Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: momwitch Mar 17 2008, 01:35 PM

At 51 pages, the last version of this thread was getting very large. Thanks to Maime the Hunter for creating such an active discussion!

Please continue the discussion and you can reference the prior thread, http://www.leakylounge.com/Underlying-themes-dual-i-t59220.html.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 17 2008, 02:13 PM

Everyone knew what company Snape kept at school, but it isn't clear who knew or could have known with whom he hung around later.

What I wonder about is what was going on between Remus and the rest. On the one hand, if he was suspected then Sirius and James would be less in touch with him. Yet in POA, when he says "unless you switched ... without telling me" (not 'without telling anyone') it seems as though he expected to have been in the know of such details based on their level of communication at the time.

(Sorry to start a new thread without anything earth shatering.)

Posted by: lirene Mar 17 2008, 02:34 PM

Shame on you Oryx (just kidding)! The lack of communication could be explained by the fact that Lupin seemed to be active for the Order just like Sirius was and that maybe he had gone underground again on Dumbledore's orders to infiltrate the werewolves and gather information, just as he does in the second war. Or his duties entailed entirely different purposes. And if Lupin was suspected, that could explain Sirius' and James' caution in not telling him about the change in SK, or maybe not telling Lupin was merely for his own protection.

Posted by: Alkari Mar 17 2008, 03:27 PM

Maime the Hunter focuses on the James/Lily relationship, but there's actually a much more important aspect to her comment:

You've hit upon one of the most critical elements and themes of the overall storyline in the books - the almost total lack of information which Harry has about his parents. In fact, concealment of information, misleading details, and even outright deception are quite critical to the books as far as Harry's knowledge of James and Lily goes. It's rather like a detective story (which has been mentioned on another thread, including JKR's own reference to Dorothy Sayers): Harry not only has to survive his own battles, but has to find out essential information, much of which people don't think he should know, or needs to know.

In PS/SS, DD tells Harry that Lily died to save him, and that love leaves its mark; he mentions the rivalry between Snape and James, but skates over it and almost trivialises it; DD also mentions that James owned the Invisibility Cloak which he used for sneaking to the kitchens. DD of course doesn't let on anything about the real significance of the Cloak, which we much later realise is a very important bit of concealment as well. The next 'real' bits of information come in POA, and much of that was the conversation in the Three Broomsticks which Harry overheard concerning Sirius - in other words, nobody thought he ought to be told about the friendship between his father and Sirius. So Harry has to 'overhear' hidden details. Lupin avoids the issue as much as possible, and it is only in the Shrieking Shack scene that we start getting down to the 'real' information. In the aftermath of that, DD mentions that he knew James well at school and also afterwards - but there is no mention of Lily, or the possibility that she too might have spared Wormtail. It's only in Book 7 we realise that she too was the sort of person who would have been merciful in that situation. So DD has engaged in yet another really neat bit of concealment - he focuses on James, because (as we now realise from the Lily/Snape subplot) DD probably does not want Harry to start asking too many awkward questions about his mother and what she was like.

The theme of concealment goes on, and in OotP we have an important parallel to POA, when Harry sees SWM in the Pensieve, and finds out about his father, and also - critically - gets his first look at Lily and schoolboy Snape. Like POA, Harry wasn't supposed to find this out at all: JKR has to use another device (the Pensieve) for him to discover hidden knowledge and begin to understand what adults are hiding. He tackles Sirius and Remus about it, but the situation means they cannot talk to him at length, so once again, all of Harry's natural follow-up questions are 'conveniently' cut off. Also obvious to many of us is the apparent lack of conversation between Harry, Sirius and Remus when Harry is at GP: for a boy who was so desperately interested in his parents, it has always seemed strange to many of us that Harry didn't use that time to have some long talks (to Sirius at least) about James and Lily. But JKR couldn't have that, because in those discussions, Harry might have discovered the original friendship between Snape and Lily. So she creates a somewhat artificial situation where Harry - for once! - doesn't ask questions and get curious.

It is only after Sirius's death in OotP that DD starts to level with Harry about certain things, but even then, we come to suspect that there is so much he is still not saying. The truth finally comes out in DH (as with all good detective novels, LOL), and we realise just how much DD and Snape have been concealing all these years.

