![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
While I'm not condoning the anti-muggle "racism" or the whole purist thing, I can easily see where it comes from. Not only is the anti-muggle sentiment widely accepted and embraced (to the point that muggleborn characters seem to lose virtually all their ties with the muggle world, they choose the wizarding world over it. How often does Hermione talk about her family? I can't remember a single time she does, except perhaps to identify as a muggleborn), but on top of that there is a very significant past history of muggle persecution of witches and magical beings of any sort.
But, it seems to me, the issue of the witch burnings and the cruelty of things like the crusades is downplayed and brushed aside by the fact that a trained witch could withstand the fire without being actually hurt by it. In my mind, the main wizarding victims in the situation would have been children or untrained witches, which you'd think would make it even worse. Muggles attacking wizards by killing their children! And so what if the majority of the victims of the witch burnings were muggles? That doesn't change the fact that it was the idea of magic they were trying to destroy. But gee, it doesn't hurt witches, so it's harmless! Right? I don't think that wizards should necessarily be expected to believe that, or to pretend they do.
The fact alone that muggles are WILLING to kill witches on principle is enough to inspire anti-muggle sentiment, and is grounds for keeping the wizarding world hidden. It's not JUST that they think the muggles are greedy little bastards who would want the wizarding world to do everything for them, it's also because the alternative to that is being completely wiped out by bible thumpers (who absolutely still exist today. How many Harry Potter books have they burned? lol) It's got to be a major player in the origin of the anti-muggle feelings to begin with.
Particularly bothersome to a wizard who was anti-muggle but not completely ignorant would be the fact that muggles have moved past fire and brimstone and into firearms and nuclear weaponry by the time the books take place.
I think in fanon (and canon, to a degree), people take for granted the harmlessness of the muggles. In comparison to wizards, they certainly don't have magic which could make them appear inferior to the characters in the story, but they certainly aren't any kind of helpless creature that couldn't defend themselves. They are much, much more advanced than the wizarding world in terms of technology, to the point that I'm fairly certain they could eradicate the entire wizarding world in just a few days. Most wizards are even so ignorant of the muggle world that they don't know what guns are, so they would have no knowledge of the kind of spells to use against it. And I don't care whether you have magic or not, a bullet through the brain won't magically heal itself.
I wholly believe that if the muggle world was alerted to the existence of the wizarding world, and KNEW about the Death Eaters vendetta to kill them, they would be entirely able to protect themselves. However, since they don't know about it, they don't know they need to protect themselves, so the war exists only between the two sides of wizarding society. They are never even clued in to the fact that their lives are in very serious danger, and it's no wonder that anti-muggle racism exists if this is the way that they're openly treated within wizarding society. Instead of viewing the muggle world as being actually similar to the wizarding world, they're either completely defenseless or they're cruel and vicious. They're either amusing or they're corrupting the traditional wizarding world. None of the characters in the books, even those that support blood equality, seem to consider the fact that some muggles are dangerous, some are defenseless, and as a body of people they are capable of standing their own ground and defending themselves against magical warfare. So much is happening around them that directly involves them and puts their lives in danger, and yet they're not even permitted to participate in it, because they're muggles and they're considered basically incompetent compared to wizards.
Sure, it's wrong to kill muggles just like it's wrong to kill anyone (and when it comes to war, I don't think you can say that one army is wrong to kill and another isn't. Whether you support one side or another, you're still condoning their killing of another group of people, and can't necessarily use "killing during wartime" as an argument against them.)
And yes, while it's apparently wrong to hate muggles, it's perfectly acceptable (and encouraged by the administration, no less!) to hate Slytherins. If you ask me, the term "reverse racism" certainly works in regards to these books. The purebloods themselves are a minority, the Death Eaters are a group of radicals trying to preserve their values by killing other people, and they are widely loathed throughout the wizarding world. Purebloods are assumed purist until they clarify that no, no, they love muggles!
As someone said in the other post, JKR encourages some kinds of prejudice but not others. I agree with that, and I really think that most of the "good" figures in the books are so fucking morally ambiguous that it's impossible to tell WHY they're considered good. Dumbledore is the easiest to discuss, and without even looking at the whole "lawl greater good" thing from book seven. You only have to look at him and how he approaches his position as headmaster to see where he is dangerously biased and manipulative toward his students. Why would he be considered a good man even without his super sekrit anti-muggle past?
