Slytherin Stereotypes WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's awarding ...

[darrin_burnett]

No: HPFGUIDX 57421

Tom: 

> Tom (I) wrote earlier:
> Granted, this isn't a rule, 
> but it's generally how they 
> behave. They're nice kids, 
> but they can be just as rude 
> and mean as the Slytherins 
> we see in canon.

 
> Darrin (me? I? myself?) replied:

> I think the Slyths outdo them. 
> When has a member of the Trio 
> openly called for genocide, 
> for instance? Or how about 
> beating up and stealing from 
> a weaker kid? (Leg-Locker and 
> Remembrall on Neville.) Or 
> participate in a potentially 
> fatal prank during a Quidditch 
> match?
> 
> Tom responds:
> Yeah, now we're talking! The Slytherins, I agree, *outdo* the 
> Gryffindors when it comes to clever insults, pranks, and general 
> antagonism. But by saying that the Slytherins outdo the 
Gryffindors, 
> there's a tacit acceptance of the fact that the Gryffindor's aren't 
> virginally white here, either. 
> 

Now me:

Never said there Gryffs were saints, but the quote was "The Gryffs 
can be just as mean and rude as the Slyths," which I took exception 
to. 


> I don't see the trio calling for genocide, but I see Harry and Ron 
> and just about everyone else complacently accept house-elf slavery.
> I see Ron buy into bigotry over the giants and werewolves fairly 
> easily. 

Ah, but who is the ONE person who stands against House-Elf Slavery? A 
Gryffindor, Hermione. And, if we are to believe that Dumbledore was a 
Gryffindor, which hasn't been confirmed, but certainly is the logical 
house, then it's D-Dore who sets what is probably a precedent in the 
Wizarding World by paying a House-Elf.

As for Ron, his bigotry has always made me uncomfortable, but then I 
also realize that he has gotten past it. By the end of PoA and GoF, 
he certainly does not feel the same way about werewolves and giants 
that he did at the beginning of those books.

> I don't see the trio bullying others, but I saw Hermione freeze up 
> Neville in PS/SS when he tried to stop them from breaking *more* 
> rules, and I saw Ron trash-talking Neville for absolutely no reason 
> in GoF. 

What was the GoF trash-talking? I don't recall that. As for Hermione 
freezing up Neville, yeah, that was a bit extreme. Of course, they 
COULD have spent the four hours it would have taken to explain, or 
dragged him with them. That would have been productive. But yeah, 
point taken.
 
> As for pranks, well no dementor imitations, for sure, but I saw 
> Harry toss a firecracker into a cauldron full of Swelling Solution, 
> thereby splashing the entire class. I saw Harry and Ron first drug, 
> and then imitate Crabbe and Goyle, and then sneak into the 
Slytherin  common room, which is a major violation. Don't want to 
beat a dead horse here, but what do you think Harry would do if he 
found out  that Draco had figured out how to get into Gryffindor 
Tower? He'd be *livid.* I saw Harry take full advantage of his 
Invisibility cloak while he was at illegally at Hogsmeade to sling 
mud at Draco 'n friends in front of the Shrieking Shack. 
> 


Let's remove the slinging mud incident for a moment. I'll concede 
that was a stupid, mean thing to do. And Harry paid for it, by the 
way. Had he not done that, he probably would have made it back to 
school without getting caught. Sticking around to pester Malfoy was 
what got him caught.

The other stuff, however, was all in CoS and all part of a larger 
plan. They wanted to find out who the Heir of Slytherin was, and 
suspected Draco.

It has been said that it is wrong for the Trio to reflexively suspect 
Draco, but I pointed out that Draco, with his "you'll be next 
mudbloods," brought it on himself. Remember, one of the Trio IS a 
Muggle-born, and likely to be the next victim -- she's also the 
ringleader in this little stunt.

> And I understand why they did these things, too. 
 But just because I know why they did these things doesn't get them 
> off the hook - they still did them, and they were still wrongful 
> actions. Morality is not an arbitrary, 'it works this way for you 
> and this different way for me' kind-of thing, and that's how you're 
> applying it to this situation. You're saying that Gryffindors do 
bad  stuff, but it's okay because they have good intentions and the 
> author paints them fondly. And that Slytherins do bad stuff, but 
> it's not okay because they don't and the author paints them 
> negatively. 
> 
> That's not how morality works. Morality is supposed to be a rigid 
> system, which applies equally across the board. So, Gryffindor 
isn't perfect. I like them - they're alright kids, and darned funny. 
But they aren't beyond reproach.
> 
> 

This is where we fundamentally disagree, and may just have to agree 
to do so. 

I believe intentions have everything to do with actions and the legal 
system does allow aggravating and mitigating factors. 

Simply put, I believe breaking the rules to try to catch the Heir of 
Slytherin IS more morally justifiable than breaking the rules to try 
to help the Heir of Slytherin.

Likewise with trying to protect the Philospher's Stone and with 
trying to help Sirius and Buckbeak.

In all three cases, they are rewarded with points -- Dumbledore even 
says in CoS that he has to eat his words about them being on double-
secret probation after the car flying incident -- and in PoA, do it 
with Dumbledore's sanction.

