointing? Is there ever, ever, a mention in canon of 
wizarding elections? Not that I can recall. 

Is the WW so far behind the muggle world that they actually have no 
democracy?

Consider the way student positions are handled at Hogwarts: Prefects 
and the Head Boy/Head Girl would also seem to be appointed by someone
(s). Who, exactly, appoints these positions? I bet we'll find out 
more about that in subsequent books, especially if Hermione (as 
everyone seems to expect) becomes a Prefect.  

But doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there aren't (so far) any 
mentions of ELECTED student posts? Certainly if the positions of 
Prefect/Head Boy/Head Girl were elected, then we'd have very 
different results. Percy certainly didn't seem to be too popular, so 
I'd wager that he wouldn't be elected. And neither is Hermione, so 
ditto for her. Cedric, however, seemed to be quite popular within his 
house, so he probably would have been elected anyways.


ON PREJUDICE:

Now, as relates to democracy, the one theme I'm MOST interested in 
watching JKR develop is the tendency of the WW to have the 
same "sorts" of prejudices that we have, without them being 
identical. For all of their learning and enlightenment, the denizens 
of the WW don't seem to be any more advanced than we are when it 
comes to bias. Sure, I will give credit where credit is due and 
concede that "race," or perhaps better referred to as "skin color" 
doesn't seem to be a major issue.  

That aside, consider:
- the ongoing enslavement of the disenfranchised house elves. 
- the expulsion and mistrust of the giants. 
- the "goblin rebellions." What were they rebelling against?
- the hatred of mudbloods by many pure-bloods.
- the WW policies regarding muggles, especially the erasing of 
memories (obliviation.) 

Cthonia says, in post # <a 
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/47254">47254
</a>:

 "At the end of GoF it's stated that Weasley hasn't been promoted up 
the Ministry because he's too sympathetic to Muggles, which rather 
implies that actual Muggles wouldn't stand a chance. We aren't 
dealing with a democracy or a meritocracy here – the powerful seem 
pretty adept at protecting their interests. And the Malfoys aren't 
doing too badly, are they?"

And that's a completely accurate assessment, as far as I can see.  
The purebloods have protected their interests fairly effectively.  
And (Voldemort aside) aren't most ofthe Death Eaters from pureblood 
families?

In fact, in some ways, aren't the Death Eaters the WW equivalent to 
the KKK?  They run around in secret attacking those who 
are "different" on the basis of quantifiable characteristics, like 
lineage?  Oh, and whether or not they pose a threat to the status quo.

Cthonia says again, in the same post:  "In this world, Nature wins 
out over nurture (Harry being an extreme case in point); even 
assuming there is a family tradition of belonging to a house, such a 
degree of consistency is remarkable."

And this is entirely true, as far as the Potterverse is concerned.  
Harry is the PERFECT case in point, but the Weasleys, the Malfoys... 
they supplement the case nicely.

There's a great quote at from Dumbledore in CoS: "It is our choices, 
Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."  
(CoS 333) There's another from Dumbledore at the end of GoF (when 
he's arguing with Fudge about contacting the giants) that I can't 
find and won't attempt to paraphrase, but it's to the same effect.

Cthonia says (again, same post): "Is JKR trying to make the point 
that prejudice is stupid and wrong so clearly that she's glossing 
over the ugly and real reasons for such behaviours taking root?"

In a sense, I think yes.  In another, no. She clearly is addressing 
the issue. Dumbledore and Arthur Weasley seem to be bastions of 
tolerance and, in some ways, attempt to be catalysts for change. 
Dumbledore advocates contacting giants, and employs one, as he also 
employed a werewolf.  A.Weasley's Muggle Protection Act is something 
that, I think, we're going to learn more about.

Has anyone ever read the Darksword Trilogy? That saga (while not 
nearly as comprehensive, nor as interesting as the HP series) takes 
place in a magical world called Thimhallan, which is similar to the 
Potterverse in the sense that it is a relatively isolated non-magical 
world. It's isolated to the extent that they (magic-users) keep 
themselves separate from non-magic users, whom they hate and 
mistrust. At the end of that series, Thimhallan is destroyed and the 
magic contained within it is released to the whole universe. 

Why? The authors seem to propose that it is ultimately wrong for the 
magic to be greedily horaded by the few, and that it would definitely 
be in the interests of *all* society if those few who do possess the 
magic would work hand-in-hand with the non-magic-users for the 
betterment of all.

Does anyone think that JKR could be going this way?

As one final thing to consider, on the Scholastic site, there are a 
few interviews with JKR. Here is one of the Q/A's that made me stop 
and think about all this: 

"Q: If there were one thing you could change about the world, what 
would it be? 

A: I would make each and every one of us much more tolerant."

Hmmm.

-Tom