Views of Hermione/Draco/Snape

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 160565


> Alla:
> 
> I prefer the different one, the broader one, the one which United 
> Nations uses. Let me quote Renee for that.
> 
> 
> > Renee:
> > It seems we're not using the same definitions of racism; apparently
> > you prefer to restrict it to discrimination, prejudice, etc. based
> on
> > visible physical differences between groups of humans. I was
> thinking
> > of the wider definition of racism used by the United Nations:
> >
> > "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on
> race,
> > colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose
> or
> > effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or
> > exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental
> > freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other
> > field of public life."
> >
> > According to this definition, the blood prejudice found among the
> > followers of Voldemort *is* racism, as it is based on descent.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sorry, cannot give you the post number, but I am sure Renee has it 
> if needed ( I saved it in a backwards way)
> 
> So, no it is not inaccurate definition and as far as I am concerned 
> Draco and young Snape fall uinto this one quite nicely.
> 
wynnleaf
Ah, so you are using a UN notion of racism.  Thank you for explaining
why it was not the official definition (the UN not being the official
definer of language, only of policy).  I have no real problem with
that, but I did dislike the implication that use of the term
"pureblood elitism" was somehow watering down what was going on.  I
did not know that one had know and agree with UN policy and terms in
order to be clear of that charge.

In any case, as I said, racism and nasty remarks do not equate to
being a perfect candidate for a murderer.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, Draco did become at least almost murderer, didn't he?

wynnleaf
Four years later, yes.  But once again, if you consider Draco's
*character" (which is what the trio were attempting to go by), you
have to remember that for several years after their grand suspicions
of Draco=attempted murderer, he didn't engage in any murderous
activities.  And that 4 years later it apparently took threats to the
lives of his parents (awful as they are) to pursued him to attempt it.
 And in the end, he really couldn't directly kill, although the
threats to his parents did motivate him to plant items that almost
killed others.  This isn't to support Draco -- he's a pretty terrible
kid and I don't expect to see a reformed Draco in Book 7.  But the
trio weren't even close to right about Draco in COS.  

Alla
> But my assumption that this is enough for others to think so, not 
> that he would necessarily become one. And enough to investigate yes.

wynnleaf
Definitely enough to investigate, yes.  But not enough to make it
legitimate to knock out other people, steal their identities, steal
from teachers, etc. etc. in order to further that investigation.  And
remember, they did these things because their investigations weren't
really turning up anything, not because they were on to great evidence
that Draco really was doing something.
 
> Alla:
> 
> You are amazed that I see no difference between condemning someone 
> for hex without looking at the context and **Not** condemning 
> someone for murder and looking at the context of the situation?

(snips)
Alla
> So, no, sorry I see no huge differences in the Tower then. Murder in 
> itself is the most horrific action ( unless done in self-defense in 
> my opinion) human being can do.

(more snipping)
Alla
> I do not see Snape being called a stinking murderer whether 
> Dumbledore asked him to do so or not. Which is entirely possible ( 
> as I said - whether I believe it or not, I keep in mind the theory) 
> of course, but should not the action be condemned out of context.

wynnleaf
Well, I think part of the question is what one considers murder.  Some
people consider *any* killing of others to be murder.  Others don't
consider the killing of someone who is dying anyway and requests to be
killed as murder (sort of assisted suicide).  Others think that is
murder, but killing someone in a war situation in order to save many
more others is not murder.  Theories of Snape and Dumbledore have
covered all three of those ideas plus more.  I suppose a lot boils
down to what various people theorize happened on the tower and why,
and also whether or not they'd see that as "murder."

It's a topic for a whole other discussion regarding the ethics of what
a DDM Snape and Dumbledore himself were actually doing up on the
tower.  Personally, I have a lot of problems with it, which is one
reason I felt strongly that JKR -- regardless what she wanted us to
believe -- had not truly had Snape *kill* Dumbledore through the AK on
the tower.  I didn't think having an Order member put in a situation
where he *had* to kill the "epitome of goodness" leader was something
that JKR would want to justify in book 7.  A lot of people think that
such a situation *could* be justified, others don't.  I personally
think it *could* be justified in a novel primarily for adults, but I
couldn't believe that JKR would actually do that in her series.

While I understand that JKR has said that Dumbledore is dead, I tend
to think that this occurred in a way that accounts for all the
oddities of the tower events (and other hints that all was not as it
seemed).  So I still think that we will likely discover that JKR has
done something rather interesting and Snape's AK was not what killed
Dumbledore.  

But that's just my notion and not one I'm trying to bring up for
discussion.

My point actually is to say that many readers see murder and the
events on the tower differently and find it perfectly reasonable to
discuss Snape's killing of Dumbledore without considering it murder.

Legally, death in warfare, even if of friendly fire, is often not
considered murder.  In some areas assisted suicide is considered
murder and others it's not.  There are strong ethical and legal
differences.

I know of nowhere that accepts 12 year olds drugging fellow students,
stealing from teachers, stealing identities, etc. as legal.  And it
takes a huge stretch to see it as ethical.  

A big difference here is that Hermione does things that harm the
innocent or those completely unaware and she doesn't seem to care. 
Theories where DDM Snape killed Dumbledore usually depend on Snape and
Dumbledore -- whether one agrees with their ethics or not -- agreeing
together on what they were going to do and making their plans
accordingly.  They weren't harming innocents or harming anyone
unawares or without their consent.  

wynnleaf