Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 121646


<snip of question and answer - should be self-evident>

>>Alla:
>Actually, that was NOT my question. It does NOT matter what I think 
about those traits of character. :o) 
>You argued that Dumbledore named positive traits of Slytherin to 
Harry and I argued that we don't see Dumbledore judging those traits 
of character one way or another.<

Betsy:
My point was this - resourcefulness and determination are pretty much 
universally understood to be positive traits.  I've never heard them 
used negatively.  It would be bizarre to see them as negative unless 
someone specifically said, "and I don't mean that in a good way."  
And then I'd expect an explanation.  I think you're probably over-
thinking this scene.<

>>Alla:
>Funnily enough, I don't see Harry as being very ... resorceful in 
the chamber. Courageous.... yes. Resourceful... not really.<

Betsy:
The whole, putting the Sorting Hat on his head, thereby calling up 
Godric's sword and the stabbing of the diary with the basilisk fang I 
would label as resourceful.  Again - I think you're over-thinking 
these words.  

Alla:
>But that is just my interpretation fo course. All that I am saying 
that Dumbledore does not necessarily praise Slytherin traits of 
character to Harry in this quote.
>I would say he praises Harry for the fact that contrary to having 
all those traits of character he ended up being in Gryffindor.<

Betsy:
But that doesn't make sense to the scene.  Harry is upset, thinking 
that he's got traits similar to Tom Riddle aka Voldemort.  Why on 
earth would Dumbledore list negative traits that he had in common 
with Voldemort?  "You're shifty Harry, and you've got lots of anger 
in you.  Yes, you're about three steps away from being a murdering 
bastard.  But cheer up!  You're in a good House after all!"  Instead, 
Dumbldore lists what is positive about Slytherin - which must exist 
after all (unless you think all Slytherins are evil - which would go 
against everything JKR has done to create a three dimensional world), 
and then finishes his little pep-talk with proof that Harry does 
belong in Gryffindor.

>>Alla: 
>Something else is interesting to me in this quote. "Certain 
disregard for rules"... Isn't it supposed to be Gryffindor trait?<

Betsy:
I would pay money to see someone try and explain that to McGonagall. 
=D

<snip of canon>
 
>>Alla:
>To me there is a HUGE difference between desire for secrecy from 
Muggles indeed maintained by all four Founders AND Salasar's official 
exlcusion from his house muggle borns witches and wisards.  It looked 
to me that if Salasar had his way, none of the houses would have 
accepted muggle borns.
>So,it seems to me that other three were pretty much united in not 
allowing Salasar to do that. And yes they were friends in the 
beginning, maybe till they did not the huge difference in their views 
on teaching?<

Betsy:
It makes sense though.  To teach Muggleborn children you either have 
to kidnap them from their parents (sure to raise some Muggle wrath) 
or risk them returning with knowledge of the magical world (including 
weaknesses - like get his wand away from him, and most wizards are as 
helpless as Muggles - even more so since he's probably wand-
dependent) and a loyalty tug-of-war going on.  Muggles were attacking 
wizards and witches because they thought magic was *evil*.  Maybe 
parents would think their children were okay - but would the extended 
family be so open minded?  Or members of the village?  And what if 
the child herself was so worried that she was evil that she confessed 
her "sins" to the wrong person?

Obviously these problems could and were handled - but you must admit 
that Salazar's worries didn't come out of nowhere.  Also, per the 
Sorting Hat's song in OotP Salazar was very upfront with what type of 
students he wanted to teach.  And the founders taught together in 
harmony for several years.  We don't really know what sparked the 
fight that ended in Salazar's leaving.  Though the Hat does say that 
all four founders were fighting with *each other*.  So it wasn't a 
big, "Salazar Sucks!" fight. 

I think it's a pretty big assumption that none of the other Houses 
ever cared about blood.  If only 1/4 of the WW in Britain cared about 
blood why does Mr. Borgin imply to Lucius Malfoy that there was a 
time when Wizard blood counted for something (CoS, Scholastic, 
paperback, pg. 52)?  There is bias in the WW, and it may have its 
roots in the time of persecution by Muggles when Hogwarts was 
founded.  But I don't think blame for that bias can be thrown solely 
at Salazar's feet.

Betsy