James the Berk?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 106137

<snip>
Alla wrote:
Now, if we will learn that pensieve is subjective 
 
Del replied:
We have no proof that a Pensieve memory is objective, but I would be
*thoroughly* disappointed to learn that it isn't, because it would
*undermine* the whole point of the Pensieve IMO. DD explained that he
puts his memories in the Pensieve in order to help himself find
patterns and links he couldn't find otherwise. But if those memories
are flawed because subjective to start with, then how can he expect to
make anything worthwhile out of them ? In my idea, the whole point of
putting them outside of his own head is precisely that it's easier to
observe them rationally this way, with an outsider's view, in other
words : objectively.

Carol adds:
Exactly. I see no evidence whatever for subjectivity in the Pensieve
memories, and, as Del says, no point in studying them if they're not
objective. And again, if the memories were subjective, Harry would be
inside Snape's or Dumbledore's mind, aware of their thoughts, feeling
their feelings, as happens when he's inside the snake, or when he's
aware of Frank Bryce's thoughts and feelings in the first chapter of
GoF. (That one throws me--I can't think of any explanation for how
Harry got there--unless it's the narrator's POV and not Harry's, but I
don't want to go off track here.) 

But, as I've said repeatedly, Harry can move around in thePensieve 
memories--see, hear and feel things that the owner of the memory could
not, but he can't see exactly what that person is seeing or feel what
he's feeling.  IMO, while they're in the person's mind, they're
subjective because of their context--that person's life history,
predispositions, and prejudices (we all have them, even Dumbledore).
Once the memory is removed and placed in the magical context of the
Pensieve, it's expanded to include things that really happened but
that the owner of the memory didn't see or hear--like the Marauders'
conversation while Severus is immersed in the exam questions.

Alla wrote:
If Lily started hexing Snape after that scene, that I would 
understand really well. (No, that was not JUST A NAME, that Snape 
called her. To me, it indicates what kind of views that person holds. 
And, NO, there are some views ,which even though person is allowed to 
have, the person is not allowed to say them to other people, not just 
act on them)
 
Del replied:
In my idea, *saying* the word is already *acting* on the racist
belief. A thought, a belief, a wish, all those are not real actions.
But a word is. A lesser kind of action maybe, but an action
nonetheless.
 
Carol responds:
First, Alla, I think it's wonderful to see you agreeing with Del and
defending the young Snape even though you like Sirius (and James?)
better. Great job, both of you, on this thread.

Now, at the risk of having "Stupefy!" and "Silencio!" hurled at me,
I'm going to propose that perhaps we're making more than we ought to
of "Mudblood" by calling it "racist." What it indicates is not really
quite equivalent to, say, the old U.S. Southern prejudice once held by
many whites against blacks. On one level, it's more like an awareness
of the presence or absence of royal blood; the purebloods see
themselves as a kind of natural aristocracy which shouldn't intermarry
with commoners (Muggleborns, and possibly half-bloods). It's not
really a matter of "race" even though it certainly involves "blood."

On another level, the prejudice isn't against "race" or even "blood";
it's against Muggles, nonmagical people, whom the purebloods in
general and the Slytherins in particular have been taught to view as
inherently inferior, having to resort to "eckeltricity" because they
have no magical ability. It's more akin to the prejudice against
giants (and may have some basis in the treatment of witches and
wizards by Muggles during the Middle Ages, just as the prejudice
against giants has a basis in the giants' propensity to violence
against even their own kind). Even Ron, as far from a Slytherin as you
can find in these books, thinks Muggles are funny and laughs at the
idea of sliding down a snowy hill on pieces of wood (skis).

I think a lot of people on this list are bringing in what amounts to
an alien perspective, that of postmodern Muggles who have been, for
lack of a better word, "indoctrinated" with the idea that
"intolerance" is evil and not to be, erm, tolerated. I don't think any
pureblood wizard would really understand that idea, any more than they
would understand our ideas about what constitutes acceptable
educational practices. (Can anyone imagine a modern school system
tolerating a living Professor Binns?) 

Yes, James sees the word "Mudblood" as an insult to Lily ("mudblood"
equals "dirty blood"), but I don't think he sees it as "racist," any
more than he would regard "bit**" as "sexist," though he presumably
would have been incensed if Severus had used it against Lily. Granted,
James, unlike Severus, doesn't mind the fact that Lily is a
Muggleborn, but if she were a Muggle like her sister Petunia, would he
even be interested in her? It's the fact that she's a powerful witch
(as well as a pretty one) that intrigues him. And I can't imagine
Sirius marrying a Muggle, either, assuming that he'd had the
opportunity to live a normal life. And yet that prejudice against
Muggles (as opposed to Muggleborns) is apparent throughout the WW, and
no one regards "Muggle" as a mortal insult or a racist term. The word
"racist" doesn't even occur in the books. It's imported from our
perspective to their world.

"They're not like us; they're not magical": I think that's the usual
(but obviously not the only) view of Muggles in the WW. And in the
case of certain pureblood families, it's been extended from Muggles to
their Muggleborn children, who are seen as interlopers from a
different and inferior world. It's the view that Severus and Lucius
and Draco were taught from birth, and I'm not sure we can fairly blame
them for holding it. (Draco can be blamed for using it to deliberately
insult Hermione, but Severus is expressing it under extreme
circumstances of stress and humiliation. Sirius under similar
circumstances might use objectionable language, too. And how is the
word any worse than the implications of "scourgify," used to imply
that Severus is dirty?)

Please don't send any viruses to my computer if you disagree with me!
I just think that "racist" is the wrong word in this context and
arouses emotions that really aren't quite appropriate to the
situation. Surely a perspective of intolerance should include
tolerance for values that differ from our own, even when we're
absolutely certain those values are wrong? It's not as if the
Slytherins were in favor of burning the Muggleborn students. It's only
when the prejudice reaches the level of Muggle baiting that we see in
GoF, suggesting something far more sinister while Voldemort was active
during VWI, or Tom Riddle's murderous loosing of the basilisk, that it
passes beyond regrettable and becomes reprehensible.

Carol, hoping for calm and rational responses (or none) :-)