Appropriate terminology

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 89304

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at s...> 
wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

No one take offence  at the term Muggle?
Hmmm. Now give me a reference where a Muggle has  been called that
to their face, please. Even better, where they understand the implication
of the term and where that places them in relation to wizards.

The Muggles are the 'out' group. The only Muggles to receiving page 
time so far are the Dursleys (cast as foster parents from hell), the 
Grangers (patronised by Arthur), Frank Bryce (zapped by Voldy) and that
poor bloody farmer at the QWC (mind manipulation and torture).

Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with that, I think it's great
fun. But they are "the great unwashed" so far as the WW is concerned;
to be used, abused and dismissed. If I thought the books were to be
taken seriously, I'd be feeling quite miffed and planning a re-enactment
of the Salem pyrotechnics.

As to your second point, I don't think so.  There's no indication that
Mr Roberts (that farmer) has any previous connection with the WW.

Kneasy