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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 126112



Alla earlier:
"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.

Alla:

Well, we differ on this point, Lindsay. Salazar did not want muggle-
born witches and wizards in Hogwarts. He found them untrustworthy, 
why? Did he think that children will help muggles to persecute 
purebloods  and then will be dead themselves? They are people with 
magical ability who are just as vulnerable to persecution as any 
other witch or wizard. Salazar wanted to deny them education in 
Hogwarts, thus making them even more likely to be persecuted. Yes, I 
find malice in it. In his mind Salazar may have perfectly good 
reasons to have such prejudice. As I said earlier one can rationalize 
any prejudice, but whether outside observer finds such reasons to be 
rational, it is a different story. I don't.

Again, as long as Salazar wanted pure bloods only in his house, I 
could sort of give him a pass (without really liking it, but hey that 
is his house, he sort of does what he wants, especially since Godric 
and Ravena also had their criteria. Although again I don't find 
theirs to be as bad as Salazar's was.), but when he started saying no 
muggle-borns in Hogwarts, I don't like it at all.


 Lindsay:
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:

Slytherin wanted those whose blood is purest. It seems clear to 
me. :o)
 
Lindsay:
<SNIP>
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.


Alla:

Well, I said the similar thing upthread - it is a possibility that 
something else happened, but it also states that fighting died out 
when Salazar left. And there is also a possibility that Sorting Hat 
felt that it sufficiently described the conflict already. :o)


Valky:

One thing I think we can safely assume is that wizard persecution
existed in Salazar's time, I have never tried to dismiss this 
argument. 
 
What I question is that to what degree were Muggle methods of battle a
serious and mortal danger to Hogwarts via the admission of Muggle
children. In other words, did Salazar have the situation out of 
proportion or should the distrust of Muggles really have been 
escalated thus far?


Alla:

Yes, thank you, Valky again. This is exactly my point. I think 
Salazar went too far. Now that I think about it, maybe he had some 
personal tragedy to deal with ( as if someone in his family killed by 
Muggles), which I would find sympathetic on the personal level, but 
not on general level. Just speculating.


Valky:
A simple argument to that Salazar's behaviour *was* irrational, is
that History tells of the inability of Muggles to "kill" wizards by
burning, the most common practise and hence a reason to believe that
the persecution was *relatively* laughable.
 
The other argument in this case is that Salazar transposed his
distrust onto children, the weakest of all, as Lindsay has pointed out
above so again Salazar's position continues to be quite ironic seeing
as he was one of the "Most Powerful" wizards of the age and pretty
hilarious, to boot.

Alla:

Again, I do wonder what happened that made Salasar distrust of 
Muggleborns increase so drastically that he started insisting that 
Muggleborns should not be allowed into Hogwarts AT ALL?


Just my opinion,

Alla