Wizard supremacy (was:Re: Nel Question #4: Class and Elitism)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 125884



> Betsy wrote:
> If the Wizarding World and the Muggle World got in a fight, 
> who would win? 

a_svirn:

Wizards would.

Betsy:
> The thing is, JKR has already answered this question.  After
> all, the Muggles beat the Wizards several centuries ago.  Why
> would today be any different?

a_svirn:

What are you referring to? Where did JKR answer this question? 

betsy:
> So maybe, wizards aren't all that superior after all.  And maybe 
> their condescension towards Muggles hides a deeper fear.  After 
> all, wizards were beaten by Muggles back when they were still 
> relatively informed of Muggle weapons and fighting tactics.  

a_svirn:

Not that I think it matters (because I don't believe wizards were 
beaten), but suppose it does, whose fault is that? While Muggles 
are incapable of magic, nothing can stop wizards from mustering 
Muggle "fighting tactics". Wizards can do everything Muggles can AND 
magic. Surely it gives them a great advantage on Muggles.

> Betsy:
> In FB&WTFT, N. Scamander refers to "the dark days that preceded 
> the wizards retreat into hiding."  And his footnote goes so far
> as to call it "this particularly bloody period of wizarding 
> history." (p. xv)

a_svirn:

And what do we know about those "dark days"? Entirely too little to 
make any kind of assumption. 

Betsy:
> In fact, a footnote in "Quidditch Through the Ages" mentions that 
> the 1692 International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy gave wizards 
> the right to carry wands at all times, including the quidditch 
> pitch. (p. 28)  This right was given so that wizards could protect 
> themselves from Muggle attacks and would be the equivalent of 
> allowing basketball players to carry guns while on the court.  
> Again, this suggests that wizards were living in extreme danger.

a_svirn:
I agree it MIGHT suggest that wizards feared attacks from Muggles 
during Quidditch matches. However, to be able to judge of the 
possibility we need something more substantial than a footnote 
in "Quidditch through Ages". And even if they did feel cautious 
about Muggles it doesn't mean that they were in real danger from 
them. Just routine precautions. 

> >>Tammy:
> >Muggles could conceivably end up enslaving wizards.<
>  
> Betsy:
> It would be relatively simple.  "Mr. Weasley, we have your wife 
> and children hidden in an undisclosed location.  Here are their 
> broken wands as proof.  No harm will come to them if we have your 
> support in <fill in the blank>."

a_svirn:

Well, it's simple all right. But unless it's a message from DEs or 
other dark wizards I don't see it happening. 

Betsy:
> I agree with what Jim Ferer wrote in 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/125763 :
> <snip>

a_svirn:

Yes, I agree with Jim Ferer too.  Don't see how this statement 
advances your argumentation about weak wizards and strong Muggles 
though. 

> Betsy:
> For the most part, the Muggle world is fairly civilized and not as 
> superstitious as it was back in the time of Wizard persecution.  
> But we still loves us our conspiracy theories, as Jim points out, 
> and I think the scientific efficiency the Muggle world has developed 
> could be used to put a great hurting on the wizards of the world.  
> Wizards are for the most part, amateurs at the game of war.  Muggles
> have long since become quite professional.  

a_svirn:

You are operating on a lot of assumptions here. How exactly can 
scientific efficiency hurt wizards? From what we saw in the books 
magic is far more efficient than technology. And how do you know 
that wizards are amateurs in the games of war? They are certainly 
adept in killing each other. And they succeeded in overpowering 
other magical peoples like goblins for instance. 

a_svirn