![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Slytherin House is, of course, the bastion of “those whose blood is purest”… right? Only purebloods need apply, and if anyone else ever sorted there by accident (like those notorious alumni Tommy and Sevvie) they keep their secret “dirty” heritage a, well, secret. Right?
Well, maybe in Salazar’s day. But now? Not only does the house necessarily contain non-purebloods—it’s entirely possible that purebloods may even not be in the majority any more.
At least according to what JKR has told us, and a very little basic math.
Part I: Are (Almost) All Slytherins Purebloods?
Consider: JKR apparently said in interviews that purebloods make up about a quarter of the Hogwarts students (and magical population), Muggleborns another quarter, and people of mixed ancestry the rest. Mind, the text actually suggests that the number of “true” purebloods may be a much smaller minority than that—c.f. Ron in CoS explaining to Hermione that Draco’s pureblood supremacist views make no sense because hardly anyone is actually “pure” any more, and Hermione’s observation in GoF that Voldemort’s supporters (all several dozen of them, as it transpires) could not be comprised exclusively of purebloods because there aren’t enough of them. But we’ll take that figure of 25% as a theoretical maximum and see what happens.
(See, by the way, Jodel’s essay “The Rise of the Mudbloods” for a very in-depth discussion of wizard population dynamics. I’m just looking at the ramifications for one house, Slytherin; Madam RedHen looked at wizard society in general. http://www.redhen-publications.com/Mudb
Hogwarts is divided into four houses. Either each contains approximately one-fourth of the student population, or some houses must contain markedly more or fewer students than the others. Yet we have no evidence at all for the latter being the case. No house table in the great hall is noted as being sparsely occupied or overcrowded, nor are we told that the core subjects’ class size varies wildly according to which house our POV Gryffindors share a particular class with. So let’s provisionally assume the houses are approximately equal in size.
So, in Harry’s class there are supposedly about 40 students, about 10 in each house, 28 of whom are named or described. And supposedly about one-fourth of them should be purebloods. Let’s say a normal range of 8-12 (10 +/- 20%).
But Neville, Ron, Ernie, and a Ravenclaw girl, Morag MacDougall, are stated to be purebloods. That leaves 4-8 purebloods to fill Slytherin House’s ten slots. So already Slytherin cannot be pureblood-only.
But it gets worse. Seven non-Slytherin students in Harry’s year are identified as half-bloods, three (only!) as Muggleborns (two if one excludes Dean Thomas), and seven others as either pure or mixed (Wizarding relatives are mentioned, and/or we know that they attend Hogwarts under the D.E. occupation). If even a third of those not-sures are purebloods, that leaves us 2-6 purebloods left to be in Slytherin. If half of the not-sures are, that leaves us 0-4.
It is, in fact, entirely possible that Draco, Millicent, and Vincent (whose surnames we find on the Black Family Tree) are the only pureblood Slytherins in their year. It’s even possible—remotely—that Draco is the only Slytherin pureblood; he is, after all, the only one we know for certain. Canon doesn’t contradict that reading, and statistics allow it.
Nor does the problem go away when we look at other years. We know that house affiliation often runs in families. So the Lovegoods may have been sorting to Ravenclaw for a while, the Prewetts scurrying along with the Longbottoms, Potters and Weasleys into Gryffindor, the Diggorys proud Hufflepuffs of long standing—see where this is heading? We know of all these pureblood families sending their children to houses other than Slytherin. But any pureblood not in Slytherin means a space in Slytherin that must be filled by a non-pureblood, if the house is to be kept in balance with the rest of Hogwarts.
In fact, look at the fifteen families whose blood was pure enough to mix with Blacks according what’s been published of the Black Family Tree. Compare those names to known students in the last two generations (Harry’s and his father’s). We find six names attached to Slytherins: Flint, Bulstrode, Crabbe, Rosier, Lestrange, and Malfoy. We find three Gryffindor families, a probable Gryffindor, & a Hufflepuff: Longbottom, Potter, Weasley, Prewett, and MacMillan. We have three with no students identified in the last two generations: Yaxley, Gamp and Burke. And we have one whose house affiliation was never stated: Crouch.
(Do it the other way and look at members of the original OotP known to be purebloods: Gideon & Fabian, Frank & Alice, James & Sirius. If we assume that all Purebloods not STATED to have sorted elsewhere were Slytherins, we’d have at least four Slytherins [besides Severus, who’s undercover] in the original Order. Shouldn’t Hagrid have mentioned that to Harry? Alternatively, if we hold to the impression that Order members were mostly Gryffs, and consider that the Prewetts’ nephews and Longbottoms’ son are Gryffs, we’d have at least 6 Gryff Purebloods in the generation before this one.)
Just on names, we have for this sample (the Blacks’ marital connections) at BEST 73% of pureblood families tending to sort to Slytherin; at worst, it may be as low as 46%. So either Slytherin House is becoming smaller and smaller, or it contains between, say, 27% to 54% Half-bloods and Muggleborns.
If you look at the Black family’s possible pureblood relatives and marital connections only in the most recent generation, Harry’s, it looks even worse: we know of one each Flint, Bulstrode, Crabbe, and Malfoy in Slytherin (four), versus seven Weasleys, a Longbottom, and a MacMillan (nine in other houses).
So if Slytherin House makes up even close to a quarter of the Hogwarts population, and if purebloods do make up a quarter of the Wizarding population, purebloods are probably either already a minority or in imminent danger of slipping into a minority in their “own” house.
Just for grins, let’s try the numbers to see how much smaller Slytherin house would be by now if it were accepting only purebloods and the vanishingly rare exceptionally talented half-blood (say, one per generation or two… Tom Riddle, Severus Snape). Let’s take the 46-73% range for purebloods choosing to sort into Slytherin, and further assume that the other three houses (not being prejudiced about who they accept) are roughly equal. If 3/4 of purebloods sort to Slytherin (and in effect almost no one else does or can), Slytherin house would gain about 18% of incoming students, with the remaining 82% being roughly evenly dispersed among the other three houses (about 27% each). In Harry’s class (of 40), that would be about 7 Slytherins, with about 11children in each other house.
In other words, if just one-quarter of purebloods sorted to other houses and Slytherin accepted (almost) no one else, Slytherin would have about two-thirds the students of other houses.
If it’s more like 54% of purebloods who choose other houses, that would leave Slytherin with about 11-12% of total students, and each other house at close to 30%. In other words, each of the other houses would now outnumber Slytherin by very nearly 3:1.
And Slytherin House still managed to win the Quidditch and House Cups for years, until Harry arrived to throw things off? Now THAT is a tribute to the power of ambition! And to Harry’s powers of obliviousness (okay, Harry’s obtuseness at least IS canon) —Slytherin house holds only one-third to two-thirds of the students in Gryffindor, and Harry never once notices, if only to think spitefully, “Well, it makes sense that no one would ever sort there if they could go elsewhere!”
But I think it’s more reasonable to assume that Slytherin House, whatever Salazar’s stated preferences, has for a while now been accepting ambitious mixed-bloods and Muggleborns without all that much of a fuss.
*
Part II: Possible Changes in Attitudes to Blood “Superiority” Over Time
Please note that Draco Pureblood Malfoy never once used the opprobrious epithet ‘Mudblood’ of Hermione (or anyone) until after SHE had mortally insulted HIM by asserting that Malfoy could never have made his house’s Quidditch team without cheating. (Maybe Hermione had been channeling Trelawney in this scene—and how Hermione would have hated that!—and projected forward to HBP, when only cheating—hers—could get someone on the team. In my grade school, we used to sing to someone who’d accused another of transgressing schoolyard codes, “Twinkle, twinkle, little star, what you say is what you are.”)
Before Draco entered Hogwarts, he had an encounter with a kid dressed in Muggle cast-offs—and he tried, repeatedly, to strike up a conversation with him. Only after the presumed Muggle-born had rudely snubbed his every conversational overture did Draco start asking about Harry’s family and pontificating about how Hogwarts shouldn’t let “the other sort” in. (Thanks, duj, for having pointed this out.)
