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

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 131677

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Last time I checked, everyone on here and everyone in the WW are
HUMAN! As humans, we have certain fundamental rights that lower,
non-reasoning animals don't have."

Del replies:
I'm sorry to say that, but no we don't. Human beings have no
*inherent* rights coming from the fact that they were born humans. 

Those "human rights" are rights that were *created* by humans. Groups
of people have agreed to GRANT those rights to all human beings in
their sphere of influence. It was a moral, social, political decision,
but it was not an acknowledgement of a biological reality. And
unfortunately, there are still people, governments, in the world we
live in, who decide NOT to grant those rights to the people they rule
over. Which means that there are human beings in some parts of the
world who do NOT have those "fundamental human rights". There are
parts of the world where human beings are not more, or barely more,
than non-reasoning animals.

But anyway, AFAIK, the WW did NOT ratify the human rights convention,
or whatever it is called. So we can't start off with the
pre-conception that they necessarily view "human rights" as we do. 

Moreover, we know for a fact that the WW holds some sentient,
reasoning, intelligent beings as little more than animals. We also
know that wizards can be stripped of their "fundamental rights" if
some "accidents" happen to them, like being bitten by a werewolf (no
more right to education, no more right to work, no more freedom of
circulation, no more respect, and so on).

Believing that the purebloodist and the anti-Muggle ideologies exist
in a vaccuum is naive IMO. Those ideologies are flourishing because
the WW soil is fertile. The WW is full of varied prejudices, and it
does not seem to have a moral view of who is worthy of respect and
why. What we Western Muggles take as obvious fundamental human rights
don't seem to be concepts that many wizards have grasped yet.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"The right to treat others in a respectful way, and the right to
expect the same treatment in return. "

Del replies:
Look at how the adults treat each other in the WW. Do you really see
that much respect? McGonagall obviously looks down on Trelawney. Lupin
is harrassed because he is a werewolf. Sirius was thrown in Azkaban
without a trial. Umbridge and Fudge look down on several categories of
people. And do I need to mention His Respectable Highness Lucius
Malfoy, or the Noble House of Black (including its supposedly "white"
sheep, who never seems to have shown any respect to one of his
"closest friends").

The only things wizards seem to truly respect are money, ancestry, and
above all magical "talent" (or more appropriately IMO, magical
*power*). Money, ancestry and power, the world-old combination of
attributes that BUYS one respect in most societies.

In short: respect is not something that one can freely claim in the
WW, it is something that must be bought. And once it is bought, it can
be imposed on all "inferiors". Snape "bought" his students' respect
simply by being a teacher, and so his students owe him respect no
matter what.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"The right to make the correct or incorrect decisions, and face the 
consequences of those decisions."

Del replies:
Like being a DE, and getting away by simply pretending that you were
under an Imperius Curse or something?

Chris labmystc wrote:
"Snape has the right to act the way he wants to as long as that 
behavior does not impact negatively on anyone else."

Del replies:
Says who? As long as no moral or legal authority is there to ensure
that such rules are being followed, then those rules do not exist.
It's like saying "it's forbidden to kill another human being", but
having no law enforcement force, no law condemning murder, and no
prison: it's pointless. As long as nobody in power of any kind will
care that Snape acts in ways that impact negatively on others, there
won't be ANY rule saying it is wrong and he won't have any reason to
change.

In short: as long as neither DD nor the School's Board of Governors,
nor even the Ministry, care about what Snape does, then what he does
is neither right nor wrong, and he has no obligation to change.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"The concept of being uncivilized and civilized was brought up in
another post. Last time I checked, purposely degrading someone was not
the mark of a civilized individual."

Del replies:
Careful on this one ;) Many of the popular games, jokes, and shows in
our "civilised" societies today are based on degrading other people.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"And Harry and the other students have the right to not like it, and
to do something about it according to human standards."

Del replies:
Obviously, WW human standards allow for what Snape does. So Harry and
the others won't get anywhere if they try to do something based on
those standards. What they need to do is RAISE those standards, so
that things like Snape's teaching methods and purebloodism become
morally and legally unacceptable.

Chris labmystc wrote:
"However, I think they're overall use is necessary. It wasn't
Americans that first created firearms in the first place..."

Del replies:
That's not the point. The point is that having firearms at home is
morally and legally acceptable in the US, while it is unthinkable in
other countries. To me, for example, having guns at home is an
uncivilised thing to do, it refers to barbaric times. That's the way I
instinctively think about it because of my circumstances, the society
I grew up in. But I guess if I studied US history, I would come to the
conclusion that it makes sense for you (as a society) to think
differently. Similarly, I find Snape's method of teaching quite
uncivilised by my standards, but considering everything else that goes
on in the WW, I can see that it is not out of place there.

Del