Scapegoating Slytherin - Snobbery or Bigotry

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 144303

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" <vuurdame at x...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
> >
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > That bring up the question whether Slytherins are uniformly
> > engaged in Bigotry, or whether, as a whole, they are merely 
> > engaged in Snobbery.

> Gerry/festuco:
> 
> That does not matter, both are wrong.

bboyminn:

Yes, but one is socially wrong and the other is morally wrong. 

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > The Aristocracy still exists in Europe. They don't believe
> > in marrying outside their 'own kind'. They believe they are 
> > superior to Commoners.We could extent that to say they are 
> > Bigots. But Europe generally doesn't regard them that way.
> 

> Gerry:
>
> I usually enjoy your writings but I wish you would stick to 
> things you know about. 
>  

bboyminn:

Not to sound snarky, even though I am, but this statement would carry
a lot more weight if you had bothered to explain it. So what you are
implying is that the UK regards the Queen, and her son and grandsons
as bigots? That Sweden regards it's King as a bigot? 

To claim to know means nothing unless you are willing to explain what
you know. I explained my view to the best of my knowledge.

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Part of my central point is that while MOST of Sltherins
> > might engage in a passively snobbish attitude, only a few 
> > of the cross the line into actively working against their 
> > preceived lessers. 

> Gerry:
> 
> But we don't know about most Slytherins, so we don't know if
> they are snobs. So why make this kind of statement? 
> 

bboyminn:

Exactly the point I was making. Notice the word 'might' in my
statement. We don't know about a majority of Slytherin, but the fact
that we don't see a majority actively engaged in bigotted behavior is
an indicator. Not proof, but an indicator. 

Further, a majority of Slytherin CAN have an aristocratically snobbish
attitude, but that doesn't automatically make them bigots any more
than it makes the general aristocracy of Europe bigots. True some of
them may indeed be bigots, but it's not automatic just because they a
snobbish.

> > bboyminn
> >
> > ... Far more Slytherins choose not to get in Harry's  face.
> > Far more Slytherins choose to keep their heads down and mind
> > their own business. At least, in any significant way, we never
> > see them getting into Harry's business. 

> Gerry concludes:
> 
> ... I don't think ... the Slytherins keep their heads down, but
> that they are just normal children going on with their lives. 
> They have nothing to do with Harry because he is in a different 
> house and they are not really that interested in him. And why 
> should they? He is the boy-who-lived but you can't keep gawking
> at someone for years and years and years. 
> 
> Gerry
>

bboyminn:

Actually, that is sort of the point I'm trying to make. By 'keeping
their heads down', I simply mean that they mind their own business.
The actively snobbish amoung the Slytherins actively seek out others
to persecute, they actively seek out Harry. Meanwhile, /most/
Slytherins mind their own business and get on with their lives.
Snobbish as they may be, it is this LACK OF actively seeking out
/victims/ that sets them apart.

It is logical that after school (after graduation), Slytherins are
integrated into all aspects of wizard society. The run shops, they
start businesses, they work for the Ministry, they function like all
wizards function, so I really can't seem them being a clan of total
bigots and racists. Once again, I say that most Slytherins are merely
ambitious and cunning in that ambition, and certainly have a pureblood
pride that tends to the snobbish, but that is not a crime or even a
fault. It is when pride in self turn into hatred of others that we
cross the line from snob to bigot. 

On the issue of purity of blood, I don't think that is absolute;
non-pureblood are admited into Slytherin. As I said before, it is
family history in the wizard world that was the determining factor for
Salazar. Admittedly, that is speculation, but it is speculation that
seems to fit an objective look at the facts. 

Certainly since 'family history' in the wizard world is critical,
purebloods would be the epitome of that belief. But I really don't
think Salazar was the pureblood racist he is made out to be. I just
seems illogical. But with absolute certainty, the more pure your blood
was, the more theoretically trustworth you were in Salazar's eyes. But
that absolute trustworthiness was limited to the likelihood, or not,
of revealing the wizard world to muggles. 

When it came to business ventures, I suspect Salazar was as wary of
Slytherins as everyone one was. They are afteral cunning businessmen
who will stop at nearly nothing to twist a business situation to their
advantage. But that is something nearly all businessmen will do, and
in most cases, it is neither a sin nor a crime.

Just a few additional thoughts.

STeve/bboyminn