I think it's wholly inappropriate for him to be headmaster while guiding a faction of (non-Ministry) fighters, particularly when he is recruiting students barely out of school into it. He's taking untrained children and putting them into a war environment, abusing his position as the protector in order to gain support for his group. The Ministry is oppressive, so they work outside of it, and are in essence a radical guerrilla army in their own right.
James, Lily, Sirius, Remus... as much as they may have wanted to fight, they couldn't have truly understood what they were getting into any more than Severus or Regulus did with the Death Eaters. He is taking a position of trust, in which he is the protector of (some) children, and then he is bringing these young people into situations in which they are dying. If it had been anyone outside of school, that may have been different, but the fact that he's the headmaster and has protected them in the past means that they will, at least subconsciously, imagine him to be well-intentioned and to have the ability to keep them safe, and who would help them out of danger should they get into a tangle.
Instead, he is a military leader who takes strategic risks, and is not protecting their individual lives. I think this must have become evident to the Potters and Sirius by the end, or they would have accepted his invitation to be their secret keeper rather than choosing someone else. And the fact that he DID recruit these children into the Order, knowing that he did very little to actually protect their safety (including allowing Sirius to be sent to prison without saying a word in his defense -- did he truly think Sirius was capable of what had happened, or did he simply not care because Sirius wouldn't be useful to him anymore?)
It kind of makes you wonder, really, why he bothered to protect them in school. I, for one, can only come up with one reason that makes sense to me, but perhaps I'm just overly cynical.
He graciously forgave Sirius for pulling a prank against Severus that would have killed or changed him for life if James hadn't stopped it, allowed the boys to continue bullying Severus throughout school, and for what, exactly? The only reason I can find that he would favour these boys just to let them die is the same reason he did with Harry -- they're working FOR him. If he expels Sirius (as he should have, for a "joke" that endangered another student's life), he loses the support of all four of the Marauders. Since he doesn't have Severus' support to begin with, he loses nothing by forcing him to stay silent about it. It would be illogical for him to lose four young men who are willing to throw themselves to the front lines to die for him, in exchange for the emotional safety of one boy who is fast on his way to the Death Eaters.
It's this kind of subjectivity and bias that really bothers me, in the books. I don't see how anyone can hate Snape for the upfront bullying he does in his classes and not also hate Dumbledore for his utter manipulation and lack of compassion for his students. He does not seem to truly care about any of them, and favours only the ones who are going to be useful to him. The Gryffindor who fully embodies the traits that are supposedly Slytherin, and the reason that so many people hate Slytherin house (who actually seem to be lacking that manipulative element in most cases that we see. Draco, have tact or discretion? Yeah right!)
But, it seems to me, the issue of the witch burnings and the cruelty of things like the crusades is downplayed and brushed aside by the fact that a trained witch could withstand the fire without being actually hurt by it. In my mind, the main wizarding victims in the situation would have been children or untrained witches, which you'd think would make it even worse. Muggles attacking wizards by killing their children! And so what if the majority of the victims of the witch burnings were muggles? That doesn't change the fact that it was the idea of magic they were trying to destroy. But gee, it doesn't hurt witches, so it's harmless! Right? I don't think that wizards should necessarily be expected to believe that, or to pretend they do.
Like i mentioned in my comment to the post, a witch tied to the stake doesn't even have her wand! And she's tied up! And it's only the extremely powerful exceptions like D. or L.V. who can do wandless magic. So that story they're feeding schoolchildren is a bunch of cack! Why are they perpetrating that little fantasy?
I feel like, since the muggle/wizard relationship is basically the main theme of the entire series, it should be a little more thought out.
Back to that lie that they're teaching the children, (and one could surmise, many other similar ones) what would be the purpose of that piece of propaganda? Perhaps it was intended to allay their fears that Muggles were coming to get them, like the boogey-man? It would have the effect of teaching them that Muggles, though murderous and hating of all things magic, are yet incompetent, ignorant, and bumbling, like cartoon villains, and witches and wizards are clever and resourceful and superior, and in no real danger from them. Where do we see a perfect example of the results of this sort of edumacation? Why, in the 800 word prequel snippet, where Our Heroes are baiting (fat) Muggle cops. just a couple of pureblood boys having a little fun! Not to worry, they didn't use Dark magic!
