The permanent problem with Slytherin House

[Mandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 99289

Nora Renka wrote:
<Snipped>
> Plain and simple, this is prejudiced.  I've seen people try to 
argue around the Pureblood thing not being bigoted/discriminatory.  
If anyone here knows a good explication of this position, send it to 
me-every single one I've read has ducked the issue of essentialism.
<snipped> Slytherin House must cease to exist. :)


Mandy here:
Excellent post.  And I want to play devils advocate for a while.

How is prejudice based on blood any worst than prejudice based on 
intelligence or the amount of bravery a child has in him/her?  
Because we can control intelligence and bravery and we can't control 
the type of blood we are born with?  But then one could argue, that 
just as intelligence and bravery can be improved over time with hard 
work and study, making it within the reach of any child who desires 
it, so can pure blood status be reached in time.  It just takes 
longer than one generation to do it.  

What I am trying to say is this:  How does the sorting hat make it's 
choices?  Does it magically measure the amount of 
intelligence/bravery/blood a child has in its body and soul?  And if 
so, is it based on what the child is carrying at birth, at 11 or at 
full maturity?   Because if these children are selected for, let's 
say - Gryffindor, based solely on how much bravery they are born with 
or ever likley to have, then it is absolutely no different than 
selecting a child for Slytherin based on how much blood that child is 
born with or ever likley to have.  It become beyond the child's 
control.

With the exception of Hufflepuff, each house discriminates and is 
prejudice against the others.  It just depends on where your 
tolerance lies as to what is acceptable discrimination.  Is it better 
to segregate based on how brave a child is, rather than how much pure 
blood they have in their veins?  What about those children considered 
not brave or not intelligent? Don't they live with shame and 
ridicule? Surely `You coward' or `you dummy' holds as much weight 
as `you mudblood'?

Or for that matter, if we are to scrap Slytherin why not scrap 
Hogwarts itself. After all the whole school is one big house of 
prejudice.   Not letting in muggle children.  What about those muggle 
kids who want to learn magic?  And before you say if can't be 
learned, it can.  Otherwise why would Filtch bother to send away for 
a magical correspondence course?  A squib had no magical powers 
right?  He must have felt there was hope to even bother.  What about 
those people Jo has mentioned who develop magic later in life?  If we 
are to be so politically correct, let's open Hogwarts to all 
children.  

It is wrong to destroy Slytherin House without destroying the 
others.  Are you not discriminating against the Slytherins and their 
freedon to chose how they live their lives?

Blood is no less of a noble measure then intelligence, bravery or 
hard work.  All have their faults, and all can produce good and 
evil.  And before you can say what good can pureblood produce.  Well, 
look at any of the royal families in existence today.  You may not 
agree with their role in the modern world, but they do provide a 
figurehead for a nation that can produce fierce national pride and 
see a country through hard times. There is a certain pride and 
respect that comes with a family that has survived and been so 
successful for so long.  Their blood is what ties them to their 
ancestors, and places them above all others, to be looked upon with 
pride, honour and deep respect.  Just sharing nationality with that 
family is enough to produce the kind of devotion essential in a 
country striving for greatness. 

Royal families are the result of hundreds of years of bravery, 
intelligence, hard word and pureblooded, elitist breading.  A perfect 
combination of all four of the qualities of the Hogwarts houses.  

I'm not saying Slytherin is right, but it has it's place along side 
Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff.  

Cheers, Mandy