IOW: Draco didn’t start with Pureblood supremacist rantings the moment he met his first (if illusory) Muggle-born. He turned to that after being snubbed by the supposed Muggle-born, perhaps to protect himself from being hurt by Harry’s rejection, perhaps to hit back.
And he didn’t talk about blood purity; he talked about the outsiders “not knowing our ways.”—which Harry had, in fact, just been demonstrating.
At the beginning of CoS when Lucius criticized Draco’s grades, Draco protested “the teachers all have favorites, that Hermione Granger—”
It’s his father who pointed out that Hermione was “a girl of no wizard family” who nonetheless beat Draco “in every exam.” (Um—every exam? So that would include Potions? Then Snape did grade fairly on his finals, as some of us had otherwise surmised? And, er, no one else, apparently, beat Draco’s exam scores? Oh, how he must have hated Hermione--not for her blood status, but as his only serious academic rival. And notice that neither father nor son, speaking privately, attached opprobrious epithets to the despiséd Hermione.)
And Mr. Borgin, listening in, inserted (greasily, per JKR), “It’s the same all over. Wizard blood is counting for less everywhere—”
Let’s get this straight, because subtle differences matter. The “stooping” Mr. Borgin (who may therefore have been older, of an earlier pureblood generation) implied strongly that “wizard blood” ought to “count” to get Draco the better grade, regardless of whether Draco’s performance had actually merited it.
Lucius Malfoy, in contrast, argued explicitly that his pureblood son ought to be able to EARN a higher grade than “a girl of no wizard family.”
And Draco protested (unconvincingly, in my view) that Muggle-born Hermione’s higher grade was earned by being a teacher’s pet, and thus (implicitly) that truly fair grading would have put Draco first.
Let’s review Draco’s logic. A scion of the Slytherin pureblood filthy-wealthy elite finds it plausible (in 1992) to assert that he’s the put-upon victim of unfair grading at Hogwarts? That Dumbledore’s teachers (including Snape?) would unjustly grade a Muggle-born Gryffindor higher than a rich pureblood Slytherin?
Oh, my.
Not that I accept Draco’s excuse, but that Draco could offer that argument to his father and expect to be believed casts a FASCINATING light on the Hogwarts subculture.
*
Part III: Is “Blood Purity,” in itself, the Only/Primary Source of Status in Slytherin House?
Clearly, being ‘well-born’ (pure) is a POSSIBLE source of status in Slytherin house, as in the WW in general. But the only one? Or even necessarily the overriding one? As a source of status, after all, it’s competing with wealth, fame, connections to the political power elite, raw magical talent, intelligence, even beauty… with NONE of which is it directly correlated by now.
We saw that Draco combined pure birth, wealth, connection to the power elite, intelligence, magical power, and a creative talent for adolescent mocking humor. We know that at least some of the other Slytherins in his year followed his lead. But we also know that when his family lost status, he lost influence: Slughorn shunned him as a DE’s son in HBP, Crabbe ended up rejecting him in DH as a failed DE’s son/ DE. His purity of blood hadn’t changed, but his (changing) family status apparently trumped that. On both (on all?) sides.
And remember that canon showed us that Draco pulled the “Mudblood” card on Hermione only after she had both bested him academically and viciously insulted him.
It’s quite possible that only those who came up short in every other possible arena would automatically totally privilege pureblood birth over all other considerations (*cough* Marvolo Gaunt).
On the other hand, there’s the underlying blood prejudice that Slughorn so innocently expressed to Harry, that surely, people of magical birth MUST (in general) be more adept at magic. But though Sluggy thought Lily’s and Hermione’s brilliance unusual, he was not at all surprised by half-blood Harry’s proficiency in Potions. More to the point, Sluggy specifically and repeatedly attributed Harry’s talent to LILY’s blood running in Harry’s veins, not to the thousand-year-pure Potter blood with which Lily’s was mixed. So Slughorn, at least, seems to think that ANY magical inheritance is sufficient to account for magical greatness; he doesn’t think that “purity” is necessary. (Note this was also Hagrid’s view—he told Harry that of course Harry would be a thumpin’ great wizard, with the parents he had. Hagrid did NOT say that of course Harry would be great as the last scion of the Potters, despite his father’s unfortunate misalliance.) So the prejudice in the general population seems to be more that it’s astonishing that magical brilliance could emerge out of nothing, not (among any but the loony fringe like Walburga and Marvolo), that purity of blood is required for magical power.
And indeed, in areas of Muggle mastery we Muggles generally think the same. We’re more astonished if an Olympic athlete is the child of dedicated couch-potatoes than a trained-from-birth scion of top athletes; and at my (top-ranked, private, expensive) college there were far fewer first-generation scholars than children of the professionally-educated classes. And, um, we first-generationers felt ourselves at a bit of a disadvantage compared to those for whom higher education was an obvious birthright….
Moreover, Sluggy at least allowed that the rule, magical birth is a prerequisite for magical greatness, could be disproved in any specific case. A given Muggleborn, such as Lily or Hermione or Dirk Cresswell, could win personal acceptance without necessarily dislodging the overall belief.
What’s the saying?
“A Muggleborn has to do something twice as well as a pureblood in order to be thought half as good.
Fortunately, that’s not difficult.”
But that you had to be “pure” to win acclaim…. there’s no more evidence (that I know of) that that’s true in general in Slytherin, than that it’s true in the WW in general. That is, there is evidence that (some) people value blood purity, and that some (mostly losers) value it highly. But the most-honored person in Wizarding Britain when we readers entered it was Dumbledore the Half-blood. Who had been contested by (and defeated) Riddle the secret Half-blood, that promoter of Pureblood supremacy.
*
Part IV: Mortal Insults versus Insults between Friends
Blood status was not the only type of “superiority” that we saw deployed against enemies, but not against (supposed) friends and allies.
Note how the indisputably-wealthy Malfoys and Blacks used their superior economic status to insult their less well-off enemies. Lucius insulted Arthur for his poverty; his son regularly taunted Ron and the other Weasleys about being poor, starting from the moment Draco identified the strange redhead on the Hogwarts Express as an enemy Weasley. In PoA Draco jeered at Lupin, whom he didn’t like, for shabby robes. And Draco called Hagrid (excuse me, Professor Hagrid—though he wasn’t then) a servant, disparagingly.
Yet Severus Snape lived in a Muggle slum, in a moldering tiny house with shabby furnishings—and Narcissa Malfoys knew exactly where to find him, so his domicile (and what it revealed about Snape’s background) had presumably not been a secret from the Malfoys. Though Bellatrix denigrated his home, Narcissa did not—nor did we ever see Lucius or Draco do so, even when Draco was fighting with Snape in HBP. Nor do we have any reason to think that Vincent or Gregory’s families commanded anything like the Malfoy fortune, yet we never saw Draco attempt to hold their comparative poverty against them.
Similarly, we never saw Sirius Black hold Remus’s poverty against him. But Black did call Severus Lucius’s lapdog, insinuating (among other things) that Snape was a hanger-on rather than a true friend of the wealthy Malfoys.
It seems that economic disadvantage can be used as a weapon—and that such weapons are to be used against enemies, not against allies or friends.
So is blood status the same in the WW? Something a “superior” MIGHT use (as one might use superior economic status) to taunt an enemy, but that one would never invoke against an ally/friend?
Bellatrix clearly disparaged both Snape’s economic status and his genetic heritage when she characterized his home as being situated in “a Muggle dung heap.” Yet Narcissa, equally bred of the Blacks and married to the Malfoy millions, didn’t encourage Bella’s criticism.
And which of the women, again, was visiting Severus to ask him for a favor?
Yet not even Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Voldemort’s right hand (she wished!), criticized Snape’s half-blood birth or relative poverty to his face, though we know she inherited her aunt Walpurga’s mania on the subject of blood purity. Instead, she focused on his supposed failures to achieve their Lord’s ends.