So in the context of all this, and to go back to MtH's comment about James/Lily as a couple, I would not expect DD to have ever talked about James and Lily as a couple. It never arose in any context where DD "had" to make any comment; Sirius and Remus "conveniently" didn't talk to Harry in OotP. And of course, DD really didn't want Harry asking too many questions about his parents at all, because any questions about their romance, or about Lily at school, would have risked disclosure of her friendship with Snape. And that could easily have led to a whole box of other questions which both Snape and DD wanted to keep closed.

We can interpret the HP books as a classic Hero's quest, with the Hero gradually growing up, discovering his own strength, and ultimately achieving his goal by defeating the monster. But the books are also a type of detective story, where the hero detective and his assistants have to discover critical information - and for various reasons, people don't want him to know that information, or not know it "now". And so we have this underlying pattern of half-truths, concealment and chance discoveries in relation to Harry's parents (and other things), all of which are designed to lead the Hero to "the Truth" at the appropriate time.

Alkari

Posted by: cobhome Mar 17 2008, 03:38 PM

Great point Alkari - I mentioned before how odd it seemed to me that no one ever mentions Snape and Lily's childhood relationship to Harry - Harry even has a chat about Snape with Sirius and later Remus - yet this info never comes out. When reading the books I recall feeling frustrated by the unwillingness of adults to really give Harry info he so obviously needs.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 17 2008, 03:43 PM

Why would they want to tell Harry about Lily and Snape? the people around Harry dislike Snape, and probably think of that friendship as something almost shameful that needs to be hidden from Harry so as not to tarnish his mother's memory in his eyes. Probably the only two people who thought otherwise were Dumbledore and Snape, who had their own reasons for secrecy.

Posted by: Alkari Mar 17 2008, 03:56 PM

They wouldn't - that's just the point! One of Harry's first questions to DD, back in PS/SS, was why Snape disliked him so much yet worked to save him, and we get DD's comment about Snape's 'debt' to James and going back to hating James in peace. A very neat piece of deception! ANY mention of the Snape / Lily friendship from anyone, even in passing, as a comment on Lily and her friends at school for example, could have led Harry to ask some questions about why Snape still hated him if he was friends with his mother - and that could have led Harry down a dangerous trail, which might have given away Snape's spy status. So no-one mentions Lily and Snape in the same breath: the emphasis is very carefully kept on James.

And as a teenage boy, Harry's own focus is rather more on his father, and a father figure, than on his mother. JKR cleverly uses this 'natural' focus to have all of Harry's questions and attention directed towards James and his friends, rather than on what his mother was like.

Alkari

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 17 2008, 05:53 PM

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I can certainly understand why Dumbledore and Snape would want to keep the information that Snape and Lily were friends from Harry - but I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'giving away Snape's spy status'. It wasn't a secret that Snape was working for the Order as a double-agent, was it?

As for Sirius and Lupin and the rest, I'd have to agree with Oryx here and state that neither of them cared much for Snape - they had probably conveniently forgotten the fact that Lily and Snape were friends at all, and if not, they certainly weren't going to bring that fact to light. But I'm not sure why they'd want to keep mum about that in order to help protect Snape's status...?

Forgive me if I'm missing the obvious - I'm rather tired at the moment, but if you could clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it!

Posted by: Alkari Mar 17 2008, 08:32 PM

Sorry Oryx - should have made it clearer! What I meant was that JKR wouldn't have wanted to "them" i.e. any of her characters, to discuss the Lily/Snape relationship in any detail, or even mention the fact that they were friends, because that would have given rise to obvious questions which Harry should have asked, and would have given away very obvious clues as to the likelihood that Snape may have been motivated in some respects by feelings for Lily. And as a plot point, she wanted to keep the Lily/Snape part as something that was open to speculation until Book 7.

