![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
If we carry through on the racism/blood prejudice equivalency...
was James Potter a racist of the worst order?
Think back to the Snape's Worst Memory scene. Remember when Lily asks James just what Severus ever did to him? The reply from James was, "it's more the fact that he exists if you know what I mean. . ." Most people, IMO, interpret that to mean the bully's "natural" prey instinct had kicked in, but what if we are going to carry through on the claim that anti-Muggle and Muggleborn prejudice is equivalent to racism.
These boys were born in 1960, and it was not until 1967 that Loving v. Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the US. Ahhh, you say, stop trying to apply American standards and baggage to Brits. So let's look at Rowling's model: Anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in Nazi Germany. They were also enforced in South Africa between 1949 and 1985. So....was Snape's existence the result of a violation of the law? How many half-bloods did we see in the Marauder era? And even if it's not illegal, was it considered shameful by a large segment of the Wizarding population? No, it wasn't by Harry's time, but mores change. Is that part of what James meant when he said it was that Severus existed? He added "if you know what I mean", which is the nod-nod, wink-wink of a racist, roughly equivalent to the loaded statements characters in Seinfeld used to make about homosexuals, always followed up with the tag line: "Not that there's anything wrong with that." (nod, nod, wink, wink). It's also the shrug and eye-roll that accompanies many whites' comments about Native Americans, with the apparent idea that they can imply the most outrageously racist things, and it doesn't count because they trail off towards the end. But their buddies all know what they meant, so they're covered either way.
I can almost hear the howls of outrage. ;-) You idiot, they say, he was married to LILY, the ultimate poster child for Muggle-borns. But...
How many friends did James Potter have who were not pureblood? I mean friends, as opposed to hangers-on or sycophants. We know he was married to Lily, obviously. Which means that he made an exception for his own behavior, not uncommon at all for bigots. And yes, he "befriended" Lupin the werewolf in school. But how much did he do after school, when Lupin was not a dorm-mate and, later, a prefect in a position to choose between admiring them or blowing the whistle on Sirius and him? Rowling said in her interviews post-DH that James was independently wealthy, which allowed James and Sirius not to worry about having jobs, so they could "work" for the Order full-time. Note that she does not include Lupin in James' largesse, which according to her extended to James' wife and Sirius, who just happened to be pure-blooded.
These boys were born in 1960, and it was not until 1967 that Loving v. Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the US. Ahhh, you say, stop trying to apply American standards and baggage to Brits. So let's look at Rowling's model: Anti-miscegenation laws were enforced in Nazi Germany. They were also enforced in South Africa between 1949 and 1985. So....was Snape's existence the result of a violation of the law? How many half-bloods did we see in the Marauder era? And even if it's not illegal, was it considered shameful by a large segment of the Wizarding population? No, it wasn't by Harry's time, but mores change. Is that part of what James meant when he said it was that Severus existed? He added "if you know what I mean", which is the nod-nod, wink-wink of a racist, roughly equivalent to the loaded statements characters in Seinfeld used to make about homosexuals, always followed up with the tag line: "Not that there's anything wrong with that." (nod, nod, wink, wink). It's also the shrug and eye-roll that accompanies many whites' comments about Native Americans, with the apparent idea that they can imply the most outrageously racist things, and it doesn't count because they trail off towards the end. But their buddies all know what they meant, so they're covered either way.
I can almost hear the howls of outrage. ;-) You idiot, they say, he was married to LILY, the ultimate poster child for Muggle-borns. But...
How many friends did James Potter have who were not pureblood? I mean friends, as opposed to hangers-on or sycophants. We know he was married to Lily, obviously. Which means that he made an exception for his own behavior, not uncommon at all for bigots. And yes, he "befriended" Lupin the werewolf in school. But how much did he do after school, when Lupin was not a dorm-mate and, later, a prefect in a position to choose between admiring them or blowing the whistle on Sirius and him? Rowling said in her interviews post-DH that James was independently wealthy, which allowed James and Sirius not to worry about having jobs, so they could "work" for the Order full-time. Note that she does not include Lupin in James' largesse, which according to her extended to James' wife and Sirius, who just happened to be pure-blooded.