But the fact is that nearly all the characters use Hexes and Jinxes, are taught how to do them in classes, and in fact could not fight any sort of war without them. So what makes the hexes and jinxes of characters of the Good Team morally superior to the ones on the Bad Team? It's impossible to write a character who hates Dark magic by her own definitions, unless that character is written as a pacifist. Which don't seem to actually exist in Potterverse.
Red Hen has an essay that goes into this question very deeply, and suggests that even the Unforgiveables could theoretically have had legitimate uses originally. Avada Kedavra could have been used to bloodlessly and presumably, at least relatively painlessly, slaughter food animals, or to put a sick one out of its misery. Imperio could be used by a parent to stop a child from doing something that would have hurt him/herself. And even Crucio could have been used by healers as a tool of quick and dirty triage on a battlefield, to quickly determine which of the bodies lying around were still alive.
However, I utterly fail to understand why Crucio is "unforgivable" but Sectumsempra, which seems to have a much higher chance of killing someone, is not. (Unless it's just entirely unknown.) It seems ridiculous that out of all the thousands of hexes and curses that are possible, only 3 are immediate prison sentence crimes. That part does seem political, rather than ethically based.
There's a great deal of wizarding legalities we don't know about... is Crucio really more dangerous than the presumably-minor hex that damn near smashed Harry off his broom during the Quidditch match? Is Imperio more manipulative than Obliviate (or is that one allowed because of the "need" to cast it on Muggles)?
I could imagine Crucio and AK growing out of helpful spells, but I don't think they're currently usable for any reason other than malice.
Well, no, for AK you have to really mean for the target to *die*. (In fact he or she won't suffer at all.) And as we know it can be used for euthanasia. ;) (It seems like an awfully humane way to slaughter animals as well...)
Sectumsempra is Snape's personal spell, the Ministry doesn't know about it. I don't see anything weird about these 3 spells leading to automatic imprisonment, compared to some laws in the real world... They are malicious and dangerous spells. "Making a broom shake" doesn't seem to compare, although of course harmless spells and objects can be used as murder weapons.
The thing about the spells that bothers me is the hypocrisy of the Ministry. Harry can use them, apparently, because he loses his temper and is only human. Despite them being UNFORGIVABLE. They also allowed Aurors to use them in the first war, so it seems that they're not as clear cut about the spells as they could potentially be. That, I think, confuses the actual impact of the spells and makes it seem like they might not be quite as horrific as they're supposed to be.
Why would you even mention Harry when *the Ministry* uses them all over the place during war. (I have not seen the Ministry discussing Harry's use of Unforgivables, to cite him being human or anything else. Either you are talking about the fictional Ministry or the real JKR. She doesn't even like the Ministry so she definitely doesn't share all their views or the other way round.) They try to rot these spells out in times of peace. It's a little like how you are not allowed to shoot others with a rifle during peace time, but at other times you are supposed to, despite murder being a FELONY. This doesn't change the awful nature of shooting people with a rifle. Humanity has lived with this kind of hypocrisy since the dawn of time.
I still think Sectumsempra can not be illegal because it is unknown and new, otherwise it would definitely be, seeing as it's dark and brutal (it would not be made the 4th unforgivable though, just one of thousand of illegal dark spells) but I agree that the horrible thing about AK is it's immediate unstoppable nature.
He is allowed to be forgiven for his casual/thoughtless (and completely unremorseful) use of the Unforgivables because he is the saviour of the wizarding world. Which, essentially, proves that they're not actually unforgivable, and there are circumstances in which they would be tolerated and even encouraged. Whether or not they're criminal depends on who uses them and if they use them to further the means of the government, and it doesn't seem to be a deeper moral issue at all. Because ethics are relative to the individual and I'm fairly certain that the Death Eaters, despite being bigots and violent, didn't wake up every morning thinking "my, I wonder what sorts of evil I can commit today!" They think they're doing what's right, so. The government can't control what people are going to believe, but they CAN make it criminal behaviour to disagree with them on certain issues, which is what the unforgivable situation appears to be, to me.
you have to 'mean it' for Crucio as well.
