Explain This Passage

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180467

> lizzyben:
> 
> Well, what I mean is that Lily is a witch, as much a part of the 
> wizarding world as any pureblood. And according to JKR all wizards, 
> even Muggleborns, have "wizarding blood" somewhere in their 
ancestry. 

a_svirn:
When it is so far removed it doesn't count. Otherwise where would be 
the cherished muggle/wizard division? 

> lizzyben:
> So Harry has magic from both parents. 

a_svirn:
Yes. But he has wizarding *blood* only from his father's side. Blood 
in this case means something you inherit from your ancestors, 
something that makes you distinct from other families, races etc. In 
other words, you lineage, your descent. As in "blood-relationships" 
or consanguinity as opposed to affinity. And his descent on his 
mother's side is muggle. 

> lizzyben:
James & Lily are as prominent 
> in the WW as Lucius & Narcissa, maybe more. 

a_svirn:
Well, yes. But that has nothing to do with Lily's blood status. She 
was prominent because she was a powerful witch. (Unless you think she 
was prominent because she landed a pure-blood husband. Even so, her 
prominence wouldn't have anything to do with her blood status, and 
everything with her husband's.)

> lizzyben:
So Harry would've grown 
> up with a high status in the wizarding world, his natural home. In 
> contrast, Snape grew up as a misfit in the Muggle world. As did 
> Riddle. Snape and Riddle had the experience of belonging in neither 
> the wizarding world, nor the Muggle one. Whereas a child of two 
> wizarding parents would've grown up as a part of the wizarding 
world. 

a_svirn:
Here again you are talking about nurture, rather than nature. Snape's 
being a misfit has nothing to do with his being half-blood. He was a 
difficult kid from a seemingly dysfunctional family. Harry was a 
misfit, because he was treated like one by his blood relatives. And 
Riddle was a misfit because Rowling ordained so. His soul had been 
damaged from the start. 


> lizzyben: 
> There is a big difference in terms of culture - a "half-blood" 
w/two 
> wizard parents would understand & be a part of the wizarding 
culture, 
> while a child w/a non-wizard parent would instead grow up as part 
of 
> the Muggle culture. 

a_svirn:
Yes, of course.  But as you yourself pointed out it is a 
difference "in terms of culture". Culture and blood status are most 
definitely not the same thing. 

> lizzyben: 
Another oddity, to me, is that while the text 
> seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look 
> down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear 
> about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very 
> approving of relationships between people of different cultures. 

a_svirn:
Hear, hear! Rowling doesn't seem to like muggles, does she?

> lizzyben: 
It's 
> not even very approving of marriages outside of one's own House. 
> After all, the Trio all marry other Gryffindors. So we have this 
very 
> insular viewpoint that is suspicious of relationships outside one's 
> own narrow circle or own's own culture - yet it's *tolerant* 
because 
> the heros marry Muggle-borns who are part of that narrow 
> circle/culture. 

a_svirn:
Yes, I agree.

> > 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
> >
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> But his upbringing would have everything to do w/his blood. The 
child 
> of two wizards w/the magic wizarding gene will grow up in the WW. 
> Like Harry would have. The child of a Muggle & wizard will instead 
> grow up in the "other" Muggle world, like Snape did. 

a_svirn:
Not really. Snape had been indoctrinated in the wizarding culture as 
a child. In fact, he was indoctrinated a little too well into it – 
hence his death eating. 

> lizzyben:
Blood determines 
> which culture you grow up as a part of - and a child of two wizards 
> (whether muggleborn or not) will grow up as a part of the wizarding 
> world. One of Us. Whereas a child w/a Muggle parent will instead 
> likely grow up in the Muggle culture. One of Them. And the text 
> seems to say that it's great if a "half-blood" child has a 
muggleborn 
> wizard parent. But it's really, really bad if a "half-blood" 
> child has a Muggle parent. 

a_svirn:
Yes, well. There is that. But we were talking about blood-status, the 
lineage. If some aristocrat marries a pauper, his children would have 
all the advantages of aristocratic upbringing, but there would be a 
snob or two to remind them about their less than spectacular decent 
on the mother's side. Same here. A wizard with one or even two 
muggleborn parents would be perhaps more at home in the WW than a 
wizard with one muggle parent, but in terms of lineage their 
situation would be the same. In fact a half-muggle can be of a higher 
blood satatus than someone with four muggle grand-parents. 

> lizzyben:
> It goes back to the odd distinction the books make between 
> intolerance of Muggleborns (bad), & intolerance towards Muggles 
(OK). 
> Muggleborns are part of wizarding culture, while Muggles are not. 
So 
> Muggleborns & the children of muggleborn wizards ARE part of 
> wizarding culture. They've got the same powers, same education, 
same 
> everything. By promoting tolerance of Muggleborn wizards, who are 
> part of the WW, & by defining half-blood to include the children of 
> Muggleborn wizards, the text hides the negative, intolerant 
messages 
> about Muggle culture. It frames the issue in such a way 
> that "tolerance" only means accepting people from one's own 
culture, 
> while maintaining an attitude of suspicion, seperation & 
superiority 
> toward another culture.

a_svirn:
Yes, of course. But how can it be otherwise? The wizarding culture is 
defined by separation and suspicion.  Has been ever since the Statue 
of Secrecy.