Anyway. No, wasn't a joke. The term half-blood is a racist and derogatory one in itself. They may not recognise it, but why use it if it doesn't matter? Why make a distinction between purebloods, half-bloods and Muggle-borns if magical ability is all that counts? There shouldn't be such a distinction, but there is. I may have misunderstood you, but what I thought I saw in your previous post was even a further distinction within that 'half-blood' term: true half-blood and not true half-blood. It sounded to me as if you found that Sev. would have a different fate/reception/treatment because he was a 'true half-blood' as opposed to the ones with the 'milder affliction', whose Muggle-connection is further in the past. Which I don't think applies. Half-bloods are tolerated among purebloods, Muggle-borns are not.
The marriage thing: you always use it in the negative, that's what bugs me. We don't have proof for happy Muggle/Wizard couples. But we don't have prove against them either. We simply didn't see enough of them, which I don't find very surprising nor especially bad. I could just as well claim that only those marriages seem unhappy where a witch is the magical partner, and the man is the Muggle. I'd have just as little proof for that. JKR doesn't seem interested in that aspect, so she did't give us a good sample.
We'll have to agree to differ here -
1. Witch mother and Muggle father (thus, as you point out, power imbalance).
3. Witch failing to tell the truth to her husband (known in Mr. Finnegan's and Mr. Riddle's case; implied in Toby Snape's).
2. Conflict between the parents (Severus, Seamus), and/or the father walking out when he discovers the truth (Riddle).
It is true that we do not know whether the conflict between Seamus's mam and dad endured for years, as it did between Severus's parents. We do not know whether Mr. Finnegan walked out, as Tom Riddle, senior, did. But it remains true that we are *not shown* a single, definitely positive example. You are quite right that Rowling was not interested in this question, but, you see, that is part of my problem.
Rowling wrote a series of books in which, she avers, racism is the major problem and the worst evil. (There are other problems in the books - the attempt to deny death, for example - but she makes the major villain and his minions "racisits"). In her world, there are two disticnt types of human - the magical kind and the normal, nonmagical kind. Wizards, in her universe, *really are* superior to Muggles in some ways. Muggleborns are Wizards, and *not* different from the rest of the Wizarding population. And *all* Wizards, even her "good guys" , are racist against *Muggles* to a greater or lesser degree, and this is never quesitoned seriously.
Had she bothered to show us normal relations between Wizards and Muggles; had she shown us even one happy, functioning marriage between the two "races (for lack of a better word), I wouldn't find these books quite so hypocritical. As it is, as I said before, all people are equal, but some (the Wizards) are more equal than others. And, to Rowling, that's perfectly okay.
And you're absolutely right that half-blood is a racist term. Of course it is, and every single member of the wizarding world buys into this racism - to such an extent that they consider the children of two *wizards* half-bloods! Ugh!
But what I meant by "true half blood" - Muggles and Wizards are, at the very least, distinct races, if not actually subspecies. They are far more different from each other than any pure blood wizard would be from any Muggleborn. In contrast, the differences between actual human races are extremely superficial. So, ugly though the term is, it makes some kind of sense to call the child of a Wizard/Witch and a Muggle a "half-blood".
But, to me, it all comes down to the extreme prejudice and isolation of the Wizarding world. It's an ugly little universe that Rowling has created, and she has *not* fully examined, or even thought about, its ugliness.
This is why I was really hoping that these books would end with the end of magic. This is why I think that Severus Snape is now living as a Muggle, and discovering that there is more wonder and beauty in such a life than there ever would have been in the Wizarding World.
Sorry for going on about this - but, given the extreme, unexamined prejudice in these books, to read that Rowling considers them a plea for tolerance drives me right up the wall.
Re: We'll have to agree to differ here -