There are insults one doesn’t voice, at least not aloud to one’s allies’ faces.
Bellatrix and Severus were, after all, allies in devoted service to one Lord.
*
Part V: Is the House of Ambition Currently the “Best” House?
A few other unsupported misconceptions about Slytherins and/or purebloods—are Slytherins in general, purebloods in general, or specifically Slytherin purebloods all (or mostly) members of a politically powerful and fabulously wealthy elite?
Well. Pureblood families described in canon as rich include the Malfoys, Blacks, Lestranges (all Slytherin) and the Potters (Gryffindor). The Crouches (house unknown) certainly had not been hurting for money, and Hufflepuff’s heiress Smith had been fabulously wealthy back in the forties. Zacharias is said to be a half-blood, so if he’s her relative the family, like the Potter family, is no longer entirely “pure.” The Gaunts emphatically were not wealthy, nor are the current Weasleys or the Lovegoods. The Longbottoms don’t seem to be, though their reluctance to spend money on top-quality gear for Neville may reflect their opinion of the near-Squib more than their financial standing. Slytherin Blaise Zabini’s mother is wealthy through her deceased husbands—none of whose blood status is known, nor is her own or her son’s. Nor, in fact, is the former Mrs. Zabini’s house, nor the houses of any of her husbands.
Do we have canon evidence for the financial status of any other pureblood family now, or for any other Slytherin of whatever blood status?
Well, Slytherins Tom and Severus entered Hogwarts penniless. And who, after all, is more likely to be ambitious, someone born with a silver spoon in hir mouth or someone who has to scrabble for everything?
There’s no direct evidence for anyone else (that I recall). But… remember Draco’s second year, when Lucius bought the entire Slytherin Quidditch team Nimbus 2001 brooms to celebrate his son’s making the team (or, per Hermione, to bribe the team to accept his son)? That gesture makes no sense unless most of the team had previously, like the Weasley twins, been riding inferior brooms. If all or most of the team already had their own top-of-the-line brooms, new ones should make little difference. (And, per the Weasley twins, who spied on the Slytherins’ practice, the brooms did make a difference.)
Ergo, most students on the Slytherin Quidditch team could not afford new top-of-the-line brooms every year, or, perhaps, at all. So Slytherins are definitely not uniformly, and probably not even mostly, fabulously rich; the Malfoys are exceptional. (And note that the Blacks and Lestranges have apparently died out, and the Potter and Black fortunes have both passed to a half-blood….)
So then, are Slytherins unduly influential in politics and society? Currently? (Mind you, I imagine that the perception—which as I have previously pointed out, may be entirely incorrect—that most of You-Know-Who’s supporters were Slytherins may have severely damaged the house’s standing over the past twenty years or so.)
Well, ask Horace Slughorn; I’m sure his judgment is more to be trusted on such a matter than mine. He’s spent a long lifetime honing such observations, yes?
We never saw the exact composition of the current Slug Club. But we did see the first round of invitations (based mostly on family connections, before Horace got to know the current batch of students). On the Hogwarts Express Slughorn’s invitations were extended to one Slytherin (Blaise), one Ravenclaw (Belby), and four Gryffindors—Harry, Neville, Cormac, and Ginny. (Note too, Terri adds nastily, that there was only one girl of the six, and she an afterthought. Grr!) We know that Sluggy dropped Belby, Neville, and apparently Ginny, and added Hermione. It’s apparent from this guest list that—to put it mildly—Slughorn doesn’t consider his house to be unduly influential. And, er, which house seems to be? (And, BTW, the two known Purebloods both evaporate.)
In fact, ask the well-researched Hermione Granger. On her first Hogwarts Express ride, she gave an absolutely Slytherin reason for wanting to be Sorted into one house over another: “I’ve been asking around, and I hope I’m in [X], it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it….”
*
All of this would certainly throw some light—or darkness—on the appeal Voldemort’s stated objectives might have had to some of the WW’s pureblood supremacists. That faction, by the time Tom started to whisper in its horrified, fascinated ears, was in decline. They were bleeding to death, and they knew it, however vehemently they might have denied the truth.
With every passing year they were losing numbers, power, financial standing, and prestige.
And the result of some of those Pureblood scions desperately throwing in their lot in behind Lord Voldemort (who proved, oddly enough, to be a Halfblood) was probably to accelerate that slow decline to a swift broom-ride to destruction.
Ain’t karma grand when one gets to see it work?
Well, maybe in Salazar’s day. But now? Not only does the house necessarily contain non-purebloods—it’s entirely possible that purebloods may even not be in the majority any more.
At least according to what JKR has told us, and a very little basic math.
Part I: Are (Almost) All Slytherins Purebloods?
Consider: JKR apparently said in interviews that purebloods make up about a quarter of the Hogwarts students (and magical population), Muggleborns another quarter, and people of mixed ancestry the rest. Mind, the text actually suggests that the number of “true” purebloods may be a much smaller minority than that—c.f. Ron in CoS explaining to Hermione that Draco’s pureblood supremacist views make no sense because hardly anyone is actually “pure” any more, and Hermione’s observation in GoF that Voldemort’s supporters (all several dozen of them, as it transpires) could not be comprised exclusively of purebloods because there aren’t enough of them. But we’ll take that figure of 25% as a theoretical maximum and see what happens.
(See, by the way, Jodel’s essay “The Rise of the Mudbloods” for a very in-depth discussion of wizard population dynamics. I’m just looking at the ramifications for one house, Slytherin; Madam RedHen looked at wizard society in general. http://www.redhen-publications.com/Mudb
Hogwarts is divided into four houses. Either each contains approximately one-fourth of the student population, or some houses must contain markedly more or fewer students than the others. Yet we have no evidence at all for the latter being the case. No house table in the great hall is noted as being sparsely occupied or overcrowded, nor are we told that the core subjects’ class size varies wildly according to which house our POV Gryffindors share a particular class with. So let’s provisionally assume the houses are approximately equal in size.
So, in Harry’s class there are supposedly about 40 students, about 10 in each house, 28 of whom are named or described. And supposedly about one-fourth of them should be purebloods. Let’s say a normal range of 8-12 (10 +/- 20%).
But Neville, Ron, Ernie, and a Ravenclaw girl, Morag MacDougall, are stated to be purebloods. That leaves 4-8 purebloods to fill Slytherin House’s ten slots. So already Slytherin cannot be pureblood-only.
But it gets worse. Seven non-Slytherin students in Harry’s year are identified as half-bloods, three (only!) as Muggleborns (two if one excludes Dean Thomas), and seven others as either pure or mixed (Wizarding relatives are mentioned, and/or we know that they attend Hogwarts under the D.E. occupation). If even a third of those not-sures are purebloods, that leaves us 2-6 purebloods left to be in Slytherin. If half of the not-sures are, that leaves us 0-4.
It is, in fact, entirely possible that Draco, Millicent, and Vincent (whose surnames we find on the Black Family Tree) are the only pureblood Slytherins in their year. It’s even possible—remotely—that Draco is the only Slytherin pureblood; he is, after all, the only one we know for certain. Canon doesn’t contradict that reading, and statistics allow it.
Nor does the problem go away when we look at other years. We know that house affiliation often runs in families. So the Lovegoods may have been sorting to Ravenclaw for a while, the Prewetts scurrying along with the Longbottoms, Potters and Weasleys into Gryffindor, the Diggorys proud Hufflepuffs of long standing—see where this is heading? We know of all these pureblood families sending their children to houses other than Slytherin. But any pureblood not in Slytherin means a space in Slytherin that must be filled by a non-pureblood, if the house is to be kept in balance with the rest of Hogwarts.
