In defence of Harry

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 123326


Geoff:
> This is so reminiscent of the way in which people in real 
> situations have, by their reactions to oppression, have changed the 
> mind set of those around them. Think of those unknown people in, 
> say, the French Resistance, who risked everything to disrupt the 
> German occupation. Think of folk like Claus von Stauffenberg..., or
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer.... Think of the lady (I fear I forget her 
> name) who refused to give up a bus seat in Birmingham, Alabama and 
> sowed the seeds of the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the 
> 1960s. Real world history is replete with figures who opposed 
> dictators – both petty and great – regardless of the possible 
> dangers.

SSSusan:
Rosa Parks, Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955.


Geoff: 
> My other point is that those people who say that Harry deserved 
> what he got are looking at things with the benefit of hindsight. 
> Dolores Umbridge is introduced at the beginning of OOTP as an 
> ambivalent and sinister figure. She is a shadowy figure at the 
> Wizengamot hearing and our first real look at her makes her a 
> suspicious figure....
> 
> Then at Hogwarts, she effectively elbows Dumbledore out of the way 
> to deliver her "Party Political Broadcast" speech, which again 
> produces some interesting reactions; warning bells seem to ring for 
> both Hermione and Minerva McGonagall. 
> 
> What is not obvious at this point though is the inhuman and vicious 
> way in which she will attack anyone who shows the slightest 
> opposition  to her authority. <snip>
> 
> What was totally out of order was Umbridge's barbaric treatment of 
> Harry, the draconian measures she announces at any sign of 
> disagreement, her calculated humiliation of Hagrid both at first 
> meeting and in class, her treatment of Trelawney and her attempted 
> punishment of Fred and George.
> 
> Harry stuck his neck out, not because he wanted a war with her but 
> because he was trying to set the record straight and rescue his own 
> position. 


SSSusan:
Geoff, while I agree with you that folks may have been arguing with 
the benefit of hindsight in the Harry/DJU scenario (by knowing the 
things DJU would eventually do & stand for), and while I agree that 
in the FIRST instance of Harry's standing up to DJU, it was 
understandable, justified, right, and all of that, I know that what I 
was arguing when we discussed this was what happened *after* the 
first instance & the first round of detentions.  

Once McGonagall gave Harry the warning to lie low, once she told him 
that crossing DJU could cost him much more than house points & 
detention, once she told him more was at stake than who was telling 
the truth and who was telling lies, from THEN on I think Harry can be 
blamed for not setting aside the issue of justice or tyranny or 
personal reputation in the name of keeping himself and his allies 
safely entrenched at Hogwarts.

Siriusly Snapey Susan