Explain This Passage

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180536


> > Julie:
> >
> > This is how I understand it too. And isn't this how it pretty 
much 
> worked in Nazi Germany when it came to identifying Jews--if you had 
a 
> Jewish grandparent, i.e. you were of at least one-quarter Jewish 
> descent, then you were a "Jew." (Please correct me if I'm wrong, 
and 
> I may well be!) 
> 
> So in the WW you aren't pureblood if your blood is "tainted" by 
the  
> presence of a Muggle or Muggleborn within two generations. So it 
> seems to  me. Though I'm not sure JKR ever specified such, I did 
get 
> the impression she was in fact alluding to Nazi Germany and Aryan 
> supremacy with the whole Pureblood supremacy issue.

 
> Tiffany:
> 
> That's the same way I think JKR was trying to convey Pureblood in 
the 
> WW as well.  The example you mentioned also reminds me a lot of the 
> way it was here in the USA with the Jim Crow laws, where if you 
were 
> even a trace of black heritage then you were considered black 
instead 
> of white, even if you had white parents.  I can't tell if JKR ever 
> dirtectly alluded to Nazi Germany, but I did get the impression 
that 
> was the example she incorporated into the canon.

Magpie:
But that's not the way it is in canon. It works the opposite way. As 
long as you've got Wizard blood you're a Wizard. You're not in the 
elite that is "Pureblood" according to certain Slytherins, but you're 
not a Muggle. 

(Though I kind of hate that it comes down to "imagine the way it 
works under Jim Crow and under the Nazis--which are different from 
each other and different from the situation in the WW--and fill it in 
yourself.)

-m