Appropriate terminology

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 89234

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> I would point out (as I have before),
> that the people at the bottom of the heap in the Potterverse are not
> mudbloods - they are muggles; us in other words. It is muggles that
> the purebloods want permission to hunt and kill, to torture and who
> Arthur Weasley patronises.
<snip> 
> So why not complain about the term 'Muggle'? It  would be more
> apposite to do so, don't you think?
> 

Now me:
But Kneasy, it's made clear in the books that *no one* takes offense 
at the word "muggle"--it's intended to be an IDENTIFIER, sort of 
like "human" or "witch".  But "mudblood" in canon is clearly shown to 
be a PEJORATIVE.  Thus, there's no reason to complain about **the 
term** "muggle"; by JKR's design it's not packed w/ connotation.

I would also ask the following: do the Death Eaters not go after 
muggles *selectively*, most likely those who've borne a witch or 
wizard, thereby "tainting" the wizarding world?

Siriusly Snapey Susan