The secrecy motif

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179973

> > a_svirn:
> > It is not really comparable. In real life the inferiority of 
> > foreigners is an imaginary thing, a prejudice. In the world 
Rowling 
> > created the inferiority of Muggles is a fact of life. They can't 
do 
> > magic, and that's make them really inferior. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> No, I don't accept that at all. JKR has made it quite clear, 
> repeatedly, that the ability to do magic is all in the DNA & 
> genetics. She's said that even Muggle-born wizards have some sort 
of 
> a latent magic gene & wizarding ancestors somewhere in their 
> bloodline. It's a genetic mutation, like having a mutation that 
> creates deafness or a resistance to a certain disease.It's just 
that 
> this mutation gives people the ability to do magic. So what? In 
> another light, it seems to run in families in the same way that 
some 
> talents seem to run in families. 

a_svirn:
I don't think she made it "quite clear". She made it all as muddled 
as it is humanly possible. Because in her books magic is not 
something like "talent that's run in families". (Unless you mean a 
magical talent like metamorphism.) Magic does not run in Muggle 
families –  that's how we know they are muggle. 

> lizzyben:
For example, some people seem to 
> pick up playing the piano easily, & some people can't play a note. 
> Does that make musical people *superior* to non-musical people? Of 
> course not. And it certainly doesn't make non-musical people into 
an 
> inferior race. 

a_svirn:
I hope not, since I am the most unmusical member of my family. Yet 
even I can be taught music and achieve some modest results. Anyone 
can. All people can be taught maths enough to pass a simple school 
test. Some people are more gifted linguistically, some less, but 
anyone can acquire at least one language, and usually learn well 
enough another. However, Muggles cannot be taught magic. Had Petunia 
spent all her life at Hogwarts she wouldn't have been able to turn a 
match into a pin. She hasn't got magic and that's all there is to it. 

> lizzyben:
It's the same way w/any genetic randomness, from blue 
> eyes to small stature. Does having a mutation that gives a certain 
> height or eye color make that person *superior*; or, worse, make 
> people without that trait *superior* beings? Are people who inherit 
> blue eyes, or deafness, or musical giftedness, or small height an 
> inferior race of people? Of course not! We would never even think 
> that way. Yet, this is how the entire wizarding world operates.

a_svirn:
Do musical people share a different and distinctive culture? A 
culture that is quite foreign to all the non-musical people? Do 
people with blue eyes get together and found a separate civilisation? 
Not even the Nazis did that – would have been a little difficult 
considering that Hitler himself wasn't exactly blue-eyed and blond. 
However, the wizarding world is called *wizarding* for a reason. It 
is a world separate from the muggle one. And superior to it. 

> lizzyben:
 It 
> consists of people w/a certain genetic trait - who consider that 
this 
> trait makes them SUPERIOR to all others. To the point where they 
> consider people w/o this genetic trait to be an inferior race, and 
> almost sub-human. That's eugenics, pure & simple. 

a_svirn:
You know what? You are right. It is. Rowling's world is one huge and 
*successful* experiment in eugenics. 


> lizzyben:
The scary thing to 
> me is how easily JKR gets us to play along & even agree w/a 
worldview 
> that operates on eugenics & a belief in genetic superiority. How 
did 
> JKR ever get us to agree that Muggles are inherently "inferior"? 
> WE'RE Muggles, people! Are these wizarding idiots superior to you? 

a_svirn:
I don't know about "we". I am happy to say that *I* am not a muggle, 
any more than I am a witch. I live in a real world, not the awkward 
universe of the HP books. Though of course, I can't help identifying 
with muggles. 


>  
> a_svirn:
> Muggleborns, however, 
> > can do magic, and pretty impressive magic at that. So any 
> allegations 
> > of their inferiority to pure-bloods are clearly the consequence 
of 
> > bigotry and xenophobia. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> And why do people have that bigotry & xenophobia against anyone w/a 
> connection to Muggles? Because EVERYONE is bigoted against Muggles! 
> EVERYONE has seperated themselves from Muggle society & begun to 
view 
> Muggles as suspicious, inferior or incomprehensible "foreigners". 
So 
> of course the bigotry/prejudice against Muggle-borns is connected 
to 
> the bigotry against Muggles - it's a natural outgrowth of that 
> bigotry. 

a_svirn:
OK for xenophobia, but bigots only can be called thus if they are 
*wrong* in their beliefs. If their creed is based on a prejudice. But 
it is not a prejudice that muggles have no magic in them. It is the 
truth, just as the fact that magic makes wizards superior is the 
truth. 

> a_svirn:
> In real life 
> > a couple of, say, "genuine Arians" cannot produce an Asian child, 
> but 
> > in the WW two muggles can produce a witch or wizard. So it's 
often 
> > really difficult to say what kind of point Rowling is making. The 
> > only thing that seems pretty clear is that being anti-muggle-born 
> is 
> > bad, because this attitude is based on the false premise.
> >
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Is that Aryans or Asians?

a_svirn:
Sorry. Aryans.  

> lizzyben:
JKR has said that two muggles can produce a 
> wizarding child only if those muggles have wizarding ancestors. 
It's 
> all in the blood; the pure-bloods were right about that. There's no 
> such thing as a true "muggle-born" - if you don't have a wizard 
> ancestor somewhere in your bloodline, you can't ever be a wizard. 
And 
> muggleborns like Dudley Durseley *can* potentially produce a 
> wizarding child, if the good wizarding gene hasn't been overwhelmed 
> by the bad Muggle gene. This is good blood/bad blood at its core. 
> It's Aunt Marge's philosophy on bloodlines, made real. They just 
> disagree on which genetic trait makes people inferior - Marge 
thinks 
> that the Potter gene makes Harry inferior; JKR thinks that the 
> Dursley gene makes Dudley inferior. But they both agree on the 
basic 
> premise - some people are just bad blood.  
> 
> What's the false premise? That having Muggle parents makes someone 
> inferior? But everyone agrees that Muggles are inferior - so why is 
> that so false? How can it be true that Muggles are inferior, yet 
> totally false to consider Muggle-born children inferior? 

a_svirn:
Because they have magic. That aforementioned magic gene miraculously 
resurfaced. And with magic in them even having muggle parents does 
not make them inferior genetically. So the prejudice is really 
social, though as it is often the case with social prejudices the 
actual allegations have racial overtones. 


> lizzyben:
I think 
> that's the false, hypocritical position that our wizarding heros 
> hold. 

a_svirn:
It's no more hypocritical than having a born slave to serve you a 
sandwich. In real life it would be hypocrisy to say that there are 
men and women whom Nature has ordained to serve you a sandwich. In 
the Potterverse it would be hypocrisy to deny that elves' very nature 
is to serve. 

> lizzyben:
Because wizards already consider themselves to be a superior 
> race, so really it's hardly surprising that they look down on 
people 
> who are descended from the inferior Muggle race. 

a_svirn:
It may not be surprising, but it's wrong. Because muggle-borns have 
the distinctive trait that makes them wizards.