Ending WAS : Compassionate hero

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 176064

 

> >>Julie:
> <snip>
> If you applied this  philosophy of writing off children
> by age eleven and assuming there's no  point in trying to
> influence them or change them, then the real world  would
> be a very scary place. (Oh, wait...we do, and it is!--
>  though on occasion there are those who don't write them
> off, as with the  true story of The Freedom Diaries...)
> <snip>

Betsy  Hp:
Wait, what?  Where do you get that?  Has no one on this list  been to 
college? That's not a judgement call on people's intelligence, it's  
just... 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. 
 
Julie:
In fact I did go to college, and experienced exactly what you are 
referring to above. It's classic because it's true. I don't really  get
your protest, because I was referring to the fact that segments of
society in the real world do get written off while still children, as 
destined a life of ignorance, violence and poverty because  of where 
they live/who their parents are. My reference to The Freedom Diaries
was meant as an analogy, as in that movie the young teenagers
had already been tossed aside by the representatives of society 
(the school's teachers and principal) as unteachable,  as unswervingly 
set into their futures where they will live out their probably short 
lives in the gang-infested and welfare-dependent neighborhoods 
(a GENERALIZATION) where they grew up. In the minds of most
of the school staff, these kids certainly wouldn't be going to  college,
where they might be introduced to those new ideas that might well
inspire them into completely different directions, so why bother with
them beyond shoving them all into one classroom together and having
a "teacher" babysit them until they can be released at the end of the
day? 
 
Instead of accepting this mindset, their newest teacher bucks the
system, and in fact introduces these kids to those very ideas they
would be denied--as none of them have been given the smallest  hope
of ever having that eye-opening college experience--and lo and  behold,
they do learn, do begin to broaden their horizons and see other  points
of view and other possibilities for their futures. (And some of them 
actually go to college to broaden their horizons even further.)
 
The analogy is of course, if instead of gathering all these bad  children
who will become a hindrance to a good society into Slytherin house, 
tossing them all together to wallow in their single-minded views 
without interference, the teachers and headmaster of Hogwarts  actually
introduced *all* the students to various ideas, concepts,  points-of-view
outside each House's narrow focus, giving them a chance to broaden
their views, and understand each other better (they're all going to  live
together in the same society for the rest of their lives, after all),  would
not this be a far, far superior education than the mere application  of
their magical abilities they are receiving now?
 
Betsy:
I've read several articles in the New Yorker lately on certain  
philosophers, scientists, artists who had one world view as children  
(the world view their parents taught them) and then left home and 
either  at college or while traveling in a foreign culture or going to 
a big city,  met up with a completely different world view, had their 
preconceptions  shaken up, and went on to become geniuses in their 
field.  It's so  common as to almost be a cliche.  And now suddenly 
we're supposed to  think anything that suggests such a thing is 
possible is  "unrealistic"?


Julie:
Huh? I don't think I implied that it was unrealistic, only that  certain
segments of society are often discouraged from or denied these
life-altering experiences of college, travel (which I've also enjoyed
extensively) and that I think it's wrong and harmful to society as 
a whole. I certainly find the whole sticking those loser kids in 
Slytherin House and ignoring them very wrong, and demonstrably
harmful to WW society. (And I do think it wouldn't have matter 
what House Voldemort was in, as he was already psychopathic
when he entered Hogwarts as a child, but I do believe other kids
like Draco could have had their views challenged, their horizons
broadened, and many might well have truly changed and moved 
in different directions.
 
Alla also wrote:
But had my personality had **major shake up**, since maybe not age  
eleven, but since my teens? I really do not think so.

I am not saying  about small changes, obviously, you cannot stay 
exactly the same while teen  and adult, you adjust your behaviour and 
all that, but I still believe in  the same things I believed as a 
teenager, if that makes  sense.

Therefore I do not dispute the possibility that person **can**  change 
as we witnessed on the examples of Snape, Regulus, Dumbledore, but I  
do dispute that person will **routinely** experience a major shake up 
of  their personalities.
 
Julie:
 I don't think it's really about personalities (temperaments) as much  as
about how one *uses* such inborn traits relating  to ambition, courage, 
loyalty,
intelligence, etc, etc. And that is where broadening horizons, learning  a
variety of points of view, etc, can influence and change a person.  While
basic personality might not change much, how we see others, how we 
relate to the world, and what we view as right and wrong CAN change,  very
drastically, IMO. 
 
Julie (who apologizes for repeating anyone, as I still haven't read all  the
posts relating to this subject)
 








************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]