Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 179977

> bboyminn:
 
> Keep in mind that Britian still has the Aristocracy, they still
> have the House of Lords. But that doesn't mean that Lords and
> Ladies think that all common people should be killed, only that
> the Aristocracy is intellectually superior and therefore 
> necessary to effectively rule the country. 

Goddlefrood:

On opposite sides of the pond, even though I'm now in a bigger 
one, there seem to be different views of the hierarchy of the 
UK. The relicts of the feudal system, vis the Lords, no longer 
have any real power, that doen't mean they might think they have. 
The Aristocracy is actually considered by many people in the UK 
to be a bunch of inbred loons with the intellectual capacity of 
gnats. Centuries of marrying your cousin will do that to you.

The House of Lords has had no real function since around 1911, 
and prior to that since 1689, which is the date mentioned in 
DH as the date of the International Statute of Secrecy (even 
though earlier in the series it had been given as 1692). With 
the more recent amendments to the structure of the legislature 
in the UK the House of Lords can be ignored altogether if the 
Commons want something put through into law. There are many 
examples of this, not least of which was the ban on hunting 
foxes with horses.

In other words, if one wants to support an argument based 
on what happens in the UK as constituted in the last three 
hundred years or so to refute the paraphrased statement that 
Slytherin was a bigot, then the House of Lords would not help 
you. The WW, and more specifically Salazar Slytherin, has a 
superiority complex where muggles are concerned. In the case 
particularly of the House of Slytherin, one of its underlying 
tenets is that of the inferiority of the muggle-born. Salazar's 
professed aim was to rid the school of muggle-borns and only 
accept pure-bloods. The entire second book was largely about 
that. The movement towards more tolerance between the houses 
has, by the end of DH, hardly come along from the position 
at the beginning of the series, despite there being small 
signs that certain wizards and witches tolerate Slytherin. 
The fact remains that as at 2017 the WW is little different 
in its overall philosophy than what it had been during the 
time of Salazar or more recently that of Lord Voldemort.

Might is right summed this up very well. Many wizards believe 
that because they can perform magic they are inherently superior 
to muggles. This would apply across the board and not just to 
Slytherins. Arthur Weasley's attitude to muggles, being that 
they are interesting, but clearly separate from him and to be 
derided for their dependence on electricity, rubber ducks, 
etc., is probably a rather common view throughout the wizarding 
community. Arthur most likely wants his grandchildren to marry 
muggles in order to quiz them incessantly about why they do 
this or what that is for.

If the intended message was that the rifts in the WW were 
healing, then for many that message has simply not come 
through. They were children's books, though, despite the 
later instalments being a little on the more adult side, 
and in my opinion, they are not books from which one should 
try to take any real message at all. If read for what they 
largely are, which is an epic adventure yarn with the hero 
prevailing over the villain (and basically that is all they 
are), then they can be greatly enjoyed, notwithstanding the 
multiple plotholes and quibbles that have been raised here 
ad infinitum. If they are being read in order to learn about 
life, the universe or anything, then, IMHO, they shouldn't be, 
as little of any of those things would be found therein.

Goddlefrood, not off to find the deeper meaning of life in 
the Deeper Meaning of Liff.

NB - In the language of the monarch - one's tongue has 
been firmly ensconced in one's cheek throughout much of 
the preceding post. No deeper meaning is intended than 
that the House of Lords is incomparible to the WW.