Re: Not racism, ablism
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The closest analogues to developmental disability in the Potterverse are Muggles and Squibs.
I object to that remark (like a few of your other remarks!) very strongly. As I've said repeatedly, I am a Muggle, and proud of it. And Muggles are not stupider, less logical, less capable, or in any way "delayed" compared to Wizards. What they are is less powerful. They cannot command matter to obey them through an act of will, as Wizards can.
And yes, this does make them vulnerable to Wizards. But their intelligence, or lack of it, has nothing to do with it. It's much more as if the Muggles were physically handicapped. Like the inhabitants of H.G. Wells's "Country of the Blind", with the Wizards being the occasional sighted people born into this population. Note: in this story, in their own world, the blind people are not even handicapped. They manage very well, and live productive lives, and obviously do not miss what they have never had and do not need - the power of sight. Their error is in decrying vision in the few born with it and considering it a handicap in turn.
It seems Wells says everything in this short story that Rowling might have been trying for in her lengthy series, but he's a lot clearer and more chilling.
But Muggles are not developmentally delayed. If you will forgive me, you seem to want to bring intelligence into this discussion even when it obviously doesn't belong . It's a touchy subject and I think we should leave it alone. (I was one of the people who was offended by your last statement on intelligence and genetics.)
Muggles are not inferior to Wizards. This is so, not merely because the handicapped, as human beings, deserve all the rights of the "able-bodied", but because they actually are as smart, as brave, and as capable of love and other higher emotions, as Wizards are. After DH, I see Wizards as severely handicapped in comparison to Muggles.
Just my two cents.
I object to that remark (like a few of your other remarks!) very strongly. As I've said repeatedly, I am a Muggle, and proud of it. And Muggles are not stupider, less logical, less capable, or in any way "delayed" compared to Wizards. What they are is less powerful. They cannot command matter to obey them through an act of will, as Wizards can.
And yes, this does make them vulnerable to Wizards. But their intelligence, or lack of it, has nothing to do with it. It's much more as if the Muggles were physically handicapped. Like the inhabitants of H.G. Wells's "Country of the Blind", with the Wizards being the occasional sighted people born into this population. Note: in this story, in their own world, the blind people are not even handicapped. They manage very well, and live productive lives, and obviously do not miss what they have never had and do not need - the power of sight. Their error is in decrying vision in the few born with it and considering it a handicap in turn.
It seems Wells says everything in this short story that Rowling might have been trying for in her lengthy series, but he's a lot clearer and more chilling.
But Muggles are not developmentally delayed. If you will forgive me, you seem to want to bring intelligence into this discussion even when it obviously doesn't belong . It's a touchy subject and I think we should leave it alone. (I was one of the people who was offended by your last statement on intelligence and genetics.)
Muggles are not inferior to Wizards. This is so, not merely because the handicapped, as human beings, deserve all the rights of the "able-bodied", but because they actually are as smart, as brave, and as capable of love and other higher emotions, as Wizards are. After DH, I see Wizards as severely handicapped in comparison to Muggles.
Just my two cents.