Slytherins are bad (was:Re: Severus as friend)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 183333

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > In the end, Slytherin is the "racist house."
> > <snip>
 
> >>Zara:
> Presumably, Slytherin was invited to found Hogwarts because he was 
> a good friend of the other founders, especially Godric...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's what confuses me.  Why was Godric (and the rest *g*) attracted 
to a racist?  I mean, Salazar wasn't subtle -- he out and out stated 
that as far as he was concerned, certain students need not apply.

> >>Zara:
> After he left, I presume the House was kept around because the same 
> could be said about its current students and Alumni Association.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But... West Point doesn't have a codified subset of students who 
associate themselves with the Confederacy, despite the powerful 
graduates associated with that side of the Civil War.  Plus, since 
this all happened *well* within a generation, I have a hard time 
believing the traditions were *that* well set.

> >>Zara:
> In Salazar's day, and even in Harry's, there was nothing illegal   
> about the notion that certain families were better and more        
> important than others.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
There's no law against the Ku Klux Klan, either.  Doesn't mean 
schools actively maintain a loving and safe environment for those 
tiny little eleven year olds who just *adore* the Klan and everything 
they stand for.  Why does Hogwarts? Why *did* Hogwarts? 

> >>Zara:
> And these notions were widespread within society, so a wild-
> eyed reformer wishing to close Slytherin House and stigmatize such 
> views at a later date, would meet stiff resistance from a sizable 
> portion of the population and of the membership of Hogwarts' Borad 
> of Governors.

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't really thinking of "wild-eyed reformers."  I was thinking of 
the Founders deciding, after Salazer did his, "screw you guys, I'm 
going home," exit, to close down his House (who'd argue that they 
didn't have valid call to?  they were the *Founders* for goodness 
sake!) especially as it espoused values they weren't that thrilled 
with.  (Or so they *claimed*... ::wink, wink, nudge, nudge::)

Gosh, they could have just said something rotten had snuck in and not 
made a big stink about *what* exactly they'd found rotten if they 
were that worried about bad publicity.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Canon shows that Slytherin was a racist house. But it also
> demonstrates that its racism was not unique (young Dumbledore),    
> equal in degree (Slughorn), permanent (Snape) or inborn (Riddle.)   
> The tendency to prejudice may be innate to humans, but what in canon
> shows that Slytherins are innately more prejudiced than other      
> people?

Betsy Hp:
The Sorting Hat by laying out the principles of all the members of 
each House (Slytherins are all, by definition, racists, otherwise 
they wouldn't be in that House in the first place); the lack of a 
single Slytherin in Neville's underground group; that call to arms 
scene wherein no one from Slytherin House stood up for Hogwarts and 
Harry (their loyalty was to themselves, not the WW); Voldemort's 
attempt to destroy the Sorting Hat and make all students Slytherins 
by default, and by implication, his.

Slytherin equals the Ku Klux Klan and/or the Nazi Party.  But even 
more so, because a soul searching device made doubly sure all members 
really were racist at heart before sticking them in that house.

Dumbledore was bamboozled by that most dangerous of emotions: lust 
(aka love, per JKR, that saucy minx), and so his little moral-bobble 
is forgivable.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> JKR could have indicated it was false by having a character        
> say, "Wow, I used to believe this but it wasn't true." But JKR's   
> characters never do that -- when they have a change of heart, even 
> in response to dramatic events, it happens slowly, almost           
> imperceptibly, and the character in question is often the last to   
> notice.

Betsy Hp:
*Very* imperceptible as this reader failed to notice it, too. <bg>  
Are we to believe the Sorting Hat's song vis a vis Slytherin has 
changed now?  They aren't as into blood as they used to be?

> >>Pippin:
> Gryffindor institutionalizes courage and chivalry the way Slytherin
> institutionalized racism. IMO, that's not a biased observation      
> either.

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  Within this universe, that all Slytherins are racist is not 
biased or prejudiced.  It's simply a fact.  And that the most 
important educational institution in the UK WW supports the 
continuation of this House and its philosophy is also a fact.

The first fact bothers me because it supports the idea that broad 
labels really *are* accurate (what sort of person is he?  just take a 
peek at his school tie), which is an important foundation for any 
argument supporting prejudice.  The second fact bothers me in that it 
prevents me from seeing Hogwarts as an institution worthy of 
admiration and worth saving.

By allowing Slytherin to exist within its walls in the powerful 
position as a school House, Hogwarts identifies itself as an 
instituion that agrees with Slytherins' philosophy. 

> >>Pippin:
> By our standards (but not necessarily by the standards of the
> Founders) that makes Gryffindor a superior house.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I'd say by the Founders as well, seeing that Salazar stormed 
off.  (Unless they were arguing about proper tea service? <g>)

> >>Pippin:
> But stereotyping based on that observation is unwise, for canon    
> shows that Gryffindors are not uniformly (McClaggan), uniquely      
> (Snape), innately (Lupin), or permanently (Pettigrew) brave and     
> chivalrous.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but all Gryffindors strive for bravery and chivalry.  And all 
Slytherins strive for racism and blood purity.  True, not everyone 
measures up and becomes great examples of their House 
(Harry/Voldemort), and some fail utterly (Peter/Snape), but the goal 
is very clearly stated.

Betsy Hp