The permanent problem with Slytherin House

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 99371

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" 
<naama_gat at h...> wrote:

> The classic liberal stance is that people should be judged on 
their  *own merit.* In specific contexts, having more of a certain 
trait  (say, intelligence in an academic context) makes you more 
valuable.  Is it unfair to rank people at all? Maybe, but it's a lot 
fairer than  ranking them on a scale that has no real connection 
to the specific  field of endeavor. <

Pippin:

The wizarding world knows *now*  that selective breeding of 
pureblood lines does not produce more powerful or trustworthy 
wizards. But Salazar Slytherin couldn't  know this, nor could he 
know the results of the  twentieth century's drastic and horrifying 
experiments with eugenics. 

It's already clear though, that pureblood endogamy is  non-viable  
in the long run. The attempt will have to be abandoned or 
Slytherin House will disappear anyway. But IMO, it  would be no 
worse  to have a House that honors pureblood traditions than it 
would be to have a House that honors Muggleborns. What was 
and is pernicious is the idea that purebloods should rule the 
others. 

A belief in the rightness of pureblood hegemony, though it is now 
apparently a part of Slytherin culture, is not a selection criterion 
for Slytherin House. It wasn't part of Slytherin's philosophy when 
the Hat was created.  The Hat says it was already in existence 
when strife developed among the founders and each sought to 
rule. Nor does it remark on Harry's politics when it considers 
where to put him.

The identification of pureblood hegemony with Slytherin 
House is  an accretion, which could, in principle, be scraped off 
without reporgamming  the Hat or eliminating the  House.  
Slytherin House  could be restored rather than eliminated.

Pippin