[HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Persecution (was: The Falling-Out of the Hogwarts Four)

[Lindsay]

No: HPFGUIDX 126087

> Alla:
> 
> Oh, OK then I will definitely concede that magical folks did feel
> threatened by Muggles. I will not concede however that we know the
> REASON why they feel threatened by Muggles ( why and how exactly
> they were persecuted). I will also  not concede that wizards were
> burned.
> 
> Betsy:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 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.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am not sure if it is true. We don't know for sure yet what exactly
> pushed WW into hiding. Persecution occurred, yes, but it does not
> necessarily follow that wizards went into hiding because of that,
> IMO. Although I am too tired to come up with reasonable alternative,
> I admit. :)

Lindsay:
Alla, Betsy, we have seem to distracted from the main point entirely. 
I originally said:

"How are children, or any witch or wizard of the time, who have not
been educated, able to know the Charm to keep them from burning at the
stake?  Or drowning?  Or saving themselves from any one of the
horrible situations that we saw during the periods of time where
people were persecuted for witchcraft?

I do think that a fully educated witch or wizard could easily save
themselves from a situation of being attacked by Muggles, but the
people of the time of the Founders did not have a centralized
education before they created Hogwarts.  There was no way for anyone
to know the magic they would need to freeze the fires, or the
Bubble-head charms, or Apparation or any other number of spells.
Which is why, I imagine, many of the magical people of the time WERE
killed by Muggles, and why it would be justified for Slytherin to have
something against them."

There were a very many ways that people killed "witches" back in the
day, not just burning.  They would drown them, starve them, hang them,
chop off their head, bleed them dry.  They would use all sorts of
torture devices to wring confessions out of people, which normally
resulted in death or at least disfigurement.

If we recall Betsy's quotes, though...

Betsy:
"They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for
it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches
and wizards suffered much persecution." (CoS scholastic paperback
ed. p. 150)

Betsy:
"Muggle persecution of wizards at this time was reaching a pitch
hitherto unknown [...] It is not the aim of this work to discuss the
dark days that preceded the wizards' retreat into hiding." (FB&WtFT
scholastic ed. p. xv)

"The right to carry a wand at all times was established by the
International Confederation of Wizards in 1692, when Muggle
persecution was at its height and the wizards were planning their
retreat into hiding."  (QTtA scholastic ed. footnote 1. p. 28)

Lindsay:
Each one of those quotes mentions persecution.  Two of the three
deliberately indicate that they "retreated" into hiding because of the
persecution - the other one just implies it.  The third quote states
that witches and wizards needed to *protect* themselves from Muggles. 
There is no arguement to be made: the Wizarding World went into hiding
because of the persecution by Muggles.  Harry's book does not say
anything about witches or wizards and going into hiding.  It just
mentions the issue of burning.

Let's look at the quote from Harry's book (PoA, pg 2):

"Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly
afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognizing
it.  On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard,
burning had no effect whatsoever.  The witch or wizard would perform a
basic Flame Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while
enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation.  Indeed, Wendelin the Weird
enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no
less than forty-seven times in various disguises."

There are problems with that, though.  Some very glaring fallacies
with the logos of that entire paragraph.

The Muggles caught a real witch or wizard, okay.  And that witch or
wizard still *allows* themselves to be burned at the stake (Wendelin
excluded)?  They have to have their wand with them to cast the Flame
Freezing Charm, and yet they just stand there and allow it?

When people were burned at the stake, they were tied to it, often with
their hands *above* their head.  How is the witch or wizard going to
access their wand in such a position, if they have been helpless up
until now?  If their hands are tied *behind* their backs, there is
still an issue of not only reaching the wand, but the fact that the
wand may not even be on them anymore.  People were not tied up to be
burned at the stake in full clothing.  They were stripped, often after
the trial or whatever humiliation process that replaced the "trial",
if not naked then down to the very shifts of their clothing, and that
is saying that they didn't spend a few days locked up first.

So saying all this, that they end up casting the Flame Freezing Charm
and enjoy the tickling sensation...Muggles aren't exactly that dumb. 
They are going to realise, after a while, that this person isn't
burning.  What then?  Do they just let the person go?  No, they are
all the more righteous that this is indeed a witch, and the next thing
you know, that witch is in an iron maiden thinking that the stake
wasn't such a bad place after all.

I'm not saying that there weren't those who escaped burning, there
obviously was.  But to say that none of were is just silly.  That
excerpt from Harry's book is full of flaws of logic - or rather, does
not give all the information.  Perhaps it does not lie, but it is
clearly not explaining the situation very well.

Alla:
> "A rift began to grow between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin
> wished to be more selective about the students admitted to Hogwarts.
> he believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magical
> families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing
> them to be untrustworthy. After a while, there was a serious
> argument on the subject between Slytherin and Gryffindor, and
> Slytherin left the school" - CoS, p.130.
> 

Lindsay:
Again, I am not trying to sing Slytherin praises, but there is
absolutely nothing malicious about what Binns says about Slytherin's
views.  The sole reason that Binns gives for Slytherin is that he
finds Muggles "untrustworthy".  He does not say that Muggleborns are
less powerful or inferior in any matter to purebloods, he just finds
them untrustworthy.  To me, there is absolutely nothing malicious with
that, and the entire point of this debate was whether or not
Slytherin's views were justified.

To me, all the indications that JKR has given us about relations
between Muggles and the Wizarding World of that time points that
indeed he was.

We have heard three Sorting songs at this point.  Only one of the
three mentions that Slytherin wanted children from magical families. 
The Hat itself seems more concerned with the personality traits of
Slytherins, and the one time it has mentioned blood it says "whose
ancestry is purest".  However, obviously the Hat doesn't even follow
its own song (and this does not follow what Binns said, either).  On
the "Harry Potter and Me", you can see JKR's student list, where we
can count not one, but TWO other Slytherins who are half-blood (Tracey
Davis (girl) and Millicent Bullstrode), so it is not just Tom Riddle.

So until we see a Muggleborn in Slytherin (thus showing that the Hat
completely disregards Slytherin's true intentions for his house
regarding blood), it is safe to assume that Slytherin only felt that
Muggleborns were untrustworthy, not half-bloods.  I imagine the Hat
just said that to make a good rhyme.  =P

Alla:
> "So Hogwarts worked in harmony
> For several happy years,
> But then discord crept among us
> Feeding on our faults and fears.
> The Houses that, like pillars four,
> Had once held up the school,
> Now turned upon each other and,
> Divided sought to rule.
> And for a while it seemed the school
> Must meet an early end,
> What with dueling and with fighting
> And with clash of friend on friend
> And at last there came a morning
> When Old Slytherin departed
> And though the fighting then died out
> He left us quite downhearted." - OOP, p.205-206.

Lindsay:
The part that really stands out to ME in that is the "divided sought
to rule".  It doesn't just say that Slytherin and Gryffindor were the
ones arguing, it was *all* of them.  And it doesn't mention the
Muggleborn issue at all.

I don't think we know well enough all the reasons that they were
fighting, let alone why Slytherin left.  I'm sure the admittance of
Muggleborns was just one of the many problems.  Either he left and the
Founders had nothing to fight amongt each other about (which wouldn't
make sense to what the Hat just said), or the remaining Founders
learned the errors of their ways, so to speak.  They realised that
whatever they were arguing about didn't matter so much, because they
had just lost their best friend.  It's kind of sad, when you think
about it that way.

And if the Houses can't unite after a thousand years of discord - it
seems there is little hope for Hogwarts in the present day.

--Lindsay