In fact, look at the fifteen families whose blood was pure enough to mix with Blacks according what’s been published of the Black Family Tree. Compare those names to known students in the last two generations (Harry’s and his father’s). We find six names attached to Slytherins: Flint, Bulstrode, Crabbe, Rosier, Lestrange, and Malfoy. We find three Gryffindor families, a probable Gryffindor, & a Hufflepuff: Longbottom, Potter, Weasley, Prewett, and MacMillan. We have three with no students identified in the last two generations: Yaxley, Gamp and Burke. And we have one whose house affiliation was never stated: Crouch.
(Do it the other way and look at members of the original OotP known to be purebloods: Gideon & Fabian, Frank & Alice, James & Sirius. If we assume that all Purebloods not STATED to have sorted elsewhere were Slytherins, we’d have at least four Slytherins [besides Severus, who’s undercover] in the original Order. Shouldn’t Hagrid have mentioned that to Harry? Alternatively, if we hold to the impression that Order members were mostly Gryffs, and consider that the Prewetts’ nephews and Longbottoms’ son are Gryffs, we’d have at least 6 Gryff Purebloods in the generation before this one.)
Just on names, we have for this sample (the Blacks’ marital connections) at BEST 73% of pureblood families tending to sort to Slytherin; at worst, it may be as low as 46%. So either Slytherin House is becoming smaller and smaller, or it contains between, say, 27% to 54% Half-bloods and Muggleborns.
If you look at the Black family’s possible pureblood relatives and marital connections only in the most recent generation, Harry’s, it looks even worse: we know of one each Flint, Bulstrode, Crabbe, and Malfoy in Slytherin (four), versus seven Weasleys, a Longbottom, and a MacMillan (nine in other houses).
So if Slytherin House makes up even close to a quarter of the Hogwarts population, and if purebloods do make up a quarter of the Wizarding population, purebloods are probably either already a minority or in imminent danger of slipping into a minority in their “own” house.
Just for grins, let’s try the numbers to see how much smaller Slytherin house would be by now if it were accepting only purebloods and the vanishingly rare exceptionally talented half-blood (say, one per generation or two… Tom Riddle, Severus Snape). Let’s take the 46-73% range for purebloods choosing to sort into Slytherin, and further assume that the other three houses (not being prejudiced about who they accept) are roughly equal. If 3/4 of purebloods sort to Slytherin (and in effect almost no one else does or can), Slytherin house would gain about 18% of incoming students, with the remaining 82% being roughly evenly dispersed among the other three houses (about 27% each). In Harry’s class (of 40), that would be about 7 Slytherins, with about 11children in each other house.
In other words, if just one-quarter of purebloods sorted to other houses and Slytherin accepted (almost) no one else, Slytherin would have about two-thirds the students of other houses.
If it’s more like 54% of purebloods who choose other houses, that would leave Slytherin with about 11-12% of total students, and each other house at close to 30%. In other words, each of the other houses would now outnumber Slytherin by very nearly 3:1.
And Slytherin House still managed to win the Quidditch and House Cups for years, until Harry arrived to throw things off? Now THAT is a tribute to the power of ambition! And to Harry’s powers of obliviousness (okay, Harry’s obtuseness at least IS canon) —Slytherin house holds only one-third to two-thirds of the students in Gryffindor, and Harry never once notices, if only to think spitefully, “Well, it makes sense that no one would ever sort there if they could go elsewhere!”
But I think it’s more reasonable to assume that Slytherin House, whatever Salazar’s stated preferences, has for a while now been accepting ambitious mixed-bloods and Muggleborns without all that much of a fuss.
*
Part II: Possible Changes in Attitudes to Blood “Superiority” Over Time
Please note that Draco Pureblood Malfoy never once used the opprobrious epithet ‘Mudblood’ of Hermione (or anyone) until after SHE had mortally insulted HIM by asserting that Malfoy could never have made his house’s Quidditch team without cheating. (Maybe Hermione had been channeling Trelawney in this scene—and how Hermione would have hated that!—and projected forward to HBP, when only cheating—hers—could get someone on the team. In my grade school, we used to sing to someone who’d accused another of transgressing schoolyard codes, “Twinkle, twinkle, little star, what you say is what you are.”)
Before Draco entered Hogwarts, he had an encounter with a kid dressed in Muggle cast-offs—and he tried, repeatedly, to strike up a conversation with him. Only after the presumed Muggle-born had rudely snubbed his every conversational overture did Draco start asking about Harry’s family and pontificating about how Hogwarts shouldn’t let “the other sort” in. (Thanks, duj, for having pointed this out.)
IOW: Draco didn’t start with Pureblood supremacist rantings the moment he met his first (if illusory) Muggle-born. He turned to that after being snubbed by the supposed Muggle-born, perhaps to protect himself from being hurt by Harry’s rejection, perhaps to hit back.
And he didn’t talk about blood purity; he talked about the outsiders “not knowing our ways.”—which Harry had, in fact, just been demonstrating.
At the beginning of CoS when Lucius criticized Draco’s grades, Draco protested “the teachers all have favorites, that Hermione Granger—”
It’s his father who pointed out that Hermione was “a girl of no wizard family” who nonetheless beat Draco “in every exam.” (Um—every exam? So that would include Potions? Then Snape did grade fairly on his finals, as some of us had otherwise surmised? And, er, no one else, apparently, beat Draco’s exam scores? Oh, how he must have hated Hermione--not for her blood status, but as his only serious academic rival. And notice that neither father nor son, speaking privately, attached opprobrious epithets to the despiséd Hermione.)
And Mr. Borgin, listening in, inserted (greasily, per JKR), “It’s the same all over. Wizard blood is counting for less everywhere—”
Let’s get this straight, because subtle differences matter. The “stooping” Mr. Borgin (who may therefore have been older, of an earlier pureblood generation) implied strongly that “wizard blood” ought to “count” to get Draco the better grade, regardless of whether Draco’s performance had actually merited it.
Lucius Malfoy, in contrast, argued explicitly that his pureblood son ought to be able to EARN a higher grade than “a girl of no wizard family.”
And Draco protested (unconvincingly, in my view) that Muggle-born Hermione’s higher grade was earned by being a teacher’s pet, and thus (implicitly) that truly fair grading would have put Draco first.
Let’s review Draco’s logic. A scion of the Slytherin pureblood filthy-wealthy elite finds it plausible (in 1992) to assert that he’s the put-upon victim of unfair grading at Hogwarts? That Dumbledore’s teachers (including Snape?) would unjustly grade a Muggle-born Gryffindor higher than a rich pureblood Slytherin?
Oh, my.
Not that I accept Draco’s excuse, but that Draco could offer that argument to his father and expect to be believed casts a FASCINATING light on the Hogwarts subculture.
*
Part III: Is “Blood Purity,” in itself, the Only/Primary Source of Status in Slytherin House?
Clearly, being ‘well-born’ (pure) is a POSSIBLE source of status in Slytherin house, as in the WW in general. But the only one? Or even necessarily the overriding one? As a source of status, after all, it’s competing with wealth, fame, connections to the political power elite, raw magical talent, intelligence, even beauty… with NONE of which is it directly correlated by now.
We saw that Draco combined pure birth, wealth, connection to the power elite, intelligence, magical power, and a creative talent for adolescent mocking humor. We know that at least some of the other Slytherins in his year followed his lead. But we also know that when his family lost status, he lost influence: Slughorn shunned him as a DE’s son in HBP, Crabbe ended up rejecting him in DH as a failed DE’s son/ DE. His purity of blood hadn’t changed, but his (changing) family status apparently trumped that. On both (on all?) sides.
And remember that canon showed us that Draco pulled the “Mudblood” card on Hermione only after she had both bested him academically and viciously insulted him.
It’s quite possible that only those who came up short in every other possible arena would automatically totally privilege pureblood birth over all other considerations (*cough* Marvolo Gaunt).
