Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 143973

> >>Nora:
> That's not what I was saying.  I'm saying that Slytherin's        
> insistance on the blood principle itself is something with        
> tendencies to evil, because of how it conceptualizes human worth.

Betsy Hp:
All four houses have their own way of measuring worth.  And between 
the four of them every child finds a home.  No house, including 
Slytherin, is saying that only *their* sort should come to 
Hogwarts.  Lets not make the mistake of confusing the Death Eater 
philosophy with Slytherin philosophy.  JKR has been too careful in 
drawing a line between the two beliefs, IMO.

> >>Nora:
> It's not a case of half-bloods being better than purebloods or any 
> reverse consequence; it's the case of saying "you have            
> predetermined value from these abstractions regarding your        
> parentage" that's wrong.

Betsy Hp:
But that particular brush tars Hogwarts in it's entirety.  Every 
house has its families, the Weasleys in Gryffindor, possibly the 
Smiths in Hufflepuff.  Plus, Hogwarts *does* predetermine every 
child's value based on their magical blood.  If a child is not 
magical, that child does not get into Hogwarts.

I'd also add that it's fairly obvious that blood is not the *only* 
determining factor in becoming a Slytherin.  Let's not go to the 
other extreme.  Otherwise Ron would be a Slytherin.  As would Smith 
and Neville.  And Snape would have been in Gryffindor.   And Tom 
Riddle in... Ravenclaw, maybe?

> >>Nora: 
> It does look more and more like the blood issue is really one of 
> JKR's prime motivators and what she considers one of the most 
> important thematic issues that she's addressing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Really?  I don't think I'm seeing that theme, despite the HBP 
title.  After all, the shock of Snape's blood is that it runs 
*against* the "it's all blood" view of Slytherin.  Instead, JKR 
seems to be dealing with family relationships, self-knowledge, self-
determination, and prejudice or pre-judgment.

Actually, I think JKR is a bit contradictory about her views on 
blood lines.  Harry will understand himself only as he understands 
his parents? Why?  They barely affected his life.  Unless she *does* 
believe in certain inheritable traits. Plus, there's the whole only 
someone of Lily's bloodline can protect her son.  We've been told 
over and over again that Lily used a pure form of good magic to 
protect her son.  If bloodlines, or an interest in them is 
inherently bad, why is Lily's blood magic so inherently good?

> >>Nora: 
> There's a massive difference here.  Harry should be more          
> interested in his parents because of *who* they are as people...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why?  Harry know he's brave.  Why does he need to find out if his 
father was as well? 

> >>Nora:
> And for the people who they matter for, like Lucius Malfoy,       
> they're immutable and completely essentialist.
> <snip>
> Unless, of course, the definition of the group is done like the DE 
> pureblood factions do...and Slytherin's own "whose blood was the   
> purest" seems to toe a very similar line.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but we're confusing the Death Eater line with the Slytherin line 
again.  It's easy to do because the Death Eaters were formed by a 
Slytherin who twisted his house philosophy to its most evil or 
negative aspect.  But a Gryffindor could come up with just an 
exclusionary and twisted philosophy, as could a Hufflepuff or a 
Ravenclaw.

Of course the other three houses are more united so I think they're 
harder to attack, to an extent.  Their exclusion of Slytherin does 
weaken them. However, Slytherin, standing alone, is a bit more 
susceptible to an attack.

> >>Nora:
> The issue at stake is also not only tight-knit cultural groups,    
> but the very concept of civil society.  The DE ideology wins, and 
> the wizarding world loses the idea of an open society with a      
> culture which people can become members of and argue over and      
> change, in favor of something defined strictly essentially.

Betsy Hp:
But that would be true of any of the houses.  *All* of them are 
exclusionary in some form or fashion.  A Ravenclaw Dark Lord may 
force tests on young wizards and witches and sterilize those who 
aren't deemed smart enough.  A Gryffindor Dark Lord may set up tests 
of valor or bravery, and those who fail are killed.  A Hufflepuff 
Dark Lord would probably turn out like Madeleine L'Engle's horror 
world in "A Wrinkle in Time".  (Frankly, I think a Hufflepuff would 
make the most terrifying Dark Lord.)