And fat. Can't forget that. I see you noticed that whenever Rowling writes about Muggles, including once again in the latest snippet, she sneers at at least one of them for being fat.
Yes, that's bothered me too! In my AU Snupin series Blaise eventually becomes the history teacher at Hogwarts and he has a class discussion about why the Death Eaters hated Muggles--and what it boils down to is that deep down, wizards fear the Muggles. Even if they don't have magic, they far outnumber wizards, and the technology (as you said, guns and nuclear weapons) they have now makes them even more dangerous than they were in "burning witches at the stake" days.
In the books it seems like the secrecy laws are in place to protect Muggles, but it makes more sense if it's the other way around. You guys already discussed this in the comments, but I think the whole thing about real witches and wizards not needing to worry about being burned at the stake is a way to reassure themselves that they don't really have anything to fear--even if they do. The Ministry--and the wizarding world at large--seems to be pretty good about ignoring unpleasant realities (such as Voldemort's return) until it smacks them right in the face. Also, people like the Death Eaters wouldn't want to admit that they're afraid of mere Muggles.
So the pureblood purists have genuine concerns about keeping the wizarding world safe from Muggles, although obviously the Death Eaters take it to an unjustifiable extreme.
And Dumbledore--I totally agree with you there, too! He turned down the position of Minister because he didn't want to be tempted by power, but it might have been better if he had taken it, because as Headmaster, he had complete power and influence over impressionable young children. The way he treated Snape is bad enough, but it's chilling to think about how he put the students that he supposedly *liked* in danger.
there was a really good snape/percy genderfuck story -- Chutes and Ladders; Cloaks and Daggers -- that deals with that aspect, too. in it, percy is basically a double agent, spying on the ministry for snape and the order. he tells snape about a meeting scrimgeour has with the muggle PM and thinks it has to do with military intervention.
and that's a very good point -- i mean, they have every right to be scared of Muggles... i would be. hell, i'm scared of ordinary folk in the real world!
Thanks :)
http://ian-clcd.livejournal.com/
Enjoy!
i don't understand where all the "we can't call it racism" comes from. just like race -- like blacks, and jews, and countless others -- blood status is something that cannot be helped by the person. Hermione can't help being a Muggleborn. Harry can't help being half-blood.
From HP:OotP, Chapter Six
This is Sirius talking to Harry.
So... I don't understand how anyone could read Rowling's interviews, read the books, and still think that blood purism isn't a stand-in for racism. If there's a wizarding race, according to the extremists, then the inferiority of half-bloods or Muggleborns does equate to racism.
I don't see how more explicit Rowling could be about it.
One thing of note: notice how Rowling capitalizes Muggles and Muggleborns, and even Mudbloods, but not wizarding race, wixarding world, purebloods, or half-bloods... i wonder why that is?
Frankly, one of the most ick-producing results for me in Rowling's equation of anti-Muggleborn prejudice with racism is where it puts us with Hermione Granger. She becomes the ultimate "good Muggleborn", who renounces her Muggle parents to the point of hexing away their memories and shipping them off to Australia so they will be out of the way. She subsumes her agenda into her pure-blooded husband, to the point where she looks the other way when he hexes a Muggle because he's too lazy to look in a rear-view mirror. Etc. Does it not raise all kinds of uncomfortable questions about Uncle Tom, the Agency scout who helped the cavalry while they hunted Indians, etc? And Rowling, et al, seem totally oblivious to all this, and push pap about how her attitude supposedly makes children question authority??? Ick, ick, ick.
It would be illogical for him to lose four young men who are willing to throw themselves to the front lines to die for him, in exchange for the emotional safety of one boy who is fast on his way to the Death Eaters.
