Explain This Passage

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180440

> lizzyben:
> 
> This has always sort of confused me too, because everyone in the WW 
> uses "half-blood" to refer to someone w/a Muggle-born parent. It's 
> not just the bigots or the Death Eaters. And it is sort of odd, 
> because Harry is the son of two magical wizards. If it's about the 
> effects of bigotry, what does it say that that whole WW seems to 
view 
> being the son of a Muggleborn wizard as the same as having a Muggle 
> parent? He's the heir of Perevell, even. In contrast, Snape & 
Riddle 
> are both the son of a witch and a Muggle. But they're all called 
half-
> blood, even though there's a big difference IMO. 

a_svirn:
Actually, there isn't. By *blood* Lily was a muggle – there wasn't a 
drop of wizarding blood in her veins, since both her parents were 
muggles. It was only because of an odd quirk of nature that she got 
her wizading gene seemingly out of nowhere. So if we are to take 
blood into account at all there is no difference between Snape and 
Harry. The question is – should we? Take it into account, I mean? 
Because I think the prejudice is not about *how* we measure wizading 
blood. The prejudice starts when we start to measure it at all. 

> lizzyben:
> Harry's parents are both totally part of the wizarding world, & he 
> would've grown up as a part of that world, while Snape & Riddle 
grew 
> up as misfits in the Muggle world. Harry "belongs" from birth in a 
> way that Snape didn't. He's not part of the "other" Muggle culture, 
> the way that a child w/a Muggle father is.

a_svirn:
I think you are confusing nature and culture, so to speak. Harry 
could've been a part of wizading world if he had been raised as a 
wizard, but he wasn't because he hadn't. It has nothing to do with 
blood, and everything to do with his upbringing. 

a_svirn