Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco )

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 143977

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" <katmac at k...>
wrote:
> 
> The pure-blood snobbishness of the Wizarding World reminds me not of 
> Old-Boyism of the British and Ivy-League educational systems, but 
> of Germany and the NAZI Party. The parallels are remarkable--WWI and 
> WWII, the pure-blood perception that Muggles, mud-bloods, and even 
> mixed-blood Wizards are somehow infra dig (and the belief of extreme 
> cases that Muggles and mud-bloods at least are subhuman & should be
> destroyed), the Aryan blondness of the Malfoys, a leader (fuhrer?)
> so powerful and so vile that most of the Wizarding World won't even 
> speak his name... And if you want to *really* creep yourself out, 
> take a look at the SS Gestapo insignia. (Ever wonder where JKR got 
> Harry's scar?)
> 
> And we're sitting here asking ourselves if this kind of thinking is 
> *evil*? Earth to HPfGU...
> 
> --La Gatta
> 

You see, I actually had a completely different take on this.

What disturbed me was the characterization of a whole house based on
stereotypes that, even including blood concerns, would make characters
like Shylock or Fagin, if placed in the Potterverse, Slytherins.  This
was the realization I reluctantly came to.  Slytherin is the house in
which all the negative stereotypes are collected.  To summarize the
Sorting Hat, Slytherins are cunning, ambitious, power-hungry,
concerned with family background, and capable of using any means to
get what they want. The behavior of the Slytherins we have seen adds
many more negative qualities to the Hat's list, such as opportunism,
use of connections over hard work, slyness...  These qualities could
apply to any villain, or to the Nazis, I guess.  But they are also
often applied in fear to outsiders traditionally demonized by a
dominant society: Jews, homosexuals, maybe the Gypsies to some degree,
in the West 
 those of whom it was said their fate was deserved
because of who they were.

The things in HBP which brought me to wonder about this were first,
the depiction of the Gaunts as ape-like subhumans, similar to the
manner in which marginalized groups have been drawn for centuries, and
second, the all-Slytherin complicity in the murder of the sainted and
probably sacrificial Dumbledore, in the context of Western and
ostensibly Christian-themed books.  The thing in HPfGU which catalyzed
this was the "deserve what they get" postings calling for retribution
against certain characters based on supposed character traits and
unforgivable actions.  It sounded to me like the Slytherins were the
Jews, and they had killed Christ, so they deserved what they got.  And
look, they had a whole bunch of "not like us" characteristics which
made it easier to hate and marginalize them.

I see the Slytherins as marginalized and forced by this to band
together.  Yes, the Slytherins form the bulk of the Death Eaters, a
sinister international conspiracy to rule the world and remake it in
their image.  They may espouse a pureblood ideology, but I don't think
they are National Socialists, not even in a nascent, thuggish form --
I think they are terrorists.  I also think most of them would get out
if they could.  I don't think the Order or the Ministry will have to
do much to destroy the Death Eaters, as they will no doubt
disintegrate from within, if given the opportunity, further
solidifying the image of Slytherins as slippery, self-interested, and
corrupt; out for themselves.  "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not
stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save
our own necks."

Yes, a number of Gryffindors demonstrate Slytherin traits, but those
traits are generally clumsy in execution (McLaggen's ambition,
Hermione's scheming, Ron's bigotry come to mind – Harry is the best at
integrating the houses within himself, probably significant).  The
Death Eater exception of Peter Pettigrew, on the other hand, is meant
to be especially heinous because he was one of the pure ones, one of
the brave and daring.  It was probably out of incredible character
weakness, or coercion as he suggests, or, who knows, impure lust for
Lily, that he became one of the tainted ones.

None of the Slytherins overtly counters the broad negative stereotypes
of the house, with the possible exception of Snape, *if* he is brave,
loyal, more intelligent than cunning, and not a Judas, with whom I
have seen him compared.  Draco shows intelligence and courage, and his
Polyjuiced friends show loyalty, but this may all have been in the
service of ambition, and so they remain as ambiguous as Snape.

Yes, we haven't met all the Slytherins.  But six books into the
series, we have only seen Slytherins who are, at their absolute best,
opportunistic networkers or irresistibly drawn into the plans of
others.  Is this the basis on which Slytherin will be integrated into
the culture of Hogwarts as a whole?  It seems Rowling will have to
develop some currently name-only characters or introduce a whole raft
of new ones in book seven to tie up this and other dangling threads.

Anyway, I realize my perspective is a little odd, and my actual
understanding of stereotypes is fairly limited.  I had to get a book
out of the library to see if I was way off base on this, and I'm still
not sure.  Also, I doubt the author had the intention to do more than
create a negative house at Hogwarts to give Harry an enemy to define
himself against.  But Slytherin house is shown to be, again and again,
not really powerful.  It is on the outside.  It is drawn in such a way
that, if character equals destiny in these books, I am a little
disturbed in wondering about the genesis of its character.  As I noted
earlier, I do want to see the houses come together.  It will be
interesting to see how this happens.

lealess