On the other hand, there’s the underlying blood prejudice that Slughorn so innocently expressed to Harry, that surely, people of magical birth MUST (in general) be more adept at magic. But though Sluggy thought Lily’s and Hermione’s brilliance unusual, he was not at all surprised by half-blood Harry’s proficiency in Potions. More to the point, Sluggy specifically and repeatedly attributed Harry’s talent to LILY’s blood running in Harry’s veins, not to the thousand-year-pure Potter blood with which Lily’s was mixed. So Slughorn, at least, seems to think that ANY magical inheritance is sufficient to account for magical greatness; he doesn’t think that “purity” is necessary. (Note this was also Hagrid’s view—he told Harry that of course Harry would be a thumpin’ great wizard, with the parents he had. Hagrid did NOT say that of course Harry would be great as the last scion of the Potters, despite his father’s unfortunate misalliance.) So the prejudice in the general population seems to be more that it’s astonishing that magical brilliance could emerge out of nothing, not (among any but the loony fringe like Walburga and Marvolo), that purity of blood is required for magical power.
And indeed, in areas of Muggle mastery we Muggles generally think the same. We’re more astonished if an Olympic athlete is the child of dedicated couch-potatoes than a trained-from-birth scion of top athletes; and at my (top-ranked, private, expensive) college there were far fewer first-generation scholars than children of the professionally-educated classes. And, um, we first-generationers felt ourselves at a bit of a disadvantage compared to those for whom higher education was an obvious birthright….
Moreover, Sluggy at least allowed that the rule, magical birth is a prerequisite for magical greatness, could be disproved in any specific case. A given Muggleborn, such as Lily or Hermione or Dirk Cresswell, could win personal acceptance without necessarily dislodging the overall belief.
What’s the saying?
“A Muggleborn has to do something twice as well as a pureblood in order to be thought half as good.
Fortunately, that’s not difficult.”
But that you had to be “pure” to win acclaim…. there’s no more evidence (that I know of) that that’s true in general in Slytherin, than that it’s true in the WW in general. That is, there is evidence that (some) people value blood purity, and that some (mostly losers) value it highly. But the most-honored person in Wizarding Britain when we readers entered it was Dumbledore the Half-blood. Who had been contested by (and defeated) Riddle the secret Half-blood, that promoter of Pureblood supremacy.
*
Part IV: Mortal Insults versus Insults between Friends
Blood status was not the only type of “superiority” that we saw deployed against enemies, but not against (supposed) friends and allies.
Note how the indisputably-wealthy Malfoys and Blacks used their superior economic status to insult their less well-off enemies. Lucius insulted Arthur for his poverty; his son regularly taunted Ron and the other Weasleys about being poor, starting from the moment Draco identified the strange redhead on the Hogwarts Express as an enemy Weasley. In PoA Draco jeered at Lupin, whom he didn’t like, for shabby robes. And Draco called Hagrid (excuse me, Professor Hagrid—though he wasn’t then) a servant, disparagingly.
Yet Severus Snape lived in a Muggle slum, in a moldering tiny house with shabby furnishings—and Narcissa Malfoys knew exactly where to find him, so his domicile (and what it revealed about Snape’s background) had presumably not been a secret from the Malfoys. Though Bellatrix denigrated his home, Narcissa did not—nor did we ever see Lucius or Draco do so, even when Draco was fighting with Snape in HBP. Nor do we have any reason to think that Vincent or Gregory’s families commanded anything like the Malfoy fortune, yet we never saw Draco attempt to hold their comparative poverty against them.
Similarly, we never saw Sirius Black hold Remus’s poverty against him. But Black did call Severus Lucius’s lapdog, insinuating (among other things) that Snape was a hanger-on rather than a true friend of the wealthy Malfoys.
It seems that economic disadvantage can be used as a weapon—and that such weapons are to be used against enemies, not against allies or friends.
So is blood status the same in the WW? Something a “superior” MIGHT use (as one might use superior economic status) to taunt an enemy, but that one would never invoke against an ally/friend?
Bellatrix clearly disparaged both Snape’s economic status and his genetic heritage when she characterized his home as being situated in “a Muggle dung heap.” Yet Narcissa, equally bred of the Blacks and married to the Malfoy millions, didn’t encourage Bella’s criticism.
And which of the women, again, was visiting Severus to ask him for a favor?
Yet not even Bellatrix Black Lestrange, Voldemort’s right hand (she wished!), criticized Snape’s half-blood birth or relative poverty to his face, though we know she inherited her aunt Walpurga’s mania on the subject of blood purity. Instead, she focused on his supposed failures to achieve their Lord’s ends.
There are insults one doesn’t voice, at least not aloud to one’s allies’ faces.
Bellatrix and Severus were, after all, allies in devoted service to one Lord.
*
Part V: Is the House of Ambition Currently the “Best” House?
A few other unsupported misconceptions about Slytherins and/or purebloods—are Slytherins in general, purebloods in general, or specifically Slytherin purebloods all (or mostly) members of a politically powerful and fabulously wealthy elite?
Well. Pureblood families described in canon as rich include the Malfoys, Blacks, Lestranges (all Slytherin) and the Potters (Gryffindor). The Crouches (house unknown) certainly had not been hurting for money, and Hufflepuff’s heiress Smith had been fabulously wealthy back in the forties. Zacharias is said to be a half-blood, so if he’s her relative the family, like the Potter family, is no longer entirely “pure.” The Gaunts emphatically were not wealthy, nor are the current Weasleys or the Lovegoods. The Longbottoms don’t seem to be, though their reluctance to spend money on top-quality gear for Neville may reflect their opinion of the near-Squib more than their financial standing. Slytherin Blaise Zabini’s mother is wealthy through her deceased husbands—none of whose blood status is known, nor is her own or her son’s. Nor, in fact, is the former Mrs. Zabini’s house, nor the houses of any of her husbands.
Do we have canon evidence for the financial status of any other pureblood family now, or for any other Slytherin of whatever blood status?
Well, Slytherins Tom and Severus entered Hogwarts penniless. And who, after all, is more likely to be ambitious, someone born with a silver spoon in hir mouth or someone who has to scrabble for everything?
There’s no direct evidence for anyone else (that I recall). But… remember Draco’s second year, when Lucius bought the entire Slytherin Quidditch team Nimbus 2001 brooms to celebrate his son’s making the team (or, per Hermione, to bribe the team to accept his son)? That gesture makes no sense unless most of the team had previously, like the Weasley twins, been riding inferior brooms. If all or most of the team already had their own top-of-the-line brooms, new ones should make little difference. (And, per the Weasley twins, who spied on the Slytherins’ practice, the brooms did make a difference.)
Ergo, most students on the Slytherin Quidditch team could not afford new top-of-the-line brooms every year, or, perhaps, at all. So Slytherins are definitely not uniformly, and probably not even mostly, fabulously rich; the Malfoys are exceptional. (And note that the Blacks and Lestranges have apparently died out, and the Potter and Black fortunes have both passed to a half-blood….)
So then, are Slytherins unduly influential in politics and society? Currently? (Mind you, I imagine that the perception—which as I have previously pointed out, may be entirely incorrect—that most of You-Know-Who’s supporters were Slytherins may have severely damaged the house’s standing over the past twenty years or so.)
Well, ask Horace Slughorn; I’m sure his judgment is more to be trusted on such a matter than mine. He’s spent a long lifetime honing such observations, yes?
We never saw the exact composition of the current Slug Club. But we did see the first round of invitations (based mostly on family connections, before Horace got to know the current batch of students). On the Hogwarts Express Slughorn’s invitations were extended to one Slytherin (Blaise), one Ravenclaw (Belby), and four Gryffindors—Harry, Neville, Cormac, and Ginny. (Note too, Terri adds nastily, that there was only one girl of the six, and she an afterthought. Grr!) We know that Sluggy dropped Belby, Neville, and apparently Ginny, and added Hermione. It’s apparent from this guest list that—to put it mildly—Slughorn doesn’t consider his house to be unduly influential. And, er, which house seems to be? (And, BTW, the two known Purebloods both evaporate.)
