Snape, Hagrid and Animals

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 143800

a_svirn:

*Oaf* means *simple* and *clumsy*, and that's what Hagrid is. 
However, *oaf* is also a derogatory appelation. A difference rather 
like between *afro-American* and *nigger*. You can say for 
instance "Our new football coach is afro-American". Or you can
say "Our new football coach is a nigger". Both statements may be 
true, but one of them is also an insult.

Leslie:

Faulty analogy.  First of all, calling someone "simple" or "clumsy" 
is also derogatory, when speaking of a teacher anyway.  Would it 
have been any different if Draco had said "I'm going to see to it 
that my dad gets rid of that simple, clumsy Professor"?  

Secondly, the word "nigger," at least when used by whites to refer 
to blacks, has absolutely no other use than pejorative.  And I 
rather take umbrage at your assertion that the statement "our new 
football coach is a nigger" could be, as you suggest, "true" (though 
an insult).   

The word most like "nigger" in the wizarding world is not oaf, 
but "mudblood."  And Lily and Hermione are NOT "mudbloods," any more 
than African-Americans are "niggers", if you get my drift.   

In other words, if someone asked me if our new coach was a "nigger," 
I would think the only response to that question would be a 
resounding, disgusted "no!" even if the new coach was Samuel L. 
Jackson.  

va32h:

Are we supposed to hate Hagrid, and not care what happens to him, 
because he's a bad teacher?

Leslie:

No one ever ever suggested that.  I myself really like Hagrid.  I 
like him a lot.  But he's not suited to teach at Hogwarts, on about 
eleven different levels.  And truthfully, since Hagrid values very 
dangerous animals more even than he does people (or at least his 
affection blinds him to their danger to people), I would not want my 
kid to foster a relationship with him, any more than I would want my 
kid to foster a relationship with the extremely nice guy up the road 
who has a lovely gun collection and breeds fighting dogs.    
 
va32h:

Is Draco's injury supposed to make him more sympathetic? (if so, the 
author failed on both counts, as I neither dislike Hagrid more nor 
like Draco more after the Buckbeak incident). 

Leslie:

I don't like Draco more.  I don't dislike Hagrid less.  Draco is 
Draco.  Hagrid is Hagrid.  What I question is Dumbledore's judgement 
in letting Hagrid teach the course, and I would say that Hagrid is 
ill-equipped to serve as an instructor.  

va32h:

I don't necessarily agree that Hagrid is a terrible teacher, but 
even if he is --- what of it? That's the way the book was written, 
we can't go back and change it. 

Leslie:

It's not a matter of going back and changing it.  Rowling puts it 
there for a reason.  And it's not "wrong" that it's there.  I think 
it's great that it's there.  

But I'm in favor of keeping things in perspective.  A huge amount of 
scorn gets heaped on Snape, and everyone claims he's "abusive." He 
does certainly hate Harry.  But he has, as has been pointed out more 
ably by others, a teacher who commands and receives excellent 
results from his students, who monitors them every step of the way, 
and who keeps them coming back even when they don't have to take his 
class anymore.

Hagrid does none of those things.  The "what of it?" that you bring 
up is really a great question.  The "what of it?" for me is that 
discussing the difference between Hagrid and Snape allows us to see 
how often the person who seems the nastiest in terms of their 
demeanor is the one who actually DOES the most good.  Hagrid nearly 
gets Harry (and other students) killed.  Snape saves Harry.  And 
Snape teaches him in ways that Hagrid is completely incapable.

Leslie 
(who loves these kinds of arguments, and who firmly believes that 
Snape is Dumbledore's man because it would be too easy and offer no 
lesson if he weren't)