Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 157585

> Mike:
> > So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's
> position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he was
> a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin'
> Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority in
> the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he
> shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I won't speak for Magpie, but I will speak for myself.  It was 
> unnecessary for Hagrid to add the 'sneakin' Squib' part.  I 
> understand why he did it - he was under some stress at the moment, 
> worried about Ron in the hospital, having a private talk with some 
> friends, and suddenly having his authority challenged on top of it 
> all.
<SNIP>
> Still, it was Hagrid thoughtlessly using a WW prejudice, even if in 
> his daily life he has nothing against Squibs as a group or 
> individually.  It was singling Filch out as Different and Less-
than.  
> It sets him apart and demotes him to ascribed status, in fact, to 
his 
> Master Status as far as the WW is concerned.  It is a society 
> prejudice, part of the culture.  It is acceptable because others 
are 
> worse, it is acceptable because no one really gives it any thought.

Alla:

Okay, you can always explain things to me and make me hear the 
argument even which I strongly disagree with, so even though I was 
going to stay out of this thread, I changed my mind.

SO, I am confessing to being just as baffled as Mike is as 
to "bigotry" on Hagrid's behalf. Of course I won't dispute that 
Hagrid was using the *Squib* as derogatory name, but there is such a 
big road from derogatory to bigotry and even prejudice IMO.

I mean to me there is not a slightest sign in canon that *squibs* is 
a slur. The fact that Arabella calls herself a Squib speaks volumes 
to me. Are you saying that she is being prejudicial towards herself?

I mean, that is what she **is**, no?

And precisely because the implications of the **Squib** and 
**Mudblood** are so different to me, I don't buy the analogy between 
what Malfoy does to Hermione and what Hagrid does to Filch either.

I mean, sure they are both trying to put down the other person, but 
Malfoy does it with the **racial** slur, and Hagrid does it with 
something which in context I would also analogise to as an **idiot**.

IMO there is a big difference between two situations, simply because 
I cannot find any canon support that the name Squib is used as 
derogatory.

So, all that I see is Hagrid's anger at Filch as individual who 
**is** Squib.

Now, let's go back to Malfoy and Hermione in CoS for a second. I 
think that if for example Malfoy instead of calling Hermione 
**mudblood** called her, let's say **you stupid muggleborn**.

I would still not liked Malfoy's behaviour, because that still would 
be putting Hermione down, but I would not have called what he did 
**bigotry**, **prejudice**, whatever.

That is who Hermione is, right?

Now, I am thinking about werewolves. Calling person a **werewolf**, 
that IMO would be plain bigotry. Why, because werewolf as I see it is 
a human being inflicted with the disease and even though Remus agrees 
with Hermione that he is a werewolf, he does not go around and 
casually calls himself that.

So, when Ron says *Get away from me werewolf*, sure I would call it 
prejudice, bigotry, something that Ron seemed admirably to get rid of.

I see nothing close to that in what Hagrid did. IMO of course.


Ceridwen:
> We know that Filch is sensitive to his status.  He tried to conform 
> by taking the Kwickspell course.  He admits, almost confesses, to 
> being a Squib.  Being a Squib is a handicap in the WW: Filch lacks 
a 
> normal function of his world.  He seems to be sensitive about it, 
so 
> it shouldn't be used as a weapon against him.  

Alla:

Arabella is a squib too. They are squibs. I mean, sure Filch is 
sensitive and I don't think anybody disputes that Hagrid's calling 
names was wrong (and Filch too), what I am not agreeing with is that 
this name calling equals to bigotry.

> Magpie:
> He just wasn't supposed to add teh "sneakin' Squib" part.  I 
> honestly don't understand why this is a radical concept.  It's not 
> like Hagrid *must* bring up Filch being a member of this minority 
or 
> else be disrespected. 

Alla:

Because that is who they are and they seemed to have no problem 
calling themselves that IMO. As I said, to me the most convincing 
argument is Arabella calling herself Squib, if she was not doing 
that, I may be singing very different tune.

Hagrid does not **have to** bring Filch status, just as Filch does 
not **have to** question his authority as teacher. This is wrong on 
both of their parts IMO. What I don't buy is the transformation from 
name calling to **bigotry**. Name calling in my book is always wrong 
( it can be understandable sometimes because of heated exchanges, but 
no less wrong)

What I don't buy is Hagrid being prejudicial towards Squibs. I see 
zero proof in canon that Squib is used as slur, that is all.

> Magpie:
<SNIP>
>It just seems odd to refer to Draco being 
> chosen because Voldemort is punishing Lucius as an "interpretation" 
> when it's the only information we're given in the story.  It seems 
> like saying that thinking Voldemort went after Harry because of the 
> Prophecy is just an interpretation. 

Alla:

I snipped your whole post, because I think I finally got the gist of 
your argument and the heart of our disagreement here. Heeee, better 
late then never. Oh maybe I am wrong again.

I suppose the reason why ( even though I personally totally buy what 
you are arguing here) I refuse to call Steve's theory of lesser 
weight than yours is because of the possible unreliability of the 
canon we are given about Draco and Voldemort.

Yeah, if you are giving absolute facts of the canon versus theories, 
sure there is no doubt that fact of the canon is much more reliable. 
It is just I am so not ready to accept that everything in Spinner End 
is truth, although I sure go back and forth on it ( especially with 
Snape).

That is why when I do not necessarily accept something as hundred 
percent reliable canon, I refuse to say that something where 
speculation is present, but completely IMO reasonable speculation is 
weaker, but I hear you and if I was hundred percent sure, then it 
would be different story.

Voldemort going after Harry because of the prophecy is collaborated 
by how many people and sources in canon? At least two and we see that 
blasted prophecy too.

Voldemort punishing Draco because of his anger at Lucius is 
collaborated by whom? Narcissa and Snape, I have not missed anybody? 
I thought you mentioned three? You meant Bella or Dumbledore on the 
Tower, but I am not sure I remember him giving the absolute 
corraboration for that?

Um, these two can lie easily, no?

That is why, while I call Voldemort going after Harry because of 
Prophecy a **fact**, I hesitate to call Voldemort punishing Draco 
because of Lucius to be a fact. So, that is the reason why I don't 
see Steve's theory as so much weaker than yours, **not** because his 
does not involve speculation, but because I don't necessarily see 
your canon as hundred percent reliable.

JMO,

Alla.