Snape's abuse (Re: Would an "O" for Harry vindicate Snape?)

[Chris]

No: HPFGUIDX 131666


> Tonks:
> 
> NO, NO, NO!!  Snape does not have to *EARN* the respect of his 
> students.  Snape and even Umbridge (oh I can't believe that I am 
> including *that* nasty woman in this), but yes even Umbridge 
>deserve the respect of their office. We don't have to like them 
>personally or even have respect for them personally, but we do have 
>to have respect for them in the position that they are in.  To do 
>otherwise is to be uncivilized.

   Tonks, I generally agree with what you have to say on here, but 
this time I cannot. I am supposed to respect someone simply because 
of the office that they hold? No. I can respect the actual position 
itself: president, teacher, police officer, whatever. I'm a non-
practicing Catholic. Do I respect a priest who is proven to have 
molested children? Absolutely not. The POSITION of priest commands 
respect...the person filling that position does not automatically 
command respect. In order for that to occur they have to do well in 
the position and EARN my respect. Jo has drawn references between LV 
and Hitler. Am I to respect Hitler for his POSITION as Chancellor of 
Germany, though ignore the fact that he EXTERMINATED 6 million 
people? Of course not. These are extreme examples, but according to 
your statement they deserve respect for the position that they hold. 
I do not respect them in any way, so am I uncivilized?
   If we want to talk about being civilized, do the students at 
Hogwarts not have the right to demand to be treated in a civilized 
manner? After all, they are human beings, and citizens of a civilized 
society. Can they not command that same respect from a teacher? Must 
they endure the treatment they receive? In a CIVILIZED society, I 
would say no. Just because Snape and Umbridge are teachers, and 
adults, do not mean they command unconditional respect.
      

> In a civilized society people treat each other with respect even 
> when they hate them intensely. I know you are going to say.. "That 
> is what Snape should be doing and he isn't.. yata, yata".  But even 
> when the other person is a jerk, there is no reason to stoop to the 
> same level. 

  I will agree here. There is no reason for them to stoop to the same 
level. As a matter of fact, I support a person who would keep their 
mouth shut, and rise above it all and be the better person. But does 
this always stop the behavior? NO. How much must a person endure 
before enough is enough and action is taken?


> As the saying goes "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a 
> tooth and soon everyone will be blind and toothless".

  You use a biblical reference here. How about "Do unto others as you 
would have them do unto you?" This works right? Harry and the others 
could just swallow their feelings, be nice to Snape and Umbridge, and 
they will eventually see the error of their ways? Please. That 
doesn't happen in the fictional nor the real world and it has been 
proven in the books. Snape will continue to be his nasty self until 
somebody puts a stop to it. Umbridge got her comeuppance, but it was 
written that way by Jo. Sometimes, things just don't happen that way 
in the real world.

>We can be civil even to Umbridge. Have we learned nothing from 
>McGonagall's advice to Harry?  She is right, you know.  

  What was her advice? To lay low, and ignore it, because only worse 
things will happen. IS this always the case in the real world? No 
way. We'd still have slavery, segregation, leaders in power who could 
do what they wanted to do, communism, facism, the list goes on. 
Laying low and doing nothing did not get rid of these things. Action 
did!
 
> I tend to be the outspoken one who says "wait, something isn't 
>right here" and go on to give the Umbridges of the world a nasty 
>time. And I can tell you that this type of a response is a stupid 
>thing to do. Not only does it get you in deep trouble politically, 
>but it makes you no better than *them*. 

  I am not endorsing that Harry and the others retaliate with similar 
actions. What I am saying is that they do something, anything, to 
stop this behavior. To ignore it, and rise above it, is not going to 
stop it. A child can get beat up everyday for his lunch money. He can 
say to himself, "I will not fight. I'm going to be the better person, 
and not resort to violence." And a month later, this kid is still 
getting beat up, and his money taken. I'm not saying he should 
respond and beat up the bully, but he should do something to stop it. 
JKR herself said that a child being bullied should tell somebody, 
anybody, until someone listens and puts a stop to it.  

> Children can know in their heart that a teacher is not right in 
>what they do, but it is their place as children in a civilized 
>society to say "yes Sir" just the same. 

  Really, I always thought that children learned behaviors from the 
elders that they have contact with. Saying "yes sir" and going on 
with this behavior without questioning it is not a healthy thing for 
children to do is it? And really, if what you said above is the case, 
it's a darn shame that children in a civilized society act better 
than adults in that same society do. Are the children supposed to be 
the role model for the adults? It sounds like that's what you are 
advocating. 

>Hating someone else, even when justified doesn't harm *Them*, it 
>harms *you*. 

   Who's saying the children should hate Snape? I'm saying "hate what 
he does, not him" and do something in response. Because they are 
children does not mean they have to agree with everything the adults 
say no matter what.

   
Chris
labmystc