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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 121725


>> Nora:
>We didn't see any hints of outrage amongst the Slytherin team when 
Draco uses 'Mudblood', while the Gryffindor reaction is BOTH "don't 
say that about our house member" and "dude, that's just not right"--
it's categorically unacceptable.  I think noting who will say that 
word and who won't is a shorthand for a whole big set'o'attitudes.

>>Betsy:
>In some ways this is an unfair example though.  We have two teams 
that are almost fanatically competetive with each other.  We have an 
exchange of insults that quickly spiral into personal attacks (and 
it's Hermione, interestingly enough, who gets in a particularly cruel 
dig) and then a truly nasty name is used.  Immediately words are 
exchanged for wands and fists (and it's the Gryffindors who have two 
burly beaters leaping onto a small boy two years their junior), Flint 
protects his Seeker, Ron curses Malfoy, it backfires, Ron spits up 
slugs, and the Slytherins laugh.  When exactly were the Slytherins 
supposed to stand aside and scold Draco for using a bad word?<

>>Alla:
>Ummmm, the moment Draco said that word? How about Flint saying 
something for example? How about ANYBODY in the Slytherin team? 
Surely, they don't think that competitiveness is a justification for 
racism or (as I consider it a stronger parallel) antisemitism for 
example.<

Betsy:
I'm not suggesting that the Slytherin team thinks racism is 
justified.  Actually, what I'm trying to suggest is that they a) 
didn't have time to react to the word, and b) wouldn't dress down a 
teammate in front of the opposition if they could help it anyway.

What I tried to point out is that things happened quickly.  Flint 
didn't have time to chastise Draco because he was too busy protecting 
him from Fred and George. (Who had no qualms in ganging up on a much 
smaller and younger boy, I point out. Again)

>>Betsy:
>The use of 'mudblood' *is* shorthand for a set of attitudes.  But do 
you really think Slytherin is the only House with such attitudes?  

>>Alla:
>Actually.... yes. Since I don't see ANY student from any other House 
using this word. Does not mean that it is a complete picture, but 
that IS the picture so far.<

Betsy:
But we don't really know all that much, do we?  As per Harry, all of 
Slytherin are bullies, braggarts, and bigots (takes a moment to bask 
in her alliteration skills <g>).  But can Slytherin possibly be that 
evil?  Is all that's wrong with the WW the cause of one single 
House?  For one, it flies against everything else JKR has done.  
There's not a single institution that she's painted as perfectly Good 
or perfectly Evil.  For another, if Slytherin is so completely and 
fantastically bad, why does the Sorting Hat say that *all* the Houses 
must join together?

>>Potioncat (in message # 121669):
<snip>
>The author could be writing a story in which part of what she does
is show the value of courage and the danger of ambition. She does
that by having the Gryffindors be kind and good and victorious in
all they do while the Slytherins are cruel and slimey and generally
defeated in their efforts. (I'm over simplifying this)
>Or the author could be showing us the dangers of stereotyping a
group by setting us up to think the Slytherins are all bad, but then
has someone surprising or several someones show up as not what we
expected.<

Betsy:
Or, she could be doing a bit of both.  Ambitious Percy has certainly 
appeared bad in OotP (please let him be SuperSpy!Percy) and he's not 
in Slytherin.  So there may be hope for the "stereotyping bad!" 
lesson with Slytherin yet!  ::crosses fingers and counts down the 
months to July::

Betsy, who's slowly coming to the conclusion that she doesn't want 
*anyone* to be bad. :)