I don't believe that the staff at Hogwarts are blind and deaf to student relationships, feuds or friendships. In a boarding school, where it seems that most of the staff live-in, they see the students 7 days a week, both in and out of class, and the staff would have to be deaf, blind and downright dumb not to notice who was holding hands with whom in the corridors, who was keeping company out of class, who was hanging around with whom on weekends, etc. They all knew of the James/Sirius friendship, and even though that was an obvious one because of the boys' general status in the school, some staff would probably have also known of Lily's friendship with Snape. Clearly, no-one apart from DD and Snape knew of Snape's spy status when he returned to teach at the school: but when he was a student, I cannot believe that by the time he was in fifth year, staff such as McGonagall wouldn't have noticed the Lily/Snape friendship, even in general terms, and were therefore likely to have mentioned it in a casual discussion about Harry's parents. Just something simple along the general lines of someone musing: "Funny how things work out, isn't it - Snape and Potter were enemies from the first, yet Lily was a friend of Snape's for quite a while. Yet she ended up falling in love with Potter and marrying him... And the responses to that." Imagine if Harry had overheard that sort of discussion in POA in the Three Broomsticks!

Of course, there was a general reluctance from everyone to talk about Lily + James to Harry, and given the small size of the wizarding world, it seems remarkable that none of the students at school ever said something to Harry like "my Mum says she was a friend of your mother's at school".

So from this perspective, I am suggesting that it was "convenient" for JKR to ensure that Harry only ever heard comments concerning his father and Sirius. It was also essential that any discussion of his parents was very limited, with a James focus, and that Harry himself was not curious about his mother.

Alkari

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 17 2008, 09:09 PM

I'm Oxymoronic - not Oryx - but no worries, those O's, X's and Y's can get tricky!

I also appreciate your explanation. I too always wondered at Harry's lack of curiosity regarding his parents, particularly when he was stuck in that wretched house in OoTP.

However, for my sake (as all us readers tend to work things out for ourselves in our minds), I told myself that Harry was rather preoccupied with getting over the come-back of Voldemort, worrying about what was happening, and dealing with his growing pains.

Doesn't entirely make up for the fact that he never bothered to sit down for a heart-to-heart with his godfather, but there you have it.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 18 2008, 12:28 AM

Although Sirius and Lupin knew Lily and Snape were friends, I don't think they realized, as Jo says James realized, that Snape feelings for Lily had grown beyond friendship. Sirius hated Snape because his interest in the Dark Arts and he was always following them around. Lupin and Sirius are amused by Harry's thinking that his mother hated James, so they might have been aware of when Lily started to notice James. Of course if they knew about Snape hanging out trying to talk to Lily after he called her a Mudblood, they might have guessed he liked her, but as Lily never liked Snape more than a friend, they would dismissed it.

But is the concealment of the "truth" designed so that at the appropriate time Harry and the readers have any more insight to Lily and James' relationship than we started out with?

We knew in the first book, because Voldemort tells us, that James was brave in the end and his mother didn't have to die. We knew they loved each other. We knew Snape and James hated each other. We know that James was a true friend to Sirius and Lupin and that he would spare the life of someone, even if he disliked him. We knew from the Pensieve that Lily would take up for someone and didn't stand for cruelty towards another. We hear some of what happened the night James and Lily were killed in POA.

The truth that is revealed helps Harry therefore the readers understand Snape's relationship with his mother, Snape's change of allegiance at the time his parents were killed, and Dumbledore's understanding of Snape. But at the end of the books there were still threads dedicated to "why did Lily marry James?" or variations of the subject.

We know Dumbledore kept the Invisibility Cloak: Page 715 DH

But we don't know why, with so much at stake, James and Lily turned down Dumbledore's protection, and are left with Snape's explanation: James' arrogant trust in Sirius.

Then again, some of the proof of Lily's and James attraction to each other is evident in Lily's personality. When Snape first sees her, Lily is, according to Petunia, breaking her parents rules about using her gifts. And she's using a swing to fly--it appears Harry's love of flying comes from both parents.
I would say, there is enough to fill in the blanks as to what James and Lily were like as a team.

Continuing on with the theme of fathers: Consider Jo's comments or intent Sirius as a reckless Guy to choose for Godfather. She does not say, it was not the best time in anyone's life, but that Sirius was a reckless guy.

