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

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 106282


> Del wrote:
> >>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. [snip]
> 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 ?<<
> 
> HunterGreen:
 <snip> Sort of like remedial children in regular school, and the 
whole class having to go slow to teach two or three kids. Of course 
in the present of the school, this doesn't make much difference, but 
when you think of the sense of when the school was just starting, 
imagine the annoyance of Slytherin when he thought of having to 
pause to explain what basic magic things are.
> 
> Not only that, but there's a second half of it, meaning their 
> constant ties to the muggle world. Meaning they are more likely to 
> marry a muggle, and more likely to be involved in muggle customs 
> (rather embarassing for the well-to-do wizards who detest 
muggles), and more likely to spend time with muggles. And then if 
they have kids, it gets even more complicated, Harry is a good 
example of this. Had Lily been a pure or mixed blood, when she died 
and Harry went to her family they would have been wizards. Harry, 
even though he's far from a muggle-born, represents the problem that 
can arise from muggle-borns. He knows *nothing* about the WW when 
he's told he's a wizard,  and goes to school relatively clueless, 
causing Ron and Hermione to have to answer questions for him on many 
of the books.
> 
> 
> Del also said:
> >>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.<<
> 
> HunterGreen:
> Yes, I think you have a point there. Everyone is expected to 
quietly ignore the fact that muggleborns, are indeed muggleborns. 
Like I said in another post, I think Snape used the term in the 
pensieve scene not like the way that Malfoy uses it with Hermione 
(as just an insult, just for the sake of insulting her), but because 
he was specifically angry and insulted and frustrated with her. He 
was embarassed. If you look at her reaction, I think she was in some 
> understanding of that, which is what she reacted to. She wasn't 
mad that he used a "racial slur" against her, but because of his 
clear lack of gratitude for her standing up for him. 
> 


Valky:
Great Posts to both of you!
I entirely see this analogy as fitting. Particularly in the pensive 
scene. Imagine a young wizard famous for being above his peers in 
his knowledge needing aid from someone who couldn't possibly be as 
able as him, she has a *disability*.
And it fits with Hagrids note in COS that Hermione is a very able 
witch so calling her a mudblood is an oxymoron.  Entirely too 
abled : disabled...hmmmm.
I reckon that this analogy is *so* backed up in canon we should 
probably HPLexicon it.

Best to you all.