Scapegoating Slytherin - The Moral Majority

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 144363

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mercurybluesmng" 
<MercuryBlue144 at a...> wrote:
> 
> bboyminn:
>> Regardless of whether that is true is somewhat irrelevant, because 
>> we are discussing the nature of Slytherin House, and not the 
>> nature of the Sorting Hat. My main point was that it is ridiculous 
>> to believe that all Slytherins are evil pureblood racist, when we
>> indeed have NOT seen all Slytherins nor have we seen a majority of
>> Slytherins. We have seen a very select group though Harry's eyes. 
> 
> MercuryBlue:
> Yes, exactly. The Slytherins we've seen who've been granted
> speaking parts are all pureblooded, bigoted, and Death Eater 
> sympathizers if not Death Eaters themselves. At least one of the 
> above, anyway. The Slytherins who are none of the above, which is 
> probably most of them, haven't shown up on Harry's radar.
>

This might make us feel good, but what about the student in Slytherin 
who, having an abundance of ambition, and perhaps wanting to align 
him- or herself with Harry Potter, would never have been invited to 
join the D.A. and might never have been trusted by others merely 
based on house?  How others see Slytherin is important.  Harry's 
viewpoint, however limited, probably carries a lot of weight at 
Hogwarts, if not elsewhere.  What has counterbalanced it?  Dumbledore 
repeatedly tells Harry to call Snape "Professor," but I can't recall 
him ever telling Harry to unite with Slytherin House or its members.  
(Now that I think of it, that's interesting -- I guess he wants Harry 
to reach his own conclusions by watching Draco and the Gaunts/LV, but 
doesn't trust him to reach his own conclusion about Snape?  Maybe he 
just doesn't see Harry's attitude toward Slytherin.)  Anyway, I hope 
the segregation is one thing that will change in the 7th book -- but 
based on which Slytherins, I don't know.

This is what I guess I was getting at in my earlier posts.  You take 
the classic exercise of separating groups of students and creating an 
artificial stigma, such as Jane Elliott's "blue eyes/brown eyes" 
exercise.  The attitudes and behavior of a "superior" group change 
towards a stigmatized group.  Slythern House, I contend, is subject 
to a stigma, the house of lesser, ambiguous or negative traits.  The 
Slytherin student is forced to identify with their supposed traits 
and to embrace their house's segregation, or be socially isolated 
(Snape as a student?), as far as we know... whereas the 
majority, "good" students, no matter how weird (Luna Lovegood), can 
mix among houses and not automatically fear rejection or persecution, 
as far as we know.

I agree that there may be well-meaning, non-biased Slytherins, who 
are defined by ambition more than cunning or ruthlessness or blood-
purity.  But the fact remains that, as far as most in the Wizarding 
world know, all Slytherins are encompassed within those traits, which 
form a negative stereotype, the kind of stereotype that also makes 
groups like the Death Eaters more likely, because you already have a 
cohesive and potentially defensive house, which is defined against 
all others.

I guess this is where Slughorn is a good thing -- he only 
discriminates based on connections or merit, not blood status, 
wealth, or house.

I know others have bemoaned the house system, and I am probably not 
adding anything earth-shattering to the discussion... it just 
bothers me.

lealess