Before she said this, Sirius confession that he persuaded James and Lily to choose Peter, seemed just Sirius blaming himself for a mistake they all made. And as the novels go, I still see nothing to suggest that it was a mistake all three adults made. However, Jo's comment about Sirius was a reckless guy to choose, makes me wonder if Jo intended us to agree with Sirius. The choice of Peter was his mistake alone.
Or it could be Sirius is single, and would have had he not gone to Azkaban, remained single.
I recall when my children were young and custody was an issue, I could think of nothing more frightening than single fathers who were as competent as one expected a single mother to be. That may or may not be an factor in Jo's attitude towards Sirius.

At another time statement that Sirius wanted to be a friend to Harry and Harry needed a father was interesting as well, because I was not certain, given his position, how much more of a father Sirius could have been for Harry. If it were her intent to show that Sirius as a person was not ready to learn and accept that the responsibilities of a father are different than that of a friend, I didn't see that at all--at least in the books. The movies were a bit different.

In the novels the circumstances under which Sirius and Harry were brought together were posed to work against them. But nothing in Sirius' behavior suggests that in peace time he would not have made a decent father, but maybe not every defines a decent father in the same way. A decent father or parent is one who does the best he or she can. A good parent is one who is willing to make sacrifices and Sirius was posed to do that. A good parent is one who is prepared to say Do as I say, not as I did, and you will fare better, and Sirius was prepared to do that.

At thirteen Harry had long outgrown the need for bedtime stories and needing someone to tuck him in. He needed someone to help work out the difficulties of gown up values. With the exception of Kreacher, Sirius' values were intense but loyalty and honesty are good things to teach Harry. Harry needed someone to talk to and Sirius was there for him, to listen, to encourage him, as much as he could be. When Harry voiced concerns Sirius knew he could not solve, Sirius had the common sense to go to Dumbledore. I don't see Harry as needing more from Sirius than Sirius was ready to give him.

Posted by: Alkari Mar 18 2008, 02:51 AM

Yes. Because during OotP, especially after the SWM scene, Harry suddenly has these terrible doubts about the relationship between his parents, and "how" they came to marry. He even imagines that James somehow 'forced' her! It's easy to laugh at those fears, but for Harry they were very real, because he didn't in fact have the necesary knowledge of his parents to deal with what he saw in SWM. Now, it is perfectly true that we don't know the exact circumstances of how / when Lily and James fell in love (other than it was in seventh year), but after DH we (and Harry) have a whole new perspective on Lily, her values, and the fact that she terminated a friendship on the basis of moral principles and a fundamental conflict of beliefs. We certainly don't learn everything about J/L in DH, but we don't need to. At the end of DH they are back in their rightful position as a loving couple and loving parents of Harry, and we appreciate Lily a whole lot more because of the glimpses we saw of her - the letter to Sirius, and the memories/ flashbacks from Snape and Voldemort.

That new understanding of his parents helps Harry in that journey into the Forest: he doesn't need to question them, or their love for him or each other, because he now knows the truth.

Alkari

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 10:05 AM

But you still get a large group within fandom who aren't at all clear about what there was about James that was likable and what Lily might have seen in him, or readers who see the two scenes of Lily and Severus in 5th year and conclude she never really liked him, she was just using him as a source of information on the wizarding world and once that was no longer necessary becasue she had new magical friends she was no longer his real friend (though she did hang out with him still). All those missing years get filled in very differently by different people.

Posted by: lirene Mar 18 2008, 10:11 AM

The story jumps from Lily thinking James is an arrogant toe rag, to someone she falls deeply in love with and marries. So, for me, this gap isn't easily explained. And I am one of those people that fills in the blanks according to what I believe could have happened.

I was not one to believe that Lily necessarily used Snape for information about the wizarding world; it always seemed to me that Snape liked bragging about his knowledge to her; she was a willing listener.

Posted by: momwitch Mar 18 2008, 10:55 AM

I don't think that Lily was using Snape for his knowledge of the Wizarding World - they were in a relationship (that doesn't mean that it has to be a romantic one), and that involves a give and take. Snape gave her information about herself, and Lily validated his assessment of her by proving that she was indeed what he said she was. That is a very heady "place" to be in, and as we see in the entire Potter series, it is information that is amongst the most prized and sought after "possessions" - whether it be obtained by from a diviner, an instructor, a best friend, a traitiorous lackey or a gossip columnist. One of the lessons that I see is that you have to weigh for yourself the knowledge you have, a determine if it is enough to make a competent choice for your actions.

