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

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183447

---  "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:

Not quite sure where to step in here. So, to the general subject,
let me remind you that we can't say 'all Slytherins are bad'
because we haven't met 'all Slytherins'. 

Even at the school, Harry primarily interacts with a select 
group of Slytherins. There are several Slytherins in his year, 
even in his class, whose names he doesn't know. Which tells me
that THOSE Slytherins minded their own business and didn't get
in Harry's face. It is Draco and his immediate circle that are
the main problem, but the rest of Slytherins, aside from 
laughing at a joke now and then, stay in the background and
mind their own business. 

That doesn't mean they don't have anti-muggle or hyper-pro-
pureblood feelings. It just means that for the most part they
keep their feelings to themselves. 

>
> > >>Zara:
> > When did the Founders claim not to be thrilled with the 
> > values Salazar Slytherin espoused at the time they all 
> > founded the school together? On the contrary, the fact that
> > they did found a school together, suggests to me that they 
> > all considered the others' values to be within acceptable 
> > bounds. ...
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> ... And I also agree that the Founders showed a certain 
> level of agreement to Salzar's beliefs. They may not have 
> been so... *passionate* about it,... as Pippin points out:
> 
> > >>Pippin: (quoted)
> > But segregation is what Salazar was all about.
> > <snip> Once they'd worked out the house compromise, there's
> > no canon that any of the Founders objected to Slytherin's 
> > desire to choose his own students as he saw fit. They 
> > enshrined his criteria forever in the Sorting Hat along with
> > their own, so why would they object after Salazar had 
> > departed? ...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> ... So, ..., all of the Founders were anti-muggleborn to a 
> certain extent (otherwise they'd have not invited Salazar, 
> or un-invited him,...), just Salazar was more in-your-
> face about it.
> 
> So Slytherin became the *face* of Wizarding racism, but was 
> reflecting the actual thoughts of Hogwarts as a whole ....  
> Salazar *himself* became annoying; his values did not.
> 
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Here is the general flaw, we are taking the words of modern
people to be the words of Salazar Slytherin. Not the first
time in history that this has happened.

We see nothing in the past to truly indicate that Slytherin
was a racist. What we do have from the only objective account
is an indication that Slytherin very justifiably did not trust
muggles. This was a time of great persecution of wizards by
muggles. So, the more muggles you bring into the mix, the 
greater the risk of discover.

Using broad and general wizard mythology, likely before Hogwarts
wizards were trained in apprenticeships by individual wizards. 
This was reasonably safe, as if one wizard school was destroyed
many others would remain. However, the four founders had a 
bold new idea; to make a central school for all wizards in
which they could be assured that all the young wizards would
get a thorough, complete, and uniform education.

However, while this increased the quality of education, it
also increase the risk. If this one central school was invaded,
then the entire young wizarding population was at risk. 
Slytherins fears were very justified. The more muggles involved
the greater the risk of the secret getting out. If the secret
got out, and the school was attacked by muggles, then you 
essentially risked the loss of the most talented adult wizards,
and the loss of an entire generation of young wizards. So
again, Slytherins fears were totally justified. 

The other founders likely did not regard the risk as great as
Salazar did. I assume they thought that young muggleborn wizards
would not betray the school because that would mean betraying
and risking their own families. 

Slytherin wasn't willing to take that risk; the other founders
were.

> ....
> 
> > >>Zara:
> > It is also my opinion, that the wizard in the alley in late        
> > twentieth century Britain is a lot less concerned about 
> > racism than you are, ...
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I totally agree.  I'm still a bit stunned that this generation
> of Wizards are so little concerned about racism; ...
> 
> Betsy Hp
>

bboyminn:

Though my knowledge of history isn't great, it seems very much 
that this was a point in history where there was a great social
divide. Essentially, society was divided into the Superior and
the Inferior. If you had power, wealth, land, and servants, then
no matter how morally bankrupt you were, you were consider a
social Superior. Everyone else was scum. In a society like this,
I don't see discrimination as an uncommon thing.

But, relative to Hogwarts and the Founders, remember that their
fears were not prejudice, but were very justified. 

One last thought on the founders. Likely the founders were not
only the most powerful wizards and witches of the age, but they
were also likely the wealthiest. They not only had the 
inclination and skill to form Hogwarts, but they had the 
financial means to do so. 

I have always speculated that the source of Hogwarts wealth
came from an endowment by the founders which was added to 
by subsequent Headmasters and wealthy alumni. It can't be 
cheap keeping a free school the size of Hogwarts operating.
So, I speculate that the original endowment has grown
substantially over the subsequent 1,000 years. 

I also suspect that the Board of Governor's job is to make
sure the endowment is not pilfered, pillaged, or squandered.
Though I'm sure in 1,000 years all those things and more
have happened to some degree. 

Standing firm.

Steve/bboyminn