On Children and the "Other" (was:Re: On the perfection of moral virtues)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 169570

Betsy Hp:
> Harry and Co. think they can dictate what all is involved in being 
> on the "right side".  And apparently it's not merely being against 
> Voldemort.  One must also be against the Ministry, for Dumbledore, 
> for the Gryffindor quidditch team, personally positive towards 
> Harry and his friends, and I *think* that's everything.  Oh, and of 
> course, you need to be willing to turn on your family the *moment* 
> they question any of the above.  Then you come close to rating as
> being on the "right" side.

Jen:  Harry and friends have the right to 'be', hold opinions they 
have formed about the world and choose their own friends as well.  As 
the story has progressed, those who support the MOM or oppose 
Dumbledore are helping Voldemort, whether intentionally or not, so 
the examples above appear to tie into which side a person is 
choosing.  There's not much moral relativism at work in HP when it 
comes to Voldemort (and those who directly or indirectly support him) 
representing the wrong side and those who support Dumbledore 
representing the right.  

And what's an example of Quidditch team preference or not liking 
someone being the sole reason for the Trio to conclude an individual
supports Voldemort?  Without other evidence for such a connection, I 
mean.  Even when the Trio questioned Umbridge, which led to the quick 
chastisement about the world not being divided into good people and 
DEs, Harry had the instance of connecting to Voldemort's feelings 
when Umbridge touched his hand and that influenced him to wonder 
about her allegiance.  

Betsy Hp:
> Which is why, IMO, anarchy (or the lack of basic, agreed upon laws) 
> devolves into might makes right, and morals get determined by who 
> holds the biggest, well, wand.  That's Voldemort's way.  And 
> unfortunately, it's been the Trio's way, too.  And I think it's 
> hinted that Crouch, Sr. felt that way too.
> 
> The other way, is a rule of law where *everyone* is understood to 
> have the same basic rights, no matter their political beliefs or 
> quidditch team.  And no one, *no one*, is free to take the law into 
> their own hands.  I *think* that's the way Dumbledore is supposed 
> to be going.  (I'll admit that sometimes it's hard to tell. <g>) 
> But it is the way the books will hopefully support in the end.


Jen:  I'm not sure what they are doing that's tantamount to using 
Voldemort's and Crouch, Sr.'s, tactics?  I don't want to be 
dismissive of things they've done that aren't ethical (imo) such as 
Marietta getting the seemingly permanent disfiguration, but I don't 
see a progression with the Trio that is in any way equal to those 
particular individuals.  I *think* Rowling is looking at instances of 
abuse of legitimized power over groups as being the greatest concern, 
so someone like Umbridge using the power of the MOM to take over 
Howarts would qualify, as would Crouch, Sr., using his position to 
treat DEs or suspected DEs the same way they are treating innocent 
citizens.  The Inquisatorial Squad is given power legitimized and 
backed by the MOM although I'm ambivalent about that example because 
it mostly came down to unfairly docking points.  Still, they were 
backed by a organization and given power.

Voldemort and Dumbledore come closest to 'might makes right' because 
each legitimized his own power over others.  The difference between 
them is meant to be in how they use that power and whether they allow 
followers to make choices.  In that respect, Hermione - while 
unethical in my belief because she didn't disclose all the 
consequences- did not force anyone to be part of the DA or sign the 
parchment.  Likewise, most of the examples given in the this thread 
of the Trio taking away rights are personal examples of revenge or 
lack of acceptance of others which have no power behind them other 
than what they possess as individuals or as a group of friends.  

The fact that Harry has been ostracized twice by large groups of 
fellow students indicates how little power he holds over others as 
the Boy Who Lived.  Now, I could make a case that he's using his 
legitimized power as the Chosen One over the MOM in HBP, but since he 
hasn't actually forced them to do something against their will it 
doesn't fill the bill of what Rowling seems to be going for as 
serious wrong in the series.  Likewise, any favor Harry receives from 
Slughorn or being Dumbledore's favorite 'boy' may come across as 
unfair or frustrating but the instances don't involve Harry abusing 
power over those with less power as far as I can remember at the 
moment.  He certainly *could* have taken advantage of Slughorn 
disfavoring any children of DEs and getting in league with him to 
have power over those he doesn't like, as the Inquisatorial Squad did 
with Umbridge, but Harry didn't make that choice.  

That seems to be the key as I understand it:  Harry and friends don't 
possess institutionalized power to oppress those considered in the 
minority or those conferred with inferior social status (such as 
house elves, giants, centaurs, etc.).

Jen