Scapegoating Slytherin (was:Punishing Draco ) LONGish

Sat Dec 3 17:21:08 UTC 2005

No: HPFGUIDX 143987

> > >>Nora:
> > That's not what I was saying.  I'm saying that 
Slytherin's        
> > insistence 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.

Alla:

And I am saying that Slytherin's way of measuring the worth is the 
very worst out of four. Slytherin was advocating precisely that - 
that child who does not meet HIS criteria of worth will not find his 
home in Hogwarts in ANY house.

I think that canon gives no support to the argument that Slytherin 
Philosophy and Death Eater philosophy are not the same. JMO, 
obviously.

On the contrary, IMO Voldemort found his home in the Slytherin so 
fast precisely because his beliefs were similar to what Slytherin 
believed.

Voldemort did NOT transform Slytherin house, on the contrary IMO 
Slytherin found one of his owns. Dumbledore tells us in HBP how FAST 
Tom Riddle was sorted in Slytherin. 

I used to think that the only thing Voldemort wants is power and the 
only reason he adopted Slytherin's beliefs was because he wanted 
purebloods with him, but now I am not so sure. Maybe dear Tommie was 
so upset with his dad and idolized his mother that he truly wants 
purebloods to prevail. Not sure.

> 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.

Alla:

No, to me the shock of Snape's blood is that him the half-blood 
denying his true heritage and wanting pureblood cause to prevail. It 
is fairly clear IMO that even if he is not a racist now, he was in 
his youth.

So, I am thinking about his hypocrisy and such.

 > 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. 

Alla:

No, I don't think we confuse anything here. I don't think Voldemort 
twisted his house philosophy, but embraced it and proclaimed himself 
the champion of the cause. That is why all those guys followed him, 
IMO, because he said what they believed in, what they wanted to hear.

> 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. 

Alla:

Thank you,Jen. That is probably one of the most important points of 
my argument.

Jen: 
> 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)

Alla:

I have no problem thinking of it as three friends trying to placate 
another dear friend, especially of course since they all had the 
criteria to choose their students. They were probably thinking - you 
want to teach purebloods in your house, by all means does it as long 
as muggleborns can get into other houses.

But when such friend went crazy and started insisting that 
muggleborns should not be accepted to Hogwarts at all, then I 
speculate other three had enough and discord started.

Jen:
<SNIP>
> 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:

But by denying muggleborns admission, Slytherin WAS throwing young 
wizards and witches of muggle heritage at the mercy of their 
persecutors, no?

I see what you are saying, but my most charitable reading of 
Slytherin interprets him as a  tragic figure, who maybe suffered a 
lost of loved one who was killed by a Muggle and decided that that 
is why everybody who comes from Muggle heritage is not to be trusted.

My least charitable reading of Slytherin is as someone who leaves a 
monster at Hogwarts precisely for the reason we were given - to kill 
Muggleborns ( don't have my CoS, so cannot give a quote)

> 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:

YES, thank you again, but that is why I am having a hard time to see 
four houses existing at the end of the books. I mean, the unity 
would be probably achieved, but it is quite clear to me that 
Slytherin must reject this part of their philosophy. Would Slytherin 
still be Slytherin without it or entirely different entity?

> 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.

Alla:

I am not sure I know your position on Slughorn, actually, Jen, so I 
don't know if we agree or disagree on him :-)

Mine is I love him, have my suspicions about him, but REALLY don't 
want them to come true.

He is a great character and if he is an example of good Slytherin, 
great. But again, isn't it funny that the most that good Slytherin 
can do is RUN from DE not fight them?

I really hope we hear more about Regulus, personally. Maybe he would 
be a good Slytherin who fought bravely. I think he is a good 
candidate for "fake death" or something like that, because  the only 
reference JKR made to his death as far as I remember is that he 
is "dead these days, so he is quiet" ( paraphrase). I remember being 
quite suspicious after reading this quote, because being dead these 
days could easily mean IMO that he can be alive tomorrow.

Jen:

> 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? 
> 

Alla:

Hee, I was not sure it needs addressing. I am not really arguing 
against the unity of all four houses, you know. Harry also has a lot 
of qualities from different houses, no argument from me here 
either. :-)

What I am arguing against is that Slytherin House stands on equal 
footing with other three houses, where admission of their mistakes 
needs to be done.

IMO, Slytherin has much more amends to make and right the wrongs AND 
cross out the "pureblood supremacy" from their beliefs.

But could that be done that easily? I don't know.

Hee, as to ambition playing part in Dumbledore's plans? I am not 
sure.

I can just easily interpret Dumbledore fight against Voldemort  to 
make sure that "pureblood supremacy" will not win. Is it ambitious? 
I suppose, but it is a good ambition.

JMO,

Alla