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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 157590

> 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.

Magpie:
But you yourself admitted that you understand that Hagrid is using 
the term "Squib" here to by synonymous with "idiot" (though I think 
in context "idiot" isn't really what it translates into).  There are 
lots of things that members of a minority group can call each other 
without it being at all the same as someone in the dominant group 
calling them that.  That's how institutionalized prejudice 
works.  "Squib" actually is used as an insult (it is in this very 
scene) in the WW, as well as a literal description of a person born 
to magical parents without magic.  Calling a Wizard a Squib is an 
insult because Squibs are lower than Wizards.  

If Draco had called Hermione a filthy Muggleborn instead of a filthy 
Mudblood I think it absolutely would still be Draco making a bigoted 
remark--just not quite as rude of one.  That's exactly what Lucius 
is doing in the B&B scene.  I don't think Draco misunderstands what 
Lucius means by "You ought to be ashamed to let a Muggleborn girl 
beat you in every exam."  That scene sets up the later scene on the 
Quidditch pitch.

Alla:> 
> 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)

Magpie:
And I continue to be amazed that apparently calling somebody a dirty 
Jew isn't the kind of name-calling that depends on prejudice.  How 
can you put someone down by identifying them as part of a minority 
group unless the minority group is understood to be a bad thing to 
be?  

Alla:> 
> 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:
Merope is called a Squib by her father to indicate his disgust with 
her.  Squibs don't live up to their wizarding bloodline.  

Ken:
Filch is sensitive about being a Squib.
Hagrid is sensitive about being substandard teacher with a tenuous
hold on his position. Each of them attacks the other at their weakest
point. This is a personal battle, there is no need to elevate it into
an exchange of bigotry. ... Squib is just another name for Muggle 
and this Muggle isn't offended by Hagrid's attitude. Hagrid doesn't 
know Muggles so he often speaks from ignorance, but like DD I'd 
trust Hagrid with my life.

Magpie:
And to be honest, that seems to be what this is about. I am not 
making Hagrid into a villain, I'm saying exactly what you're saying.
Hagrid and Filch are not friends, they are trying to hurt each 
other, and Filch's weak spot is that he's a member of this 
minority.  Hagrid uses that against him.  I see no reason to try to 
explain how bringing up somebody's status as a minority group to 
hurt them has nothing to do with how bigotry works just because 
Hagrid did it.  I don't think that's really a lesson people need to 
learn more, how perfectly okay to do that when you're angry or the 
guy's a jerk.  Sometimes Hagrid isn't a great example of tolerence.  

> Alla:
> 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?

Magpie:
Anybody can lie, but there's no reason given in canon that they 
should be lying, and the idea that they're lying creates even more 
questions that undercut the story.  These three are the people 
involved in the story, so they're the ones in position to know and 
talk about it.  If they're lying Narcissa's no longer a distraught 
mother getting a UV from a mysterious man with his own reasons for 
agreeing to put his life on the line for her son.  Instead she's 
either manipulating Snape for complicated reasons of her own or 
Snape is manipulating her into getting him to take a suicidal pact.  
It takes out the kind of situations that HP runs on and replaces it 
with something that in an lj poll would be the ticky-box marked 
[other--I will explain in comments].

Alla: 
> 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.

Magpie:
I can see the difference in those two things--and I think it's a 
fairly honest description of what the theory turns on.  It's a 
problematic reading imo because when all is said and done it all 
relies on the reader to provide everything, and it requires more and 
more explanation down the line. 

-m