Who knows why Snape became a Deatheater...considering he was a mudblood himself. It was said here or in another thread before that people generally despise what they hate most about themselves. When Snape called Lily a mudblood, it was just as much directed towards himself, if not more so, than Lily. In a way, by becoming a Deatheater, he was trying to validate himself , because as we saw with his identification of Lily being a witch, that he needed external approval and recognition for being "right". He follows this pattern throughout the books: from his margin notes as The Half Blood Prince, which Harry validates as being superior to the textbook writer and Hermione (the best in the class) herself, to being at the right place at the right time to hear Trelawney's prophecy. He is almost uncanny in his ability to assess a situation and come to a correct conclusion, but lacks the confidence in himself to leave what best be left alone - he consistently tries to draw attention to himself for his "greatness", because he always lacked approval for simply being himself.

Lily, on the other hand, is open and willing to take another's assessment, but has the confidence not to take herself too seriously. Even though she is a witch, her abilities are always tempered by her sister's disapproval (born out of jealousy), and she has to adjust herself accordingly to maintain some sort of familial harmony. Snape, Voldemort and James don't have any sibling to temper their impulsive behavior (Lily is also the younger sister - who was brought up to mind her elder, as is common in many families), so what is initially recognized as being the "arrogant toe-rag" James, seems to be more of a corrolation for one who feels like they don't have to answer to anyone. Snape and Voldemort share the same "qualities", but since James had a close group of friends who became like brothers , it fostered a sibling relationship that eventually tempered him and allowed him to develop the empathy to put forth the needs of others before his own. This, is what I think turned Lily around to see the beauty in James, and also Severus' inability to see anything beyond himself and his need for validation.

Posted by: lirene Mar 18 2008, 11:01 AM

Snape is a half-blood: his mom Eileen Prince was a witch, and his father a muggle. That's why he gave himself the moniker Half Blood Prince. It's probably correct to assume that Snape despised the muggle part of himself.

Posted by: momwitch Mar 18 2008, 11:05 AM

Hmmm...maybe I got the terms muddled? I thought that mudblood meant mixed blood, and could apply to both non "Pureblood" and "Muggleborns"...or am I totally off with that?

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 11:07 AM

Exactly. His hesitation when he answered Lily's question about her being Muggle-born shows where the line of bigotry in the wizarding world lay - between those of any wizarding parentage and those with none. And it wasn't Snape's prejudice alone, it is a very common one in the wizarding world.

momwitch, in COS Ron says "Mudblood's a really foul name for someone who is Muggle-born - you know, non-magic parents."

Posted by: lirene Mar 18 2008, 11:10 AM

I apologize for calling you out on that . I always thought that Mudblood was a derogatory word used purely for Muggle borns only; both parents Muggles. (I believe it was Hermione herself who explained this to Harry after Ron's self-slugging backfire jinx in Hagrid's hut in COS). I apologize if I am confusing the events from the movie ).

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 18 2008, 11:12 AM

Ah, but as post DH fanfictions and discussions would suggest, what the book needed to be complete, and what fans wanted to see or understand are two very different things.

This is not to say I don't agree with you, but as with the question as to whether Snape suffered from self-hatred due to his bloodline, certain aspects are not as clear to read between the line or take from inferences as Jo or some readers because of different experiences may think are evident in the book.

I thought Harry resolved the matter with his father before the end of OOP. It seemed that he put it in perspective and decided that although his father may not have been perfect in relationship to Severus Snape, James earned the respect he had by seventh year and grew beyond this fit of jealous, peevishness on this one day. James did not outgrow what ever Jo defines as arrogance. But, isn't it necessary to take a firm stand--that is to put your life on the line for a stand like at seventeen or eighteen joining the Order--to be a bit arrogant? One must have certainty in this instance that what he or she is fighting against or for is right.

Take away the fact that Mulciber is pond scum, (thank you Diane...it's a television reference); what right did Lily have to judge Snape's friends? Isn't that a bit of arrogance on her part? Lily and James were more alike than different. Love blinds Snape to this, but I think Harry was able to see this.