In fact, ask the well-researched Hermione Granger. On her first Hogwarts Express ride, she gave an absolutely Slytherin reason for wanting to be Sorted into one house over another: “I’ve been asking around, and I hope I’m in [X], it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it….”
*
All of this would certainly throw some light—or darkness—on the appeal Voldemort’s stated objectives might have had to some of the WW’s pureblood supremacists. That faction, by the time Tom started to whisper in its horrified, fascinated ears, was in decline. They were bleeding to death, and they knew it, however vehemently they might have denied the truth.
With every passing year they were losing numbers, power, financial standing, and prestige.
And the result of some of those Pureblood scions desperately throwing in their lot in behind Lord Voldemort (who proved, oddly enough, to be a Halfblood) was probably to accelerate that slow decline to a swift broom-ride to destruction.
Ain’t karma grand when one gets to see it work?
Re: Which actually brings things back to Terri's post
Yes, I think JKR was trying to show multiple prejudices at one time and I think there is also an intersect between nobility/"old family"/"blue blood" type classism (which isn't all about money) and racism in the wizarding world.
Various kinds of prejudice and bigotry do intersect in real life, so having multiple parallels only adds to the depth of understanding, in my opinion.
Re: Which actually brings things back to Terri's post
Wizards - even the good ones. like Arthur Weasley - simply do not see Muggles as fully human. And the differences between Wizards and Muggles are real, genetic, and truly handicap ordinary human beings. This is not any type of racism that actually exists in the real world. Oh, I know - racists will SAY things to this effect (women can't reason, African peoples are emotional, not rational; Arabs are invariably cruel and violent, and so on) You do hear stuff like that in the real world, and it makes what Rowling is describing seem like real-world racism. But -
Muggles really, truly are different from Wizards. They might as well be different species. And we are not given one example of any Muggleborn who chose to remain in the Muggle world, nor of a single happy and successful Muggle/Magical marriage. This is why some readers have found equating blood prejudice to real world racism actually offensive.
Re: Which actually brings things back to Terri's post
Even if that's so (and I would amend that to say that Arthur maybe doesn't see Muggle humans as being on the same level wizard humans), that doesn't make it any less racist (with or without my amendment). Even good people can fall into some racist thinking. Humanity is very flawed.
Muggles really, truly are different from Wizards. They might as well be different species.
Even if Muggles were a different species (and I don't think they are), but even if they were, that doesn't make the prejudice against them any less racist. It's just a Fantastic Racism, like in Star Trek, when there's racial prejudice between the various humans and aliens (i.e. Vulcans vs. Humans).
And again, I'm not saying there isn't xenophobia and ableism involved. There is. And I'm not saying that their isn't a Fantastic element (the magic being genetically inherited and the longer livin'). There is. None of that takes away from the racism.
And we are not given one example of any Muggleborn who chose to remain in the Muggle world, nor of a single happy and successful Muggle/Magical marriage. This is why some readers have found equating blood prejudice to real world racism actually offensive.
I don't think I follow you, here. I can understand being disappointed in not seeing those two things being given an example in the books, but... *scratches head*
Oh, hold that thought... Is it the possible Unfortunate Implications that those two things raise? In that case, wouldn't it be that JKR's handling of racism is partially offensive, rather than it negating the fact that blood prejudice is a form of racial prejudice?
Is it fair to say that you are offended that JKR equates blood prejudice to racism? I guess you can just lump me in with JKR, if so, because I agree with her reasoning for making the blood prejudice = racism parallel.
Re: Which actually brings things back to Terri's post
Re: Which actually brings things back to Terri's post
Anonymous posters have been asked, several times, to sign their posts with a handle.
And I have no idea what I'm supposed to be justifying. Are you accusing me of justifying racism?! I'm not doing that. What I am saying is: Rowling seems to want to say something serious and important about prejudice, which is a serious subject. But she fails on several levels. To analyze what an author actually shows is not the same as justifying racism, either in fictional characters or in real life.
Muggles and wizards
Muggles aren't ~truly~ inferior to wizards (not even in ~some ways~, if you think about it intrinsically). Muggles and wizards are just different. Wizards can do some things that Muggles never can, but that doesn't make Muggles inferior to wizards.
For instance, If a wizard can do magic and a Muggle never can, does that really make Muggles inferior for not being able to do magic? Wizards aren't any better than Muggles for having magic. Having a talent or genetic windfall doesn't make anyone better than anyone else. Just different.
Also, it's not like Muggles don't have their own solutions to the some of the same problems wizards have. For instance, in battle, wizards would use magic and Muggles would use technology. A war with magic vs. nukes or other WMD's could probably go either way (and it's not like humans of the past couldn't get the better of wizards or Nearly Headless Nick wouldn't be nearly headless). So, the two groups are just different.
It's kind of like what goes on in in X-men with with its own Fantastic Racism. The mutants have superpowers and the non-mutant humans don't, but both can be a real threat to each other if so inclined. Some mutants (bad guys like Magneto and his crew) think mutants are superior and have prejudice against the non-mutant humans (they are like the Death Eaters of HP) and want to segregate, rule and/or destroy and attempt to do so. Other mutants (good guys like Dr. Xavier and the X-men) want to use their power for good and not be prejudiced against the non-mutants (like the Good Guy wizard(s) of your choice from HP - I would submit Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix as a good parallel). And then there are non-mutants who think mutants are dangerous freaks and have prejudice against them (like the various old tyme witch hunters from HP) and want to segregate, rule and/or destroy and attempt to do so.
Like HP, the Fantastic Racism in X-men doesn't parallel real life perfectly, but it doesn't have to for the message of "Hey! Look! Racism! It's bad!" to work. Plenty of people get that message from HP, just like they do from The X-men, so I would say it's "mission accomplished" for the creators (after all, you can't please everyone).
Re: Muggles and wizards
Re: Muggles and wizards
I'm glad you can find some positive message in them, though, even though I can't.
(To take one example, Dumbledore and co. in no way correspond to the good guys in X-Men as you describe them. They - Dumbledore and co. - are entirely in favor of segregation, and they all treat us normal human beings in very high-handed ways. We are never shown that humans can have power over wizards or be superior to them in any way. Or can you point to a good, admirable Muggle whose name you actually know? I can't!)
Re: Muggles and wizards
Wizards having power over Muggles does not make them superior to them. It just means that wizards have power over Muggles. Power does not equal superiority.
For instance, in the movie Men in Black, regular humans that were part of a secret government agency have gotten hold of technology that is just like Obliviate. I forget the technical name for the device, but it was given the slang term “the flashy thingy” because it made a flash before it wiped peoples’ memories of a recent event. The agents who wielded the flashy thingy were known as Men in Black, and they wielded it against anyone outside of the secret government agency that discovered the truth about the agency’s work with aliens. Were the MiB superior to the citizens they mind wiped just because they had that power do to so? No they were not. They simply had a power over them. Having power over someone does not make “the person with the power” superior to “the person without the power”.
If the MiB analogy doesn’t work for you for some reason, try the Star Wars universe and the whole Force-wielder vs. non-Force-wielder thing. Were people who “had the Force” superior to people who didn’t? No they were not. They simply had power that non-Force wielders didn’t have.
Similarly, the wizards having the power to mind wipe or mind control Muggles doesn’t make them superior to them. They just have a power over them. Having power over someone does not increase one’s intrinsic worth. Wizards are not superior to Muggles.
Re: Muggles and wizards
However there is nobody in the wizarding world who thinks that way. They think that having capability to wield power gives them permission to do so, at least wrt Muggles. Hence the Obliviators, the Muggle-Worthy Excuse Committee and the freedom with which any adult wizard uses magic on Muggles for gain or entertainment. By doing so they deny the humanity of Muggles.
The difference with the MiB situation or the Jedi at least in the movies is that in both cases the powerful follow a code of conduct that places limitations on their use of their power and there is a conscious attempt to not overuse or misuse the powers.
