![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
she uses a very old stereotype that the real evil is not from the pure-bloods but the half-bloods(tainted blood).
Excellent point, but what I don't understand is how she then claims that her books are an argument for tolerance. Tolerance of what, exactly?
Rowling does not even examine what type of self-loathing would go into embracing a pure-blood agenda by one who is not,
And of course, this goes double for Snape, although I have often attributed that to the bottom line that he found acceptance from the Slytherins, and outright hatred from the supposedly enlightened ones who should have welcomed him, the poster child for tolerance of all things muggle in the early 70's. Instead, they chose to make Lily the poster child, presumably because she was attractive, female, and not mixed-blood (and thus less of a threat) and above all....Gryffindor.
Excellent point, but what I don't understand is how she then claims that her books are an argument for tolerance. Tolerance of what, exactly?
Rowling does not even examine what type of self-loathing would go into embracing a pure-blood agenda by one who is not,
And of course, this goes double for Snape, although I have often attributed that to the bottom line that he found acceptance from the Slytherins, and outright hatred from the supposedly enlightened ones who should have welcomed him, the poster child for tolerance of all things muggle in the early 70's. Instead, they chose to make Lily the poster child, presumably because she was attractive, female, and not mixed-blood (and thus less of a threat) and above all....Gryffindor.