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

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 106753

Alla wrote :
> If I was defending person like Bella in court, I would make sure I 
> would learn all of them, to show the judge and jury how poor Bella 
> was just victim of the circumstances, but I can allow myself a 
> luxury of not doing so with the fictional character

Del replies :
We agree then :-)
I guess the problem that arises too often is that not everyone will
agree on which character they want to understand or not. For example,
I'm having that problem with Percy : the vast majority of people just
plain dislike him and couldn't care less about his inner workings. So
I get kind of ticked off when someone says "Percy is just a stupid
egocentric fool" (I'm not saying that he can't be though. Maybe he is,
but maybe he's not).
And yes, as you can see, I'm being emotional too :-)

Alla wrote :
> Del,  I just meant that my emotions will always be present in my 
> posts.

Del replies :
We all do that I guess. 

Alla wrote : 
> You could be right. I think it is very possible that Rowling will do 
> away all the Houses at the end of the book, or Slytherins will be 
> choosen based on their cunning and ambition, not on whether they 
> are "pure-bloods"

Del replies :
But even cunning and ambition seem to be regarded as negative traits.
All the other Houses favour character traits that are positive without
ambiguity (courage, intelligence, hard work and loyalty), but
Slytherin favours a quality that is most of the time described as
negative : ambition. Just look at how people dislike Percy because
he's ambitious, how they often conclude that's he's going to end up
evil just because of his ambition.

Del