Because there are still question as to why Lily loved James, or did Snape like Voldemort, respond to his societies racism with shame in a part of his heritage we can still examine if reader inference and interpretation match the artist intent. Are some things--remember Jo's Wink/wink, it's a girl thing comment about Lily's feelings for James. Note Jo is explaining this very obvious hint of Lily's to a "woman".



Mudbloods are Muggleborn. Halfblood could be consider a racist term also, as I'm certain a Muggleborn witch has the same amount of magical genes as well as Muggle genes as a Pureblood.
But Halfblood is rather like the term "black". When I was a young girl calling a Black person, "Black" could get you a bloody nose. Now what was the preferred term of the time--Negro--could start a fight. It just goes to show how absurd racist terminology is.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 11:42 AM

Indeed this is movie-contamination. In the book Hermione only recognizes the name as derogatory from everyone's reactions, the explanation comes from Ron and Hagrid.

Posted by: lirene Mar 18 2008, 12:08 PM

You very well could be right about the amount of genes; and yes, half-blood could be considered racist as well. Jo says on her http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 that "magic is a dominant and resilient gene". She was talking about Squibs in particular and that they could be viewed as the opposite of Muggle borns. It sounds like she is talking about autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance; only one parent needs to be the proband/carry the gene with the mutation; in this case, the mutation is magic. Another important characteristic of dominant genes (as far as mutations go) is that in some cases, they can have "reduced penetrance". This means that sometimes a person can have a dominant mutation but not show any signs or effects (which can explain why Hermione's parents did not have magical powers). So Hermione, or any "Mudblood" may actually have two dominant gene mutations. So, given this, there shouldn't be any distinction between half-bloods, mudbloods, purebloods. (Sorry for the boring explanation: I used to be a Molecular Geneticist).

Oryx, I have been having a bad case of "movie contamination" lately .

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 18 2008, 12:27 PM

No, it was directed at Lily. He meant it or he wouldn't have said it. Ron is jealous of Hermione. He calls her (and his sister) a scarlett woman, which isn't much better from a purely feminine point of view. But Ron wouldn't have called Hermione a filthy mudblood under any circumstances because the very meaning of the term offended him and everything he thinks about himself and what defines a wizard.

Snape, it seems, did not want her to know this is what he thought of her background, and he didn't want to hurt her because it meant exactly what did happen--she would cut him off. He had obviously, if Lily had to defend his actions to her friends, tried to hide this part of himself from Lily, or Lily didn't want to see it because he was her friend, and because, (this is personal and kind of joke), it would mean Petunia was right about Snape. He is a horrible boy. The only thing worst than admitting an older sibling was right about a friend or boyfriend or spouse, is admitting a parent was right.

Snape's attitude towards Lily and other Muggleborn resembles the terms and resulting laws that came out America's slavery, like mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon. The latter does not define person who is part coconut cookie but illustrates very much what Jo says she was trying to illustrate using these terms: Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=58

However, Momwitch, I do agree that Snape's is not a healthy attitude towards Lily or himself. He loves her in spite of the fact that she is Muggle-born. In a perfect world it would have better that he loved simply loved Lily because of all that she was, including a Muggle born. But not to note that she is Muggle born would have been a lie because of the racism in their society, not in the person. Snape was as victimized by the racism as Lily, but he couldn't see it because he knew limited acceptance by the Purebloods or in this case the establishment.

It is too easy to conclude that Snape couldn't have been prejudice because he loved Lily, but I do not believe it is accurate. Identifying with Lily, the perception is if Snape didn't love her, he would hate her or dismiss her as a filthy mudblood as he does all the rest of her kind.

Looking at the matter from Snape side, we get confused, blinded by Severus' love/passion for Lily. But Severus Snape, from Lily's point of view, is yet another person calling for the take over of the wizard world in order to control the flow of Muggleborns through genocide of her friends. Snape who felt he had the right to violate her sisters privacy and dismissed her sister's feelings because she was Only a Muggle was yet another person who saw the torture and killing of non magical people like Lily's sister, mother and Father nor mor eggregious than sport. (See Arthur's explanation in GOF Page 143 GOF USA version)

It is hard to get a grip on what Snape felt the blood issue because, even though Harry's eyes, we only see Severus side of things. Snape is blind to his own motives and choices, in denial about his own responsiblity.