Again, this doesn't excuse some of the things the Trio (and the rest 
of the Gryffs) do, but when you take away the rules they break in the 
process of the big resolution scenes at the end of all three of the 
first books, you're left with actions that the Gryffs, for the most 
part, are punished severely for.

Tom: 
> 
> Furthermore, since we do not see enough of the Slytherins in canon, 
> other than their antagonism with the trio, I don't think that it's 
a  tenable position to take, arguing that *no* Slytherin is decent. 
You> want to say something a little less extreme, like, "most of them 
> appear to be pretty mean" or something, then okay. But the 
> always/never/all-or-nothing arguments rarely work in the real 
world,and they won't work here in the fictional one either.
>  

But again... we're still dealing with what is in canon. I agree that 
canon will be limited -- after all, the name of the series is Harry 
Potter, not Draco Malfoy -- but I look at canon and don't see a Slyth 
worthy of admiration.

I HAVE been lax on defining what I am looking for, and you were right 
to call me on that. And frankly, maybe I'm expecting too much, but 
here goes.

The doctrine of Slytherin is a doctrine of hate. Their founder left 
Hogwarts over a disagreement that basically boiled down to whether 
Hogwarts should be segregated.

He left. Fair enough. Didn't like the way it was being run and took 
off. But then he left behind a Muggle-killing monster, with the idea 
that one of his descendants (or ancestors) would open the chamber and 
set it loose? Gahhh.

The very nature of Slytherin is exclusionary, and, in terms of the 
wizard world, racist. The reaction to the word "mudblood" is similar 
to how our world reacts to other racial slurs. 

The only non pureblood we know of in Slytherin is Tom Riddle himself, 
and that is certainly outweighed by a) he's a direct 
descendant/ancestor of Slytherin himself and b) he has completely 
renounced everything Muggle.

Their very PASSWORD - pureblood - speaks to this.

So, what do I want? I want a Slytherin to renounce this garbage. That 
simple. Until that happens, they are tainted with what I consider 
racism, genocide and inflated superiority that I find disgusting.

Decent was the wrong word. I'm sorry I let it go this long.

> As for Slytherin compassion and decency, we have Snape. You don't 
> want to count him.

Snape may very well be what I'm looking for, but we don't know why he 
turned. I'd love it if we find out he's not pureblood, or he rebelled 
against an order he was given.

But - and I concede this may be a cover - his browbeating of 
Hermione, giving red meat to Draco and the "Muggle-borns suck" crowd, 
really tork me off every time.

>We have the the Slytherins standing at the  mention of Cedric's name 
at the end of GoF. You don't want to count  that.

Again, I keep coming back to them standing before they found he was 
murdered by V-Mort. But, OK, they stood. I concede that point.

 I've given you Pansy's concern for Draco, and you accepted it, 
> but then said that because Draco and the others milked it for what 
> it was worth, Pansy's concern didn't count anymore. I've given you 
> the Slytherin group's evident concern for Draco at dinner, and you 
> don't want to count that either because they were 'cooking up' 
their  own version of the story.
> 
> My point on that last one was twofold: one, that there were so 
> *many* Slytherins involved, which indicates that the group cares 
for > Draco. It wasn't just Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy. It was a group. 
Two, that 'cooking up' a version isn't really a damnable thing to do, 
> unless you want to slam-dunk the trio for their chronic lies and 
> deceit as well. Which I don't, and I don't think that Slytherin 
> deserves it for doing what Gryffindor does all the time.

Again, we're back to motives here, which we fundamentally disagree 
on. The Trio has never, despite all their hatred for Snape, cooked up 
lies to try to get him fired. They broke rules to try to catch him 
stealing the stone, when they thought it was him, but getting him 
fired was hardly their first goal.

The actual huddling together indicates camraderie. Perhaps that is 
the better word and camraderie IS a good trait.

But again, when it is employed in evil service, I do count it for 
less. Ditto for bravery and loyalty. Erwin Rommel was on of the most 
brilliant tank strategists the world has ever seen, but he was, first 
and foremost, a Nazi, helping spread hate to North Africa. 

> Or, are you trying to argue, as you allude at the end of your post, 
> that because "Good is good and bad is bad. Not everything has to be 
> grey," that therefore Gryffindor is Good and Slytherin is Bad? If 
> that's the case, then I can't agree, because I think that's an 
> overly simplistic view of things. IMHO, this is one of those cases 
> where the Slytherin students definitely fall into a grey area - 
> they're not out and out evil, and they're not sweet and perfectly 
> moral.
> 
> And my point is that the yes, Slytherins are not perfectly moral, 
> but neither are the Gryffindors or anyone else.


I don't see the Slyths falling into too many gray areas. The Gryffs, 
are perhaps less moral than given credit for, but I still, on the 
whole, don't see where the Slyths are MORE moral than given credit 
for.

What am I trying to do? As I said earlier, I'm trying to keep this 
notion of "Gryffs and Slyths do the same thing" in perspective, 
because again, for me, the overarching characteristic of the 
Slytherins is the Pureblood Doctrine. And that is much worse than the 
other houses.

Darrin
-- Agree to Disagree. Not a bad band name. Probably all kinds of 
silly power ballads though.