Ending WAS : Compassionate hero

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 176039

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>...it's so classic that kids go off to college and get 
> > introduced to new ideas and take themselves in completely        
> > different directions than they'd ever imagined going. 
> > <SNIP>

> >>Alla:
> I had been to college and I had been to law school ( in the new 
> country, new culture and all that). Of course I acquired all sort   
> of new information growing up becoming adult, adjusting to new      
> culture.
> But had my personality had **major shake up**, since maybe not age 
> eleven, but since my teens? I really do not think so.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but this is the rub.  I think that in this discussion there's a 
bit of cross-purpose talking going on.  I'd say it comes down 
to "personality" versus "ideology".  

With "personality", to my mind, we're talking about how a person 
interacts with their world.  Are they introverted, extroverted, 
bookish, dreamy, questioning, accepting, etc.?  I suspect this is 
what your friend was talking about, with children being fixed, for 
the most part by age eleven.  And for the most part, I'd agree.  

(I do think you can learn traits that aren't naturally yours.  I'm 
fairly introverted, but I've trained myself to be pretty good at 
party small-talk and speaking in front of groups.  But yes, I'm most 
comfortable curled up with a good book or with a small group of close 
friends, and that's not changed much over the years.)

What you're saying, Alla (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that 
your "personality" didn't change despite all the culture-shock 
experienced.  And I believe that's what your friend was talking about 
too.  And that makes sense to me.

But "ideology" is something quite different.  That's more the belief 
system you work under.  And, especially at age eleven, kids tend to 
do as their parents do.  They belong to the same church, they parrot 
the same political beliefs.  Heck, they probably have very similar 
cultural tastes (music, art, food, etc.).  Certainly children will 
fall into their communities ideologies.

The problem, IMO, is that with Slytherin house JKR has conflated 
personality with ideology. And by condemning one, she's condemned the 
other.  And that's bigotry.  It's the kind of thinking behind Pol 
Pot's persecution of "intellectuals", because in his mind people with 
that sort of personality are examples of a dangerous ideology.

Obviously Slytherin house is gripped by a bad ideology.  What I 
expected to see happen was a realization that this did not, in turn, 
condemn their personality, and that in fact by labeling their 
personalities as wrong the bad ideology was allowed to fester and 
grow.  Instead I got a book that said (IMO, anyway), "Yeah, certain 
personalities are just bad".  Which is not just crazy, it's 
dangerous, IMO.

[Woeful aside: In a sense, I looked at the old Gryffindor/Slytherin 
fight as a really bad divorce where the Slytherin kids got told again 
and again "You're just like your mother with your art and your 
emotions, no good trash, mumble, mumble, now get me my beer!"  So I 
was kind of expecting the good Gryffindor kid to say to his 
brother, "You're not as bad as Dad makes you sound.  And sometimes 
it's not so good that I'm so much like him."  You know, a family 
healing itself and becoming strong.]

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I also question this bizarre notion that societal changes can 
> > only happen slowly.
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> In **your opinion** this notion is bizarre, in mine not at all. By 
> the way, I do not remember saying that societal changes can only 
> happen slowly, sometimes they do rather fast, BUT yes, I do        
> consider slow motion to be more realistic.

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't addressing you specifically, more anyone making 
the "unrealistic" argument against overt change occurring quickly.  
And honestly, I think history backs me up that change doesn't always 
occur slowly.  So I feel like I'm backed by fact here.  (Though I'll 
admit there's a philosophical side that can be tussled with. <g>)  

> >>Alla:
> I will just say briefly about Natzis, since I do not have in depth 
> picture, but will touch more on what I am familiar with.  I see on 
> the news that Natzis groups are still in **existance** in Germany   
> these days. Sure, they are not on top, not in charge, but aren't   
> they even part of the government now? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No.  They couldn't be because the Nazi party is illegal in Germany.  
Just as segragation and slavery is illegal in the USA.  Are there 
still racists around?  Sure.  But they're not codified by the 
government.  And that's a big change.  One that occurred quickly, 
with a stroke of a pen. <eg>

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> <SNIP>
> > Harry and co. are the definition of content (OBHWF, after all).  
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> We know that they did play a part and I am not sure where you find 
> that they are content with what is happening in society. They are 
> happy on the personal level, yes.

Betsy Hp:
For Harry and co., it's all personal, IMO.  Which is why they didn't 
worry about changing things.  They're in a good spot as the blessed 
elect, so why rock their societies boat?

Betsy Hp (running out the door)