It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 148177

> Carol:
> There's a lot more to say about "blood" than I have room for here, 
but
> I just want to point out the rather surprising views on blood of 
two
> characters, Hagrid and Phineas Black. Hagrid abuses Mr. Dursley for
> being a Muggle and Filch for being a Squib yet is himself a "half
> breed," only half human (but magical). He also refers to the 
centaurs
> as "nags" after an argument with them, surely no more respectful of
> them than Umbridge except that he's not insulting them to their 
faces,
> yet he's enraged when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood" and gushes
> over the importance of "blood" and cries in his beer over his lost
> parents and the importance of "blood" when he's really thinking of
> "Grawpy," his nonmagical, nonhuman half-brother. Apparently 
nonmagical
> blood or nonmagical status is bad as long as it isn't his or his
> family's or a friend's. Is he a hypocrite or is there a logic to 
his
> prejudices and namecalling that I'm unable to find? Why is "Squib" 
or
> "nag" an acceptable insult when "Mudblood" isn't? If Draco had 
called
> her a "stupid Muggleborn" instead of a "filthy little Mudblood," 
would
> that have been okay?

a_svirn:
I don't think that "nags" for Centaurs fall into the same category 
with "mudblood" or "pureblood". Blood only comes into play when it 
can be mixed. Hence all this discourse of pollution, purity etc. 
Centaurs are simply too different, too apart from humans for it to 
be an issue. As for other insults – I'd say Hagrid as much a bigot 
in his way as Draco and Co in theirs. Come to think of it, he's even 
worse, because muggles and Squibs are powerless and can't respond in 
kind.