We emphasize with Snape because James dangles him upside down with Snape's own spell. We often gloss over the fact that Snape glosses over what Dark Magic thing Mulciber was prepared to do Mary, in the same exact Snape employs redirection here:



Back up--it was dark magic, and here is the Dark hex creator himself , soon to be a Death Eater saying it was funny. Heck even Harry and Ron thought the HBP hexes were cool, and didn't see himself drawn into Darkness until he nearly killed someone. But as the first war was on and Voldemort had drawn in his first followers with the mantra of putting Purebloods in charge and getting rid of Muggleborns--Snape is not ignorant of the Darkness. He is courting it and with much more intensity and purpose than he courts Lily.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 18 2008, 01:35 PM

Sorry, I know this topic was discussed a while ago, but I wasn't on Leaky for "a while". It figures that the one day I'm not on Leaky, the most number of posts seem to be made!

Many posters seem to be under the impression that Sirius and James knew that Snape and Lily were friends (which is probably because of the way that Lily stood up for Snape in SWM). However, I never really got that impression. I don't think that just because Lily stood up for Snape implied that they were friends, especially for the reasons she gave for defending him: "What has he ever done to you?". Also, Snape's use of the term Mudblood on Lily, and her response, don't exactly suggest a friendly connection between the two people. So, even if Harry had talked about his parents with Sirius and/or Remus (which I think he did - I'll explain more later), there wouldn't be the risk of Harry finding out about their friendship. Only DD seemed to know about this, and he obviously avoided revealing it.

Back to Harry asking about his parents: I would not be the least bit surprised if he did ask about them. On a number of occasions, Jo gives us the impression that Harry longs for information about them (what he sees in the Mirror of Erised is one of the strongest pieces of evidence, but he was going to ask Lupin about his dad after one of his anit-Dementor lessons once he realised Lupin knew Sirius). So why do we not see these scenes (other than the one in OotP when Harry asks about SWM)? Because none of these conversations added to Harry's story. We do see instances in which Harry is favourably compared to James other than his physical resemblance, including DD in PoA, as well as Lily, but we don't see Harry and Sirius having lengthy discussions of what James (or Lily) was like, because none of these conversations were important to the plot.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 01:47 PM

James was looking at the girls by the lake when he attacked Snape. He was doing so deliberately in Lily's view. This indicates he knew Lily would be bothered by the attack. Besides, I can't see how 2 people from different Houses could see one another frequently enough for 5 years without it becoming generally known.

Posted by: Eir de Scania Mar 18 2008, 02:03 PM

SWW happened at the end of their fifth year. How could James and Sirius have failed to notice the Lily/Sev friendship for five years? Five years when Lily had stood up for Sev more than once.


So we're supposed to imagine several Harry/Sirius talks that doesn't even get a mention? And Harry never thinks back on them later on? No, it was important to the plot Harry didn't know much until DH.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 18 2008, 02:16 PM

Yes, but not necessarily because Snape was the victim. Wasn't Lily a Prefect in Hogwarts? She probably would have put a stop to James bullying any student (which Lily elludes that he does rather frequently).



Why not? What sort of things would they have talked about? All the little adventures they had, probably, and those aren't remotely related to Harry's story (besides, we hear about them in vague details from Lupin's story). We know for sure that Sirius talked about his own family in OotP - how could they not discuss someone that connects them both?

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 02:43 PM

We don't know that for certain. We have Hagrid saying she was Head Girl, but he also said James was Head Boy, and we have Sirius' word that James wasn't a prefect.


So if James and Sirius really were first cousins once removed Harry knew about it, but it doesn't matter to us?

Posted by: momwitch Mar 18 2008, 02:49 PM

I like getting different interpretations, so please feel free to set it straight (nicely though - which you all have) at any time!

I've recently come off a re-read of Order of the Phoenix with Mrs. Black stating in the plural "filthy mudbloods" in the house of her fathers. If Hermione was the only "mudblood" at 12 GP, it made sense to me that she wouldn't use the plural form, indicating that there were more than 1 mudblood in temporary residence there.