Re: Muggles and wizards
After all, in the Epilogue we are explicitly told that "all is well," Harry and the narrative voice agree on this point and we are expected to see it as a statement of truth (rather than irony). Yet Harry the revolutionary head of the Auror department has no problems whatsoever with the fact that his friend has mentally manipulated a Muggle out of sheer laziness and unwillingness to actually do the work required for the license. If all is well in the Potterverse, and the hexing of Muggles for the convenience of wizards is unproblematic, then Muggles are de facto not accorded the same status as human beings as wizards are. WE may personally think Muggles and wizards are or ought to be equally human, but that is not the truth of the text.
Which is why the racism analogy that places "wizardkind" in the place of equivalency to "humankind" as the foundation group against which 'race' is measured is offensive.
Re: Muggles and wizards
Again, I disagree that the narrative voice does this. It just doesn't spoon feed the message of "anti-Muggle prejudice is bad". I think it gives plenty of good indications and the message seems to be received by the general public, so...it looks like we just disagree, here.
After all, in the Epilogue we are explicitly told that "all is well," Harry and the narrative voice agree on this point and we are expected to see it as a statement of truth (rather than irony).
Harry is saying "all is well" with his family, not "all is literally right with the world". I don't have the energy to go into it further than that right now. Maybe later. Maybe.
Anyway, I get that you think the text itself is racist to Muggles. (Have I got that right?) ...I just disagree.
And even if the text were racist to Muggles, that still doesn't change the fact that "blood prejudice = racism." It would just make the text hypocritical. The text would be offensive, but I don't see why the plain ol' fact of "blood prejudice = racism" would be.
Which is why the racism analogy that places "wizardkind" in the place of equivalency to "humankind" as the foundation group against which 'race' is measured is offensive.
Again, "wizard on wizard blood prejudice/racism" is a sub-category of blood prejudice in general, and blood prejudice is a sub-category of racism in general. The human race is the foundation group of wizard and Muggle, the "wizard race" is the foundation group of pure-blood, half-blood and Muggle-born.
I don't see why looking at the parallel between "wizard on wizard racism" and real life racism is offensive, seeing as wizards aren't real. I have a feeling it has to do with the fact that you are taking the books way more seriously than I am, though.
BTW, Nazi style racism can fit into the whole blood prejudice paradigm, too:
~ blood purists = Aryan racists = majority race bigots
~ pure-bloods = Aryans = majority race
~ half-bloods = mixed-race/Mischlings and/or Aryans with traceable non-Aryan ancestry = mix of a majority race and minority race and/or majority race with traceable minority race ancestry
~ Muggle-borns = non-Aryans (e.g. Jews) that aren't "disabled" = minority race that is viewed by some racists as being non-human
~ Muggles = non-Aryans (e.g Jews) that are "disabled" = minority race that is viewed by some racists as being non-human and is "disabled" to boot for a double whammy as being seen as a blight on humanity by these particular racists who are also ableists
~ Squibs = "the disabled" among Aryans and Mischlings = viewed as equivalent to the minority race (by these particular racists who are also ableists) and deemed a blight on humanity
Re: Muggles and wizards
RE: the rest of your post: I am starting to get slightly upset. Here is why.
I believe I indicated previously, multiple times including at least once directly to you, that I am no longer interested in discussing with you the subject the majority of your post here deals with.
I said that I felt we were talking past each other and that you did not seem to be understanding some of my points/issues. I have put my arguments into words as clearly as I can given the amount of time I have available to discuss these things. I still feel like you are misunderstanding me, but I do not get the sense that I will be able to make myself any clearer to you without spending far more time than I have available to explaining myself again. Nor is it so very pressing upon me that I make you understand or agree with me. You are free to agree, disagree, whatever you like. Take my arguments or leave them, it is all the same to me. We must agree to disagree -- because as I thought I had made clear, I do not feel like we will get anywhere continuing to discuss this subject, and so I do not wish to continue this particular discussion with you.
If you want to continue debating the points I raised themselves, fine. Post replies to the rest of the thread, write your own essay, do whatever you like with the arguments. But please do not respond directly to me with a continuation of the discussion on this subject. I get emails when a reply to a comment of mine is posted, which draws my attention back to a discussion I have stated I wish to end. Putting arguments about that discussion in a reply to a comment of mine in a separate discussion with a third party merely forces my attention back to that discussion more forcefully. I let the previous long responses go because I did not wish to reopen the discussion, and was going to simply ignore the thread. But now I cannot even have a discussion with a third person without having the closed discussion opened again, at length.
And this is crossing a boundary with me. When I say that I no longer wish to continue discussing a certain subject with you, I mean that I am really no longer interested in discussing it with you. (And I would mean it just as much if I said it to someone else regarding a different discussion. It is my "stop" signal.)
I therefore do not want the discussion to be shoved in my face. It is not merely a question of being expected to reply, it is that you are forcing my attention back to a discussion I no longer wish to continue, in direct disregard of my stated wish to stop discussing it, which is disrespectful. Were you to say clearly to me "I do not wish to discuss this any longer," I would not then post multiple long responses to you on that closed subject, nor interject myself into your discussion with another person to continue the old discussion. I have let pass things you have said to me in previous discussions, including misunderstandings of my arguments and outright offensive assumptions about my motives, simply because you said you no longer wished to continue the discussion. (Nor do I wish to get into those things here. This is merely to point out that to me, "stop discussing this with me" means *stop discussing this with me* no matter who says it.) To me, a statement that a discussion is over is precisely that. If I have ever missed such a cue from you inadvertently, I apologize. Whenever it has been clear, I have ceased. I had thought that I was very clear here; apparently I was not. So let me be clear: at this time I do not wish to continue a discussion with you about why I find the racism analogy wrt Muggleborns problematic. And I ask you to please have the same consideration for me that I have tried to have for you.
Re: Muggles and wizards
Think of it this way. You and I and multiple people are in a room, discussing various things - say, about sea life. People are talking to the whole group and in smaller groups. You and I get into a long discussion about whales but cannot seem to agree. You decide that you no longer wish to discuss whales with me because we cannot agree, and so you go to talk to someone else, stating that our discussion is closed. I then go over to you and talk directly to your face about points from the debate about whales you closed. Would you not feel disrespected if I did that?
I feel disrespected when you do the text-forum version of that. If I wish to reopen a discussion with you that I have closed, I will let you know directly. And the same applies vice-versa: if someone closes a discussion with me, I will not reopen it unless and until they signal directly to me that they wish to reopen it. Even if they should talk about a related subject with someone else, I will not take that as an invitation to reopen a closed discussion with them.
So please, do not do that to me. If you wish to respond to a comment I make to someone else, please keep your comments to the matter actually at issue in that conversation. I am not saying I do not wish to ever talk to you again - not at all. There are many many things about the Potterverse to discuss, and I do enjoy discussing them with you (I hope that you find it enjoyable too.) I simply feel that at this point in this particular discussion we have hit an impasse. I do not mean to offend you with anything I say here, I am sorry if I do. I am simply trying to let you know that you have crossed a boundary with me regarding this particular issue, as you have let others know when they have crossed your boundaries. And I ask you to please respect that boundary from now on. I have only so much time and energy to devote to any one discussion.
Boundaries
To explain: you said...
For the final time, as I am now done with the discussion:
if you want to understand what I meant, read raisin_gal's essays. The ableist aspect is not just about Muggles. It's really to complex for me to go into now, since I do have to sleep. But from your comments I do not get the sense at all that you see the same problem I do.
And, in case I have not been clear enough in my previous comments, I am tired of this discussion all together. I am not going to get into it again."
You didn't say you were done specifically with me (but with the discussion all together), so I was surprised to see you post again in the discussion and thought "well, maybe she got a second wind and felt like discussing the issue more, after all". Also, I had no idea you were expecting that I shouldn't reply to you. People keep on replying to me when I'm done, sometimes, so I figured that's just how it was done here at Snapedom.
