Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 143971

> > Jen:
> 
>  There's no way around the fact all the Founders except 
> > Hufflepuff were discriminatory about who should go into their 
> > houses, based on what they believed to be most important. All were 
> > elitist whether it was the 'pure ancestry' of Slytherin, the 
> > intelligence of Ravenclaw or the brave deeds of Gryffindor.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sorry, Jen there IS a way around of that to me. :-) All founders 
> discriminated, sure, BUT none of them except Slytherin discriminated 
> based on something you cannot change, IMO. You CAN work on your 
> courage, you probably cannot work on your  IQ, but hard work can get 
> even not very "naturally talented" student very very far.

Christina:

First of all, just because Slytherin himself was prejudiced, does not
mean that everybody that is in his house is as well.  If a racist
starts a University, does that mean that every single student accepted
into the school (even *hundreds* of years later) is a racist?  Of
course not!  We know about a lot of people who were Nazis in Germany
in the 1940's; does this mean every German person at that time period
was a Nazi?  Of course not!  Rash generalizations are unfair and
inaccurate, and are the basis of pureblood ideology in the first
place, the very thing we are condemning!

We know that the entire house of Slytherin is not filled with
purebloods.  At least two half-bloods that we know of, Snape and Tom
Riddle, were also sorted into the house.  Also, there's no strong
argument that everybody in Slytherin is prejudiced, either.  People
disagree on whether the Sorting Hat was really going to put Harry in
Slytherin, or if it only brought up the subject because Harry did
first.  With the emphasis that JKR (and DD) places on choice, I think
that the former is the case; either way, the Sorting Hat talks about
Slytherin as a *real possibility* for Harry (ending his sentence
"well, if you're sure...better be GRYFFINDOR").  Harry, who is neither
pureblooded, nor prejudiced (and at that point had already shown his
distaste for Malfoy, the pureblood darling), could have been put into
Slytherin house.  The Sorting Hat stands by it's reasoning, telling
Harry in CoS that it maintains that Harry would have done well in
Slytherin, despite clearly lacking the two traits you specifically
state are pretty much requirements for membership in the Slytherin club.

So wait- if the Sorting Hat doesn't put people into Slytherin based on
being pureblood or prejudiced, what does it use?  The Sorting Hat
tells us straight out what the so-called "Slytherin traits" are --
*cunning* and *ambition*.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problem with these traits.

I also find it a *very* dangerous thought to be automatically equating
"Slytherin" with "bad."  The HP books practically scream, "Do not
discriminate against people.  It is bad.  Do not do it," and yet
people openly bash Slytherin house on the whole for being evil.

 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes, yes, of course we do see through the eyes of DE children, 
> but don't you find it telling, Jen that with only ONE book left for 
> all the talk about "good" Slytherin student before HBP, we actually 
> STILL see none of them.

Christina:

No, I don't think that's odd.  How many Slytherin students do we know
(as in, know well enough to know anything at all about their stances
on blood)?  We know Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Blaise, and I think
we've been introduced to Nott as well.  In other words, basically
Draco and his *friends*, who of course are going to share his
ideologies, just as Harry's friends possess similar ideologies to his
own.  Assuming that there are at least 10 children per house per year,
there are something like 64 Slytherins we don't know at all.  JKR has
said herself that not all Slytherins are bad.  Can't we at least
believe the source herself?  Imagine what our perceptions would be
like if we judged Ravenclaw house based solely on the people we know
from it--we'd imagine the whole house as full of human hosepipes and
barmy dreamers.

As an aside, if Regulus turns out to be RAB, he would be an excellent
example of a good Slytherin.  I also think that Andromeda was in
Slytherin as well, but that's just speculation.  I know that some
people think that Slughorn is ESE, but he certainly doesn't seem to
buy into the pureblood ideology.  Anybody that is well-connected or
has particular talent is more than welcome.  He embraces Lily (a
Muggle-born with no connections), Ginny (a member of the Weasleys, the
biggest bunch of "blood-traitors" around, who also has no
connections), Harry (whose parents died fighting the ultimate
supporter in blood purity), and Neville (whose parents were also
famous for defying the Dark Lord).  He's certainly not selfless, but
he doesn't show an inherant preference for purebloods.

People keep using Slytherin's opinion to exclude Muggle-borns from
magical education as an example of the ills of the entire house. 
Salazar Slytherin himself was wrong, but Slytherin house is not made
up of little photocopies of Slytherin.  The Death Eaters and their
pureblood ideology are wrong.  This doesn't mean that every Slytherin
is a Death Eater-in-Training.

Christina