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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 169584

> lizzyben04:
<BIG SNIP>
 Right now, the text seems to say that they SHOULD be
> prejudiced against the other house, because the "others" are all
> less worthy. That bugs.


Alla:

That is of course if one characterises this as prejudice, because 
IMO the dislike of evil is not prejudice, but well deserved dislike 
of evil.

Slytherin house purebloods are better than anybody else ideology is 
IMO evil ideology, and unless JKR pulls the rug and portrays 
Slytherins as misunderstood sweeties, I do not see at all what is so 
prejudicial about disliking what they stood for.

I said many times, I can totally see Houses uniting at the end and 
doubt that JKR promotes the idea that every single child sorted in 
Slytherin is evil, totally ridiculous IMO.

But I do think that this ideology will be abandoned by leaders of 
Slytherin house, whoever they will be at least - healing and all 
that before unity comes. IMO.


lizzyben04:
<SNIP>
I hate Umbridge, but the trio basically
> abandoned her to die in the forest, and then laughed at her mental
> trauma. If you stop for a second, you're horrified by some of these
> things, but the text never seems to want us to stop & evaluate the
> morality of these actions. So many times, injuries & humiliations
> of "the bad guys" are simply played for laughs. Is JKR making an
> ironic commentary on how we lessen the humanity of "others", or is
> she actually DOING IT? I'm starting to wonder.

Alla:

maybe she just enjoys her fictional villains getting her dues? I do 
think it is very telling that she said that Umbridge is still around 
because it is fun to torture her.


 
> lizzyben04:
<SNIP>
 And it reminds me a bit
> of the moral relativism we see in our own political world, where we
> can feel justified using torture or immoral practices against
> someone because, after all, they're the "bad guys." Just ugh. What
> kind of lesson is that? If that's not ever changed in these novels,
> if Harry & co. don't learn the dangers of that kind of black & 
white
> thinking, what is the moral message? "It's OK when we do it"?

Alla:

Sure, agreed about RW, think that Potterverse employs a bit 
different standards though. How many times in RL we think that evil 
escaped punishment again? See, if you do not perseive Slytherin 
purebloodism as real evil, my analogy is meaningless, but since I 
do, I think it works.


 
> lizzyben04:
> I'm hoping against hope that this is true, as well. But so far, the
> hints in that direction have been very subtle. Did Harry really 
feel
> bad about his attack (almost murder!) of Draco?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Um, another intepretation of Harry's **attack, almost murder of 
Draco** is Harry defending himself from Draco. 



> Betsy Hp:
> Harry going to the DoM unintentionally supported Voldemort.  Does 
> that make him a member of the "wrong" side now?  Does that mean 
that 
> Harry is no longer quite as human as those who've been completely 
> obedient to Dumbledore?  May we hit Harry with sticks now? <eg>

Alla:

Um, sure if I would agree that Harry going to DoM supported 
Voldemort in any way, shape or form, LOL. Then I would let you beat 
him a little ;)


Betsy Hp: 
> I know the answer is "no" of course.  But it seems to me that 
Harry 
> and his friends are allowed to make some mistakes, and yet still 
> remain on the "right" side.  Others (or should I say "others" <g>) 
> are not given as much leniency.  Probably, IMO, *because* Harry 
and 
> co. doesn't recognize them as human or real and therefore 
susceptible 
> to various pressures and misunderstandings as well. 

Alla:

No, IMO that is because the gravity of their mistakes does not go 
anywhere close to those on Voldemort's side. When Harry and Co will 
plan to kill someone for a year ( and no, I do not think we can 
count Voldemort here IMO) for example, then I will cheerfully sign 
them up for another side.

> > >>Jen:
> > 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.).


Alla:

I agree completely.


 
> Betsy Hp:
> Just Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs?  And non-prefect Gryffindors? 
<eg> 
> Oh, and adults who aren't in good with Dumbledore.  Other than 
that, 
> yes they're just three lonely, powerless, unpopular students. <g>


Alla:

Doesn't JKR pretty much measure adults worth by whether they are 
good with DD or not? I mean, does she? Epitome of goodness and all 
that. I trust Severus Snape and all that. So, is DD the ultimate 
measure of goodness in the books or is he not?

But yeah, I believe that on the scale of popularity they did not 
count very much and dear Draco Malfoy was much higher up there at 
least till the end of OOP.

The son of blood traitors, the muggle born geek and the chosen one, 
on whom fellow students and whole WW does not have a problem turning 
off the very second he does something they do not like. IMO.

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm saying we don't know if there were mitigating circumstances.  
> Gosh, for all we know there was a Ministry member holding 
Marietta's 
> mother at wand-point.  We just don't know because Marietta hasn't 
> been allowed to give her side of the story.

Alla:

Sure, Betsy as soon as we read about Ministry member holding 
Marietta mother at gun point, I will cheerfully agree that there are 
significant mitigating circumstances. I am not sure that is going to 
happen, but JKR often suprises me.



> 
> > >>Alla:
> > And I think the fact that she indeed **went** to Umbridge, I will
> > repeat again - she did **Not** go to her mother, if one argues 
that
> > one is loyal to her family as defense, she went to **Dolores
> > Umbridge**. She was not even forcefully dragged to Dolores 
UMbridge,
> > she went on her own.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> And we know all of the above because...  Harry says so? <eg>

Alla:

I thought Dolores Umbridge said so - that Marietta went to her.



> Mike:
<SNIP>
> I'd like to address the previous train scenes that Harry got his 
> *comeuppance* for in the HBP train scene.
> 
> GoF: Imagine you are out jogging with a friend. Someone kidnaps 
both 
> of you, drives you to a graveyard, kills your jogging partner, 
> tortures you, and then tries to kill you in some ritualized 
contest. 
> By some miracle you escape. 
> 
> A week or so later, the sons of the participants in the ritual 
come 
> into your train compartment and one begins to taunt you, that your 
> experience was just the beginning. Oh, btw, all of you know that 
> these guys fathers have done this before, all of you know that the 
> fathers are members of a terrorist outfit (though the sons have a 
> different view of that outfit, they know what their fathers do).
> 
> Tell me you wouldn't punch them in their noses? 
> 
> Yeah, I know, the sins of the father. But if the sons don't want 
> retribution, stay away. Don't seek out the kid that your father 
help 
> torture and begin to taunt him. If you go looking for trouble, 
> sometimes you find it.

Alla:

Oh Mike how much I loved your post :)

Now this is IMO a good example of how what Kemper was talking about 
transforms from Malfoy and his goons are entitled to to what they 
are not. ( Oh, my hatred of Malfoy increases tenfold every time I 
reread this scene and discuss it, I really should picture him at the 
Tower to remember him as  powerless wanna be murderer, who succumbs 
to the will of hurt old man IMO).


If these goons decided to talk this crap in their appartment in the 
closed doors, that is what they would be IMO perfectly entitled to, 
if they do not act on)

They did all you said and invaded Gryffindors space, IMO it is hate 
speech and beginning of actions as well.