Having said that, I understand you meant me in particular, now. Your boundary is duly noted and I won't cross it again. (I can't promise perfection, but I'll do my best to remember, assuming we end up discussing anything again.) Apologies for going over it. It wasn't intentional.
But please do not respond directly to me with a continuation of the discussion on this subject. I get emails when a reply to a comment of mine is posted, which draws my attention back to a discussion...
After this reply, I will honor your request and ignore you then.
But now I cannot even have a discussion with a third person without having the closed discussion opened again, at length.
I should point out, that in entering into a conversation that I am having with oryx, I could run into the same trouble ignoring you that you have in ignoring me. I get emails too (and those come when people reply to other people I'm talking with, too). It cuts both ways.
But I'm capable of ignoring just you or ignoring you and all posts below you, so I don't mind if you reply or not to me or anyone I'm discussing with. (That, and I'm done discussing all this myself, anyway, but that's beside the point).
it is that you are forcing my attention back to a discussion
Er, you are in control of you. I am not a puppet master. I can't do the Imperius curse. I was inadvertently forcing an email alert on you, but that doesn't force you to have to give my reply any attention. If you see it's from me, you can always hit "delete" and ignore that puppy. Now that I know it bothers you, I won't reply to you anymore, but that doesn't mean I had or have any control over you giving my reply any more attention than to hit "delete" or ignore me. Again, I understand you may not even want to have to deal with "delete" or ignore, so this will be the last reply.
Think of it this way. You and I and multiple people are in a room, discussing various things...
This isn't a perfect analogy (since you can't hit "delete" or just "skip over with reading" and ignore a verbal communication) but I see where you are coming from. I understand you feel the way you feel about it and that you don't want me to reply any more to you.
I don't have a problem with you stating a boundary. I'm totally down with boundaries. Good fences make good neighbors, and all that.
I do get a bit peeved when people try and assign blame to me for something I really have no control over (how much attention outside of delete and/or ignore you give one of my replies), because that crosses one of my boundaries, but I have no problem honoring your boundaries and request.
Had I known you felt the way you felt about it, and had I known you were not entering back into conversation with me by joining the discussion I was having with oryx, I would have just folded part of that reply to you (the "BTW, Nazi style racism..." bit), in with my reply to oryx. Didn't know. Sorry about that.
Re: Muggles and wizards
Another part of the difference is that, while we agree that having additional inborn abilities doesn't make some people superior to others, it still gets icky when you suggest that there are "races" where one "race" has abilities that another doesn't.
Specifically, it's icky because it's *racists* who believe that some races have abilities/positive qualities that others don't, and that those things makes those races superior.
So labeling the Muggle/wizard distinction as a race analogy becomes icky, because it suggests that race *does* work that work that way in the real world. Even if you don't suggest that the difference makes one group superior, the conflation of "possessing abilities" with "race" is disturbing.
By which I mean that the labeling itself is disturbing.
Obviously, the prejudice itself is equally disturbing, regardless of what it's labeled.
Lynn
Re: Muggles and wizards
Re: Muggles and wizards
I've stated over and over again that anti-Muggle prejudice is racism, and included anti-Muggleism and anti-Squibism under the heading of blood prejudice/racism, too. Anti-Muggleism and anti-Squibism are just racism with ableism along with it, whereas "wizard on wizard racism" doesn't have the ableist aspect.
Here's why I started out with the microcosm of wizard on wizard racism (copy pasted from my reply to oryx):
"First of all, way back earlier, I said "Never mind the Muggles (or anyone other than wizards), for a moment." because I wanted to deal with wizard on wizard racism, as a starting point, because it seemed like [oryx was] unwilling to label something as racist if it overlapped with ableism. So I thought, "well, if we take that out of the equation for a moment, would that remove the problem of labeling "wizard on wizard blood prejudice" [which is a sub-category of blood prejudice in general] racism?" The answer was a resounding cry of "No." ^_^;"
Originally, I figured I'd tackle just "wizard on wizard blood prejudice = racism," before moving on to "blood prejudice = racism."
I've also said over and over again, that Muggles and wizards are both part of the human race. Like real world societies construct various "races" out of the human race in real life, wizard society has constructed a "Muggle race" and a "wizard race". And then they've taken it one step further in constructing what amount to different "races" and "mixed-races" within the wizard race.
Specifically, it's icky because it's *racists* who believe that some races have abilities/positive qualities that others don't, and that those things makes those races superior.
Having a power, talent, genetic windfall, etc, does not make anyone superior to anyone else. So even if one "race" (wizards) had some genuine positive qualities that another "race" (Muggles) didn't have, that wouldn't make the one "race" any better than another "race". That's kind of the point. Racism isn't right no matter what the justification, and equal intrinsic worth is something everyone and every "race" is born with. Ability doesn't equal worth.
Re: Muggles and wizards
I don't *quite* agree with you because I think that - just as one can point out that fair-skinned people tend to be more sensitive to the sun without supposing that this makes them "superior/inferior to" or possessed of greater or lesser rights than people with olive skin - it should be possible to admit that there are measurable differences in the culture/direction and/or abilities of different races/ethnic groups (considered as populations and without judging the individual by their ethnicity) without supposing that these differences in any way delineate superiority/inferiority or that they should impact on the equality, human rights or societal standing of the different groups.
IMO, it's the second half of your sentence which defines the racist, but the misuse of the first half by racists has understandably led to suspicion of any attempt to inquire into the subject:any measure of intelligence/ability is inherently culturally-biased, because we tend to value those abilities that are germane to *our* society and devalue those which are not. Furthermore, one cannot accurately measure to what extent differences are due to cultural/societal pressures rather than to inherent characteristics.
In any case, human rights are (or should be) independent of surface distinctions like ability,intelligence, appearance, wealth, culture, etc. Our common humanity entitles (should entitle - alas, this is not a perfect world) everyone alike to the free exercise of their rights and freedoms.
duj
Re: Muggles and wizards
Re: Muggles and wizards
I wouldn't say there is nobody. Actually, I'd say this is another case of hypocrisy and good people failing to live up to their ideals (with regards to some of our 'good guy' characters). For instance, I don't think Arthur really thinks wizards are intrinsically better than Muggles, but he might fail to live up to his ideals, from time to time.
Anyway, we aren't meant to see the racism/ableism of wizards against non-wizards as a good thing.
They think that having capability to wield power gives them permission to do so, at least wrt Muggles. Hence the Obliviators, the Muggle-Worthy Excuse Committee and the freedom with which any adult wizard uses magic on Muggles for gain or entertainment. By doing so they deny the humanity of Muggles.
Yep, that's how they are being racist/ableist. Again, this is not meant to be seen as a good thing.
Re: Muggles and wizards
He Obliviates Muggles on a regular basis as part of his job and thinks nothing of it. (Does he check up on them afterwards? No, he just leaves them all confused and goes on about his business. How many Muggle mental health problems or neurodegenerative conditions are caused by Obliviation? Nobody in the Wizarding World knows, nor does anyone think of it. Nobody cares enough to ask the relevant questions.) It's not about failing to live up to his ideals, it's about his ideals failing to be anything worth having.
Yep, that's how they are being racist/ableist. Again, this is not meant to be seen as a good thing.
So why is all well when Ron Confunds the Muggle driving examiner? As long as wizards don't kill Muggles (at least not directly and not on purpose) neither Rowling nor her characters care.
Re: Muggles and wizards
Also, Harry isn't saying "all is well" to Ron Confunding the driver. Harry is talking about his family being well.
Finally, just because the characters don't always recognize their own racism/ableism, doesn't change the fact that they are being racist/ableist. Same with JKR. Even if the text were condoning it (which I don't believe it is), that doesn't change the fact that blood prejudice is racism, etc.
Re: Muggles and wizards
And some how this isn't an example of racism? That's like saying an English-speaking person uses a Mexican's lack of understanding of English to belittle them. A white person makes a black person give up her seat on the bus. Nazi's had the right to incarcerate and murder Jews.
Re: Muggles and wizards