History at Hogwarts (was Re: Wizard Persecution )

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 126053


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> The first quote is from Professor Binns, the second from Newt 
> Scamander and the third from Kennilworthy Whisp.  All three 
> gentlemen are presented by JKR as scholars; two of them are 
> historians outright.  To dismiss their wording and the implications 
> of their statements would be, IMO, a mistake.
> 
> Of course we also know that wizards and witches are hard to kill, 
> and I'm sure it wasn't a complete bloodbath, but to dismiss their 
> persecution as a mere annoyance is to overlook history. And yes, 
> Harry's third year textbook suggests that is *was* a mere annoyance, 
> but history is often watered down for children, especially if it's 
> politically dangerous history.  And in the current climate of the 
> WW, Muggle/Wizard relations are a political time bomb.  It would be 
> very unwise to instill either an unhealthy fear or an unhealthy 
> hatred of Muggles into wizarding children.  Better to whitewash the 
> history for now.
> 
> Since we have one source in canon being contradicted by three other 
> sources in canon, I think it's safe to say Harry's textbook is not 
> telling the full tale.
> 
> Betsy

And, let us remember that Harry is hardly the best of Professor Binns'
students.  History of Magic seems to be his least favorite course in
terms of the actual subject matter, although due to Snape Potions is
his least favorite class.  Like many teenagers, he just isn't
interested in the subject and finds it dry and boring.  I think Betsy
is right that the textbook is, in keeping with many lower level
history texts, not all that good.  But Harry certainly doesn't read it
very thoroughly, either, and probably comes away with all sorts of
skewed ideas.  And it doesn't help that Binns seems to be a pretty
poor teacher.

You know, it strikes me that Professor Binns may well represent a
milder version of the same phenomenon we saw with Umbridge.  The
Ministry felt that DADA was a dangerous subject and wanted to make
sure the students only learned an "approved" version, with all the
dangerous parts stripped away.  Perhaps factions in the Ministry have
long had the same view of History of Magic.

After all, why does DD allow Binns to teach (although I realize we can
ask that about a LOT of the Hogwarts faculty)?  Perhaps because he is
under pressure from the Ministry to do so.  The Ministry knows that
Binns only uses "approved" textbooks and covers "approved" subjects. 
They could easily disguise this pressure as economic parsimony (i.e.
Binns still wants to teach, how wonderful!  We won't have to pay him a
salary and he won't even require any quarters!)  Meanwhile they are
making sure that the dangerous parts (from their POV) of Wizarding
History, such as the details of the Wizard/Muggle split, are never
taught.  Recall that Binns is the only major professor who was, to our
knowledge, never visited by Umbridge.  Perhaps he is known to be the
Ministry's ghost.  And isn't it interesting that the various bits of
important historical information that crop up in the stories always
come from sources OTHER than the history professor?

Of course all this is probably bull and Binns is just a bad professor
that Albus keeps for whatever reasons he keeps bad teachers.  But
wouldn't it explain a lot, and be juicy besides, if there are elements
in the ministry bound and determined that the dangerous facts of
wizarding history never reach impressionable ears?


Lupinlore