Snapedom

Whose Blood is Purest: Considerations on Slytherin House

The World of Severus Snape

********************
Anonymous users, remember that you must sign all your comments with your name or nick! Comments left unsigned may be screened without notice.

********************

Welcome to Snapedom!
If you want to see snapedom entries on your LJ flist, add snapedom_syn feed. But please remember to come here to the post to comment.

This community is mostly unmoderated. Read the rules and more in "About Snapedom."

No fanfic or art posts, but you can promote your fanfic and fanart, or post recommendations, every Friday.

Whose Blood is Purest: Considerations on Slytherin House

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
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/Mudbloods.html )

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?
  • Actually, what I said was partially in response to this statement of yours, included in a couple of posts:

    If you want to reject the label of racism for blood prejudice, then I submit to you that blood prejudice is just as foul as whatever you would call racism.

    If one considers all prejudice equally bad, and one believes that everyone else in the conversation also has that perspective, why would this need to be said? Naturally, I assumed that you thought that at least *someone* here didn't agree with the perspective that all prejudice is equally bad.


    First of all, I didn’t say anything about all prejudice in that statement. I was speaking only to blood prejudice and racism. I figured the response to my statement would be “of course blood prejudice is as bad as racism” and then we would have a point of agreement.

    I do wonder if the gut reaction to racism might be a factor in why people don't want to label blood prejudice in HP as racism, seeing as everyone is aware of the added stigma, though. Right or wrong, there is an added stigma to calling it racism, and sometimes I wonder if that is a factor, subconsciously or not.

    That still doesn’t come close to me saying anybody “in this thread was arguing that prejudice against Muggle-borns was a good or nice thing” (the stuff in quotes being oryx’s reply to that statement).

    ...But since it's just as bad either way, why would labeling it racism "call it out"? The idea of "not calling it out" suggests that we're letting this prejudice get away with something by calling it a different kind of prejudice than racism, that we're calling it something less bad.

    I’m in favor of calling a spade a spade and see no good reason not to do so. Also, it cuts both ways. If it’s just as bad either way, then what does it harm to label blood prejudice as racism (keeping in mind that that doesn’t preclude blood prejudice as being labeled something else in addition), especially when you and others recognize that there are at least some elements of racism to it? What unjust burden is being added to blood prejudice in labeling it racism?

    Part of my issue with calling it racism is that it seems clear to me that it isn't "racism plus elements of other prejudices." As 00sevvie said, blood prejudice is more like "racism minus some elements of racism, and with some other things thrown in."

    It seems clear to me that blood prejudice has the necessary elements of racism required to fit the definition of racism. It fits the minimum requirements, at least. I’ve gone over “why” a whole bunch, so I doubt we’ll be coming to agreement on that.

    Also, if blood prejudice has any elements of racism, why not label it as such along with any other labels you feel appropriate?

    And personally, I'm still curious to see if we can find a better analogy that doesn't require any references to racism at all.

    Er, if you agree that racism is part of blood prejudice at all, then why would you want to avoid any references to racism at all? Why would that even be a little bit important?
    • (Anonymous)
      Also, it cuts both ways. If it’s just as bad either way, then what does it harm to label blood prejudice as racism

      It does harm to our understanding of the way this prejudice works, IMHO, because 00sevvie and I, at least, want to describe this prejudice *precisely*, and we don't think that "racism" is quite precise enough. You don't have to care about this level of precision, of course, but why should it be surprising that others care?

      What unjust burden is being added to blood prejudice in labeling it racism?

      It has nothing to do with whether the label is "just"; it's about whether it's accurate enough. (Similar concepts, but very different connotations.) You may consider it hair-splitting, but we really are interested in these distinctions.

      Also, if blood prejudice has any elements of racism, why not label it as such along with any other labels you feel appropriate?

      Well, because there are elements completely unlike racism, too.

      And personally, I'm still curious to see if we can find a better analogy that doesn't require any references to racism at all.

      Er, if you agree that racism is part of blood prejudice at all, then why would you want to avoid any references to racism at all? Why would that even be a little bit important?


      I didn't say that I consider racism part of blood prejudice. Racism and blood prejudice have elements in common: prejudice itself (obviously), some role for heredity, possibly others. But in some ways, blood prejudice is completely unlike racism, and that makes it a flawed analogy. I'd prefer being able to avoid a flawed analogy and get a better one.

      That's potentially important because a better analogy could help us understand this society better, by giving us real-world examples we could compare this to, examples that would point out issues we might otherwise overlook.

      The fact that blood prejudice and racism have elements in common doesn't make one a kind of the other. I mean, people who study this subject would probably tell you that there are elements in common between sexism and homophobia -- but they aren't the *same*. I don't study the subject, but I can think of a couple of shared elements beyond prejudice itself: there are religious traditions that support both (women being subordinate, homosexuality being forbidden), the potential/certainty that bigots will be related to the people that they're biased against (unlike in racism). Not to mention the relevance of traditional gender roles in both cases. But they're still two different kinds of prejudice.

      Moreover, we can't improve the racism analogy by saying that blood prejudice is like a combination of racism *and* anti-immigrantism, because then we'd still be including the aspects of racism that *don't* fit this prejudice.

      Chances are that we won't be able to find a really good analogy, though, so 00sevvie's conclusion is probably the best available: we shouldn't *equate* blood-prejudice to any other kind of prejudice.

      Lynn
      • I honestly don't see why it should be a problem to see the wizarding world - or more accurately the Potterverse, which is larger than the WW - as having its own specific forms of prejudice. It is a different world than ours, with different conditions creating different situations.

        Drawing parallels to forms of prejudice in our world can certainly help us understand the Potterverse and its prejudice/s, but only so far as we keep the similarities and differences in mind. IMHO.
        • (Anonymous)
          (nod) I wouldn't say there's a problem. A better analogy would be enlightening, but heck, even just taking into consideration more analogies that aren't quite right is enlightening. I think that considering ableism adds an interesting perspective, like the analogy that Lily was praised by her parents for her ability to "see."

          Like you, I think that the key is to avoid equating things.

          Lynn
          • Yes, I think we're rather in agreement. :) I was just stating things generally.

            But I think I really am done with the subject now, I am worn out. I doubt I'll be responding to many more posts in this whole subdiscussion, from anyone. I do point anyone who wants to understand where I'm coming from in more depth to read raisin_gal's two essays on hp_essays on LJ. Some of it is rather up for debate, but I think her point that using "ability to do magic" as a metaphor conflating (in various scenes/subtexts) race, abledness and extraordinary talent produces very disturbing results is spot-on.
      • and we don't think that "racism" is quite precise enough.

        I think it's "precise enough" and that it doesn't take away from the further preciseness of the specific term for this specific form of racism (i.e. blood prejudice) and I've said why, so...I think it's agree to disagree time.

        I do feel like I have a deeper understanding of where you and 00sevvie are coming from, at this point, though. Hopefully you and 00sevvie feel the same with regards to me.
Powered by InsaneJournal