I know you say this reason is cynical, but I think it's not cynical enough. Imagine what would have happened to Dumbledore if his little arrangement with Lupin had been made public, and we can pretty safely assume that would have happened eventually had he expelled any of the Marauders. To have it public that a headmaster responsible for children not only allowed a werewolf to attend school, but did not actively keep him restrained and confined in a secure area during the full moons? For that matter, just how incompetent was Dumbledore, or did he intend to train the Marauders further in how to be self-absorbed little hooligans with no respect or concern for anyone else's safety? Are we seriously supposed to believe that the most powerful wizard of the age would have been incapable of warding the Shrieking Shack to keep out anyone other than, say, Poppy and himself? The fact that Snape was even able to enter the tunnel is evidence of Dumbledore's staggering incompetence, negligence, or intentional malfeasance, take your pick. How long do you think he would have access to all those little recruits had all that been known publicly? I don't think he was protecting the Marauders; he was protecting himself.
But then, I've despised Dumbledore since the first Halloween feast, when his reaction to hearing there was a troll in the dungeons was to send a quarter of the children straight there, without benefit of any adult supervision or escort. ;-)
And you are certainly correct about it being possible to ward so only certain people can enter - we see it happen in bk5 when no one in the Order can go up the steps to the Astronomy Tower - except Snape - a clear case where something was warded so only a certain group of people could get past.
-- Hwyla (sorry, no account yet)
*headdesk* Sorry about that, and thank you for the correction!
That's really an interesting point, and the more I think about it, the less I understand how Snape could ever trust Dumbledore.
Imagine that first conversation him and Dumbledore must have had right after Sirius pulled his little prank. Snape was just a shy, insecure boy and far away from being the man he would eventually become. But in hindsight, in the conversation, who had the power? It was Snape all along, he was just too young and probably too scared and traumatized to realize it.
But if Dumbledore was afraid of his incompetence becoming publicly known, and I'm sure he was, it would have been kind of a lose-lose situation for him. If he had actually punished Sirius and expelled him, somehow the Marauders would have turned on him and he would have lost all access to a wide source of recruits who'd follow him blindly.
I'm just realizing now Snape could have done the same thing. If he was going to get through with it, he could have made it known to anyone, and Dumbledore would have had to face consequences just the same.
But Dumbledore knew Snape was easier to control, easier to intimidate, he knew all about Snape and his issues, so he used it to play him, and boy did he play him well.
All along Snape was the victim of both the Marauders and Dumbledore, and he was so used to this role that it took Dumbledore next to nothing to have him continuing that role even when from an objective viewpoint he could have called the shots after the prank.
How could Snape not have realized that later? How could he not have seen that when Dumbledore used him once, he would used him again and again and again until he no longer needed him?
I think Dumbledore was right to call Snape disgusting when he came to him to ask for Lily's life. But from an objective perspective that takes Dumbledore's actions in consideration and acknowledges the fact that Dumbledore consciously made the decision to sacrifice a student that was of no use to him for four very useful potential fighters for his side, and that he was aware of the consequences it would have for Snape's motives and actions - yeah, that's pretty disgusting, too.
*nods* If you are interested, there's a speculative version of it at http://cardigrl.insanejournal.com/4
How could Snape not have realized that later?...I think Dumbledore was right to call Snape disgusting when he came to him to ask for Lily's life.
*shrugs* Personally, I think Dumbledore was in no position to talk about anyone else being disgusting. The big problem I've had with that scene since I first read it is this: It has only been a few years since Severus spent *years* in Hogwarts watching Dumbles and McGonagall pull out the stops to coddle, protect and egg on the Marauders. How could Snape possibly have thought for a second that Dumbles would not do anything to protect the Potters without extracting a price from Snape. Yes, I realise Severus was stressed out. But the whole idea is absurd. For that reason, the idea of Severus promising "*anything*" is entirely UNbelieveable to me, no matter how romantic or pathetic Rowling thought it made Severus. It just does not fit him at all, either the mature adult we see in the books or the 21-year old who asked Dumbles for help.
I didn't buy it the first time I read it, and I still don't buy it. I can believe that Severus turned and that he was fond of Lily. But that melodrama JKR set up to keep her pathetic Heathcliff clone that she pictured when she first started the books just does not fit the Severus Snape we saw in Books 1-6, or what we know of his life up to that point. It's like she had to do a character lobotomy to force him back into that Heathcliff straight jacket.