"M**blood" and handicap (was Re: James the Berk?)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 106189


Carol wrote :
> 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.

Del replies :
This is something that has been bothering me for a while : the WW
attitude towards the Muggles. But I think the very best analogy in
this case is not race, but handicap.

The wizards (*all* of them) see the Muggles as handicapped, because
they don't have magic.

Well, technically there are kind of right. What I mind though, is that
they seem to consider that because they are handicapped, the Muggles
can't bring any worthwhile contribution to the world. They completely
dismiss all of the Muggles' accomplishments as just a way to cope with
their handicap. Electricity, for example. Even Arthur, the most
Muggle-loving wizard we know, can't even pronounce it correctly.
Granted, electricity doesn't work where there's magic. But that
doesn't mean that it should be considered as nothing. I mean, I don't
read Braille, I couldn't read a book in Braille if my life depended on
it, but I do acknowledge its ingeniosity and usefulness.

Seen in that light, it's more easily understandable why some
pure-bloods are against the Muggle-borns : because they bring a
*disability* into the WW. Both their parents are disabled,
handicapped, and it's just a lucky chance that they are not too. But
who knows what it's going to do in the future ? Maybe their kids or
grandkids will be disabled too ?  

After all, even in our more tolerant world, handicapped people and
their children still suffer from a very real stigma. It's getting more
and more okay to marry someone with a different skin colour, but
marrying a "short person" ? Someone blind ? Someone with no arms ? How
many times do those people who do marry handicapped people will have
to hear the same remarks and questions again and again :
"the two of you are so different, it's never going to work"
"you live in two different worlds"
"how do you manage ?"
And worst of all :
"Are you sure your kids won't have it ?"
and
"do you realise the burden it is going to be for your kids ?"
Tolerance, indeed.

In the light of that analogy, I think the problem with the word
"Mudblood" is not so much that it is an insult, but that it is
acknowledging a truth that nobody else wants to hear. Basically, when
Draco calls Hermione a Mudblood, he mocks her parents for being
disabled. And if everyone reacts so strongly, it's not because they
disagree with the statement (they *all* agree on that fact) but
because they've been taught that it's rude to remind those poor
Muggle-born kids that their parents are disabled. It's just like when
Draco tells the Weasley kids that their mother could afford to lose
some weight : it's true, but nice people don't say it. Only people who
want to hurt and insult you will point that out.

I know I was always a bit surprised by the strength of the reaction
the word created. To me, that smelled of guilty conscience. I mean,
even if someone insulted my friend on the basis that he's Black or
Jew, I wouldn't react so strongly, even if they used an insulting
word. I'd say "Yes he's Black, or Jew, and so what ??". But *nobody*
reacts that way in the WW. And it makes sense : it's because they
*all* have guilty conscience. They *all* believe that indeed Muggles
are disabled, and thus inferior and useless, but they won't let anyone
dare saying it out loud.

Del