Albus again/ Chapter 29 ???s/ Snape DADA / Albus Memory Charm / Snape DADA

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 184407

Carol wrote to me in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184336>:

<< I guess I see DD as calculating, manipulative, secretive,
egotistical,vand hypocritical but not quite as cold and unfeeling as
you make him sound. In fact, your version of Dumbledore sounds like
Milton's Satan: "Evil, be thou my good." >>

Oh, no, not what I meant. I view DD as always committed to Good, 
altho' intellectually rather than viscerally, very naively when he was
young, and always egotistically.

When young Gellert turned young Albus on to planning world dominion, I
imagine  Gellert's reason to want to rule the world was personal
ambition, but naive young Albus's reason was sincerely for 'the
greater good'. Not merely that it would be good for wizards if they
controlled Muggles so that Muggles could no longer physically attack
wizards, but also that it would be good for Muggles -- in exchange for
giving up their autonomy to make really stupid decisions (World War I
is a prime example of a really stupid decision, but hadn't happened
yet at the time), Muggles would get magical healing, magical gadgets,
all the things that wizards can't imagine how Muggles can survive
without. He probably phrased it as wizards being shepherds and Muggle
being sheep, except the part about eating mutton.

I seem to recall that when I was around that age, I believed there
would be no war, no poverty, no terrorism, no racism, no bullying, and
no one unable to get what limited care medical science had figured
out, if only everyone in the world would just wise up and do as I told
them. Magical healing seems able to do a lot more than medical science
can. And it seems to me that using magic instead of 'technology' would
cause a lot less pollution and habitat destruction and global warming,
altho' I doubt even Albus was worried about those things in the year
1900. 

Yolanda summarized Chapter 29 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184352> and asked:

<< 3) Despite the source (Alecto Carrow, a Death Eater) could there be
some truth about Muggles driving wizards "into hiding by being vicious
towards them"? >>

To which Pippin replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184362>:

<< QTA mentions that witches and wizards in America had hoped to
escape persecution, and Binns also says that Hogwarts was founded in a
secluded area for that reason. Vicious persecution of witches is a
historical fact, though of course we also might doubt whether any
actual witches were burnt <g>. But even in Harry's world, we know that
witches and wizards can be hurt by Muggles. >>

Apologies to all the other listies who answered this question, but
Pippin's seemed best suited as an excuse for my comment. I completely
agree that the wizarding folk went into hiding to protect themselves
from Muggle oppression, and that tales that wizarding folk went into
hiding so Muggles wouldn't keep pestering them by asking for magical
solutions to their problems, and that no witches were really burnt but
only used the Flame-Freezing Charm are cover stories to tell wizarding
children.

I feel sure that cognitive dissonance is suffered by those wizards who
believe that wizarding folk are superior to and more powerful than
Muggles, while simultaneously they know that Muggles kicked wizard
arse so bad that wizards would be extinct, at least in Western Europe,
if they hadn't hidden from the Muggles. Some of the over-the-top
hatred of Muggles and 'Mudbloods' might be an attempt to fight against
their own cognitive dissonance.

Yolanda asked in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184352>: 

<< 10) Harry only sees banners for three houses represented. Why
haven't any Slytherins stood up to the Carrows and joined the D.A.?
Was it unrealistic to hope that any of them would? >>

Others have already pointed out that no Slythies were invited to join
the DA. I think it very likely that some Slythies hated the Carrows
and didn't hate Muggles, and may even have wished that the Dark Lord
had stayed vaporized. Were there enough loyal supporters of the Dark
Lord in Slytherin House that anyone who breathed one word advocating
subversion and treason would be turned in by their roommates? Imagine
the loneliness of one person, who can't say a word to anyone, trying
to figure out how Alecto Carrow could be induced to drink herself into
a permanent coma.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184367>:

<< Crouch Sr., also "always very outspoken against the Dark Side" also
didn't get it. In defending the WW against Voldemort he allowed the
Aurors to use their magic just as destructively as the Death Eaters. >>

Well, if "the Dark Arts can never be defined by their form, which is
always changing. They are defined by their result", then when Crouch
authorized the Aurors to use Avada Kevadra when they were already
allowed to use other means of killing, to use Imperius when they were
already allowed to use other means of control, to use Cruciatis when
they were already allowed to use other means of torture, he was
changing only the forms, not the intentions or the results. So it
didn't make their magic any Darker.

I prefer the usual question, of when it is good to use evil means for
good ends. The usual example is war. It is widely agreed that it is
usually evil to kill people, but for soldiers in war it is their duty,
and sometimes the defense of their homes and families, their country's
independence and the lives of its civilians, to kill the other side's
soldiers. 

Alla quoted in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184376>:

<< "But he had this real memory in him all the time!"
"Yes, but it took a great deal of skilled Legilimency to coax it out
of him," said Dumbledore. " and why should anybody delve further into
Morfin's mind when he had already confessed to the crime? >>

How about, because they know perfectly well about the Confundus Curse
and the Memory Charm?

<< However, I was able to secure a visit to Morfin in the last weeks
of his life, by which time I was attempting to discover as much as I
could about Voldemort's past. I extracted this memory with difficulty.
When I saw what it contained, I attempted to use it to secure Morfin's
release from Azkaban. Before the Ministry reached their decision,
however, Morfin had died" - p.368 >>

I remember when one listie proposed that the reason that Morfin and
Hokey and I forget who else had died soon after DD had broken through
the Memory Charm that LV put on them was that DD had, knowingly,
fatally damaged them in the process of memory extraction.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184391>:

<< And even after this, neither Harry, Hermione nor I recognised one
when it was right in front of our noses. >>

My memory is awful. When did an Inferius pop up in front of our noses
and we didn't recognize it?

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184400>:

<< At which point, he would have looked at me with profound contempt
for my ignorance and informed me that it was the imprint of a departed
soul. >>

And if I were so eager to learn that I was brave of Snape, I'd put my
hand up: "Sir, Nearly Headless Nick said he is a ghost because he was
too scared to go on. How did his soul depart if it didn't go on, and
how does fear of going on leave an imprint?"

<< wondering whether there's a difference between an Inferius and
a zombie >> 

You mean, besides that zombies are real?