Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 143975

> 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. Slytherin's discrimination is  the worst to me and I 
> believe that it is the worst to Rowling too.

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.

Jen: I do agree that Rowling views discrimination based on purity of 
blood as the most reprehensible form of discrimination we see in 
Potterverse, for the reasons both of you spell out--blood cannot be 
changed. 

What I'm trying to understand is why at the founding of Hogwarts, 
the other three founders did not outright reject Slytherin's wish to 
"teach those whose ancestry is purest." (chap. 11. OOTP)

The fact that there was harmony and friendship between the founders 
for several years prior to the rift seems meaningful to me for 
understanding the story, as well as the reality that people are 
sorted into Slytherin who come from Muggle parentage. 

Thinking about the state of the WW at the time of the founding of 
Hogwarts, when active persecution was taking place and witches and 
wizards were an oppressed minority, I do think it's possible that 
Slytherin's initial ideas about pure ancestry had more to do with 
saving an importance race and culture from extinction rather than 
the pure-blood ideology present in the current WW. And the other 
founders may have shared that fear, although not to the same extent. 
But then Slytherin's fears may have turned into an obsession with 
blood superiority, causing the rift with the others.

Alla: 
> Besides, all founders wanted specific qualities in their students, 
> but NONE of them said that those students who don't meet those 
> qualities should not be admitted to Hogwarts, none except
> Slytherin. THAT was the cause of the fight, even though all four
> were fighting, the cause for such fight was Slytherin and 
> Slytherin alone IMO.

Jen: Apparently Slytherin didn't believe in that standard either, 
when Hogwarts began. The hat was made early on and each Founder was 
able to 'take only those they wanted' according to the Sorting Hat, 
and there was harmony. Slytherin wasn't actively opposing the 
admission of other students.

Slytherin may turn out to be a good example of how discrimination 
can grow out of fear, how fear can take root and cloud a person's 
judgement to what is good and true. Or he could simply be an example 
of the type of person who feels certain others are innately 
superior. It doesn't seem completely obvius to me yet.

Alla: 
> I said it many times - I do think that unity would be achieved at 
> the end, but I am also pretty sure that there would be no "blood 
> supremacy" ideology lurking in Slytherin house anymore. I don't 
> know  it would be achieved, I am very inclined to think that
> Houses will dissolve at the end, but we wil just have to wait and
> see, of course.

Jen: I hope the blood superiority idea is gone, gone, gone in the 
end. If, a big if, Slytherin's initial ideas were formulated at a 
time when there were few protections for magical people and the race 
truly was in danger of dying out, that certainly is no longer the 
case.

> 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. Unless of course one
> considers Draco to be a good Slytherin, which I most definitely
> don't. <snip> So, IMO good Slytherins may exist somewhere unknown
> to us, they may even indeed exist in JKR mind, but JKR does not
> show them to Harry, she does not show them to us. I intepret it
> not very favorably, personally.

Jen: Well, we don't agree on Slughorn, but I do think he was brought 
into the story not only for plot reasons but to show an example of a 
Slytherin who presumably went through Hogwarts before the time of 
Voldemort. I do think Voldemort had a tremendous influence on the 
house and his influence continues to shape students year after year. 
Harry has the realization more than once that everything can be 
traced back to Voldemort in the end. I'd rather be able to feel and 
see this happening than hear about it in exposition, but I do think 
we're meant to believe his influence was tremendous and started the 
moment he entered the WW. 

Neither you nor Nora addressed the idea that Dumbledore exhibits 
qualities of the four houses, and that ambition was at least one of 
the forces behind his desire to defeat Voldemort. Do you not see 
that idea being present or fell it is unimportant? 

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.

La Gatta:
> The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds me not
> of the Old-Boyism of the British and Ivy-League educational
> systems, but of Germany and the NAZI Party. 

Jen: Evil born out of the belief that a person or race is superior 
is as old as time and there's no doubt that is a big part of JKR's 
story. When all is said and done, the ink dry on the page, I think 
the main message will be the cyclical nature of individuals and 
societies, how fractures in the moral fabric swell into evil, how 
evil is faced and overcome, and how goodness can grow in the cracks 
where evil once flourished. 

Jen