Wizard Persecution (was: The Falling-Out of the Hogwarts Four)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 126073


>>Alla:
>Good quotes, Betsy, but I don't see how these three quotes 
contradict the other one. To me the question is whether wizards and 
witches were burned  and I don't see the proof of it so far.<

Betsy:
That wasn't the question as I understod it.  I reread upthread to 
make sure I didn't totally misread things, and what was under 
discussion was whether or not the Muggle persecution of wizards and 
witches constituted a viable threat.  You and Valky used the canon of 
Harry's textbook to suggest that Muggles posed no threat to witches 
and wizards. (They couldn't even burn them!) I brought up the other 
quotes to show that magical folks did feel threatened by Muggles. (It 
was a dark and dangerous time.)  Which makes the contradiction pretty 
clear.

>>Alla:
<snip>
>I just don't see the contradiction and I don't see the proof that 
this book whitewashes the history. It just talks about real witches 
being able to save themselves from fire. None of your quotes says 
that they  could not do that. :)
>In fact, they just say that persecution occurred.<

Betsy:
But the textbook suggests that the persecution wasn't really that 
bad, annoying more than anything else.  And that's how you use that 
particular canon.

>>Alla (message # 126032):
>...I think it is reasonable to assume based on canon that Salasar
mistrust of muggles was even if justifiable, not very well based on
facts...<

Betsy:
So according to Harry's textbook, you feel Salazar had no fact based 
reason to distrust Muggles.  But the quotes that I used suggest that, 
according to canon, Muggles really *were* a danger to wizards and 
witches.  Whether or not *some* magical folk could survive *some* 
methods of torture and execution, JKR has given us clear indications 
that Muggles did push the WW into hiding.

As to me suggesting that the textbook is a whitewash of history, 
well, it puts a funny, happy spin on what has been shown to be a 
pretty bleak time period. If that ain't whitewash, I don't know what 
is. :)

>>Alla:
<snip>
>Professor Binns also teaches kids, so why is it more reasonable to 
assume that he is not telling tales and the other book does?<

Betsy:
Because we have *one* source of information being contradicted by 
*three* sources of information.  When you have three seperate sources 
saying one thing is true (Muggles really did present a threat to 
Wizards) lined up against one lone source saying the opposite (Silly 
Muggles couldn't touch Wizards!), and especially when the three 
sources are backed up with the historical fact that the wizards hid 
all evidence of magic from Muggles, it's logical to go with the more 
backed up canon.  It's especially important that the three sources 
come from very seperate places. Though obviously all three spring 
from JKR's mind, she put them in the mouths of three seperate 
characters, all of whom she considered fairly scholarly.



Betsy