Yes, the Death Eater ideology is wrong and incredibly short 
sighted.  But it is not the Slytherin ideology.

> >>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.
> > <snip>

> >>Nora: 
> But they're not discriminatory with the same kinds of factors.  
> Slytherin is the genuine essentialist, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor   
> look for virtues (now in the Aristotelian sense), and Hufflepuff   
> opens up to everyone.

Betsy Hp:
Hufflepuff opens up to anyone willing to submit to the Hufflepuff 
way.  (Neville or Luna would do horribly there.)  But they *all*, 
including Slytherin, look for virtues.  Blood is a factor in 
Slytherin, but it's not the defining factor.  I think it's as big a 
mistake to dwell too much on the blood factor as it is to overlook 
it.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Ah, so we really *are* ignoring Peter Pettigrew than? 

> >>Nora:
> No, being as I said 'tending'.  Peter is, of course, the exception 
> which helps keep things from resolving into too clean of          
> patterns.  
> But I suspect I know what the answer would be if you asked her    
> about the ratio of Gryffindors to Slytherins in the Death Eaters.

Betsy Hp:
So we'll just throw out Peter as an unexplainable anomaly, *despite* 
the fact that JKR says the Sorting Hat is never wrong?  And *of 
course* there are more Slytherin Death Eaters than Gryffindor Death 
Eaters.  Voldemort started out in Slytherin.  They were his family.  
That's how these things tend to work.  It's why Harry was adopted by 
the Weasleys and not the Bones.

Though, speaking of patterns, I think it's certainly worth noting 
that there *aren't* any totally recognizable patterns within the 
characters whose houses we do know.  Sirius is a completely 
different animal from Neville.  Smith is not at all like Ernie or 
Cedric.  Draco is quite different from Goyle or Snape.  Luna is 
nothing like Cho. That's because the houses sort by virtues and 
virtues can be interpreted and expressed in many, many different 
ways, both positive and negative. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Actually, young Tom Riddle, striding into magical London all by 
> > his little eleven year old self, or confronting his father when 
> > only sixteen, could be seen as quite courageous.  Harry wanting 
> > to be a great quidditch captain, or taking NEWT level Potions    
> > could be seen as quite ambitious.
> > They're both rather neutral, in the end.

> >>Nora: 
> I don't think they are, because I think JKR is slanting things in 
> her favor quite a bit on how she conceptualizes courage (Neville   
> standing up to his friends to do what is right serves as her model 
> for that) and how she thinks of ambition.

Betsy Hp:
But JKR wrote little Tom Riddle walking alone into magical London.  
Do you think she missed the fact that it was an act requiring a 
certain amount of bravery?  Do you think JKR doesn't realize that 
Harry's desire to become a Auror, or win a quidditch match shows 
ambition? I'm only using what she wrote.

> >>Nora: 
> Slytherin blood ideology reminds me very uncomfortably of the old 
> (and not so old) admissions criteria of the Ivies.
> <snip>
> Do I think that way of thinking about people is evil?  Solidly in 
> the ordinary vices, and the kind of cancer which does profound    
> damage to a society as a whole.

Betsy Hp:
So then you must utterly *despise* the Weasleys.  I mean, talk about 
a Gryffindor legacy. <g>  Again, you're confusing the Death Eater 
philosophy with the Slytherin philosophy.  It's the Death Eaters who 
want to confine the WW to just those with a certain type of blood.  
Slytherin doesn't even want to confine *Hogwarts*.  It wants 
students with a certain respect for and interest in the WW 
traditions (a bit hard for a Muggleborn to pick up on) and a certain 
amount of ambition and cunning in its *own* house.  But the Hat 
doesn't ever suggest that only Slytherins need apply.  Just as it 
doesn't tell the not so book-smart kids to get back on the train.  
Or the timid children to maybe try homeschooling.

Hogwarts takes in everyone with magical ability (an exclusion 
heavily blood based, but a necessary one).  The houses are merely 
the places the different children will feel most comfortable, and 
I'd imagine, where they'd most thrive.  The Sorting Hat catagorizes, 
but it doesn't exclude.

Betsy Hp (seriously over her limit, and off to iron her fingers and 
then go to bed) (ooh, hey wait, it's midnight!  yay!  still off to 
bed though)