Something just occurred to me. A number of traditions hold that it is from the line of the mother which determines the affiliation of the child. (See these sample articles on matrilineal societies http://sociologyindex.com/matrilineal_societies.htm, http://www.teachervision.fen.com/native-americans/activity/4994.html, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal). Could the Wizarding World use a similar sort of logic, stemming from ancient practices that recognize that a child can more easily be identified with belonging to its mother, but not always with its father? Could that be why Mrs. Black called out "Mudblood" in Harry's presence, since his mother was Muggleborn, even though his father was from a prominent Wizarding family?

Posted by: Theowyn Mar 18 2008, 05:33 PM

Is he? Or is he simply courting the acceptance of his friends, the excitement of forbidden knowledge, the sheer "coolness" of being a bad boy - i.e. Dark Wizard?

One thing is certain; Snape wasn't afraid of using the Dark Arts. He was fascinated by them and had no moral aversion to them. Lily makes it plain that she is particularly incensed by Mulciber's actions because they were "Dark magic". To Snape, the type of magic was unimportant. To him, James did awful things too, and whether he was using Light or Dark magic was irrelevant.

This should have been a really good distinction to make between Snape and Lily. It nicely echoed the prohibition against the Dark Arts that we got in PS when McGonagall insisted that DD was "above" using some kinds of magic and in GoF when Fake-Moody was discussing the seriousness of using the Unforgiveable Curses.

Unfortunately, this particular moral lesson was torpedoed when we had Harry and even McGonagall tossing around the Unforgiveables at the end of DH. I know the Carrows were a nasty piece of work, but Alecto spat on McGonagall. I just can't see that justifying the Cruciatus Curse. Harry's glib, "So that's what she [Bella] meant by you have to mean them", completed the slide from the moral high ground. Harry certainly didn't feel an iota of remorse for using Dark magic. Given that perspective, it becomes much easier to understand 15-year-old Snape's attitude.

As to prejudice against Muggle-borns, Snape was taught this prejudice at home - something I still find odd given that Eileen married a Muggle, but that's another discussion. In Slytherin, that intial prejudice was reinforced and rewarded. Snape certainly bought into it, but there is no evidence that he was virulently prejudiced in the way that LV or Bellatrix were. Can anyone imagine a 9-year-old Draco seeking out a Muggle-born child and telling her that her parantage didn't matter? Snape knew the truth at that age. He may have forgotten it or chosen to ignore it, but he knew.

Regardless, Snape renounced his prejudice. The fact that he rebukes Phineas for using the word "Mudblood" tells us that. It also tells us that his worst memory was the catalyst for that change. It wouldn't have happened overnight, but by the time he went to DD to beg for Lily's life, I imagine any real interest Snape might have had in pure-blood politics had long since faded to lip service.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 18 2008, 06:10 PM

And other Order members were coming and going. We do not know the parentage of all Order members.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 18 2008, 09:17 PM

True. However, that doesn't mean that she can't stick up for people when they are being bullied for no reason, regardless of whether or not the person being bullied was a friend.



Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. What I meant to say was that if Sirius goes so far as to talk about his own relatives - who have no real connection with Harry (at least at the time - Regulus didn't become significant for a couple of years) - then can't we assume that they would have talked about someone who was very important to the both of them? We know for sure that Harry risked expulsion to talk to Sirius about James once; would it not make sense if they had casual conversations about him when they were together?

As for the whole Mudblood debate: Riddle (who mainly attacked Mudbloods) made the Basilisk attack Filch (or rather, his cat), and he's technically a pure-blood (even though he has no powers), which suggests to me that the term "Mudblood" extends to those who are "unworthy" of being connected to the magical world (although I could be wrong).

Posted by: Eir de Scania Mar 19 2008, 02:52 AM

But it's important to the plot we learn about Regulus, and to a lesser point about Walburga's bigotry that makes her burn certain names off the tapestry.


It would. But it doesn't make sense that, if they had such conversations, they are never ever mentioned, even in passing.

Posted by: Alkari Mar 19 2008, 05:16 AM

I agree with Oryