Pureblood attitudes and the word "racism" (Was: James the Berk?)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 106662

  Carol:
> I don't want to "attack" anyone's arguments or "bash" any 
characters,
> even those whose actions or values I disapprove of, including James
> and Sirius in the Pensieve scene and Sirius (I'm not sure about 
James)
> in the Prank. What I want to do is *understand* the characters and
> their motives and actions--even Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy and
> Bellatrix, all of whom (unlike the enigmatic Snape) are indisputably
> evil. (Or should I say, there's no canon evidence that they're
> anything but evil in the books so far, presumably by their own 
choice
> and not by nature, given JKR's views on the nature of evil.)
> 
> But at least we both agree that James' and Sirius' actions (as 
opposed
> to James and Sirius themselves--who, like Severus in the same scene,
> are fifteen-year-old boys and should be understood as such) are less
> than admirable. Whew! (Pauses for breath.)


Alla:

We differ significantly. When I read HP books, I have no desire to 
understand the characters I am not emotionally invested in. I mean, 
sure I want to know the ultimate answer to the mystery, if they will 
be involved in it, but no more than that.

I have no strong desire to learn what makes Bellatrix tick. I mean I 
will read about it, sure, but I just don't care much. At the moment, 
I know enough about her to say "Die! Bellatrix, die". 
 I have enough characters in this books, whose motivations I am dying 
to learn about (and yes, Snape is one of them)

Carol:
> So. Civility. Objectivity. Canon. Keeping our own personalities and
> real-world political views and emotional reactions to the characters
> out of the discussion. Exploring possibilities, clearing up
> misunderstandings, *not* "proving" we're right or "attacking" other
> people's arguments. 


Alla: It is obvious, that our posting style is very different. I 
don't ever want to keep emotions out of my arguments and not planning 
on doing so.The only thing I agree with you is that we have to be 
civil to each other.

> Carol responds:
> 
> I understand your position and I probably won't be able to persuade
> you to think otherwise. All I'm asking is for you to look at my
> arguments and consider them objectively. Certainly JKR has some real
> world examples of genocide in mind with relation to VWI and I agree
> that she's connecting the pureblood prejudice in itself with the
> consequences of taking it too far, but that's not what I'm talking
> about here.
> 
> I'm only objecting to the term "racism,"  which I think has been
> applied rather hastily and inaccurately to the pureblood prejudice
> against Muggleborns and particularly to the word "mudblood," which
> some posters appear to be equating with the term "n****r" and other
> equally offensive racial epithets. IMO, the application of an
> emotionally charged term like "racism" to the "purebloods are
> superior" attitude of the Slytherins prevents us from looking at 
them
> objectively and understanding why they think as they do. (I'm not
> saying that we should *agree* with them or that such attitudes, 
taken
> to extremes can't be harmful. Obviously they can be, both in the RW
> and the WW. Nor am I defending the DEs' Mugglebaiting or Tom 
Riddle's
> attacks on Muggleborns in CoS, which are of course reprehensible. 
I'm
> only saying that words like "racism" (which is *not* used within the
> WW itself) push people's buttons and consequently should be avoided 
if
> we want to understand what makes the Slytherin purebloods think,
> speak, and act as they do. Assumptions such as "racism is evil: the
> Slytherins are racist; therefore Slytherin House is evil" are facile
> and counterproductive. We can't impose our own assumptions on them 
no
> matter how right we believe ourselves to be, but if we continue to
> apply the term "racism" to their actions and values, that's exactly
> what we'll do. We'll prejudge them as they prejudge the 
Muggleborns. 
> 
> A question of semantics? Semantics is important. Just ask 
Dumbledore.
> What we're seeing in the WW is prejudice, yes, but it isn't racism
> because it doesn't involve races.
> 
> Racism per se is remarkably absent from the Potterverse. snip.
In fact, we wouldn't even know that Dean
> Thomas, Lee Jordan, and Kingsley Shacklebolt are black if JKR hadn't
> told us. It's a nonissue.
> 
> But we do see what might better be termed "prejudice" among people 
who
> are all of the same race (Harry and Draco, Lily and Snape, Diary!Tom
> and his petrified or murdered victims, the real Tom and his own
> family). How can it possibly be racism if they're all of the same
> race, including the Muggles as well as the Muggleborns? And if it
> isn't based on race, what, exactly, is it based on?



Alla:

Oy, no. I disagree. I see no reason why we should not think about 
racism when we read about "pureblood attitudes", if JRK did not 
specifically said that word.

I gave you example, which resonates the strongest with me, because 
those are my experiences, but I am sure many people think about other 
kind of prejudices and racism is among them , when they read about 
Slytherin's ideologies.

JRK transformed quite a few RL hatreds and prejudices and reflected 
them into "potterverse". Of course it will not be exactly the same as 
RL. Many argue that house-elves enslavement is the closest analogy to 
slavery. I think that JKR actually wanted to show "racism" 
allegorically. Skin colour may be non-issue in WW, but other things 
show the same problem.


I think that "prejudice" is too weak a word for me to use tor eflect 
correctly what Slytherin pure-bloods think about Muggle-borns. 
Although, I guess it does start with prejudice.


There could be a reason of why Slytherin purebloods started to hate 
Muggle-Borns. As del argued , we may even learn that all WW has 
guilty conscience, but right now I DON'T CARE.

This ideology has got to go. Period. No matter why and how it 
started, it has to go.

I argued earlier that I find the condemnation of every eleven year 
old who comes to Slytherin to be very silly, because children cannot 
be evil at eleven.


But, I also think that redemption of the Slyhterin House is only 
possible, when what lies at the heart of their choosing, will 
dissappear. When "blood issue" will be come a "non-issue" and yes, it 
is still an issue now (remember the password to Slytherin Commons)


Carol:

> To return to your argument, Alla, I *don't* think we can separate 
the
> prejudice against Muggles from the prejudice against Muggleborns. 
It's
> the fact that Muggleborns are the children of nonmagical parents 
that
> causes the pureblood antagonism against them in the first place, as
> your quote from Ron indicates.



Alla:

I think we can separate them, because NOBODY seems to dislike Muggle-
Borns except Slyhterins and DE, but everybody, even Arthur has a 
patronising attitude towards Muggles.
 
> > Alla wrote previously: 
> > If we knew that Severus only said this word once in his life 
under 
> > the stress, I would not condemn him, but we KNOW that he acted on 
it 
> > by joining Voldemort, so yes, I 'd say that his actions are 
> > reprehensible.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't think we can compare his angry response at being helped by a
> girl he's been taught to regard as inferior (and may even
> subconsciously resent for not living down to his expectations) to 
his
> later decision to join Voldemort. 


Alla:

Beng saved by a girl? he could pick and throw at her any kind of 
insult, anything. he chose this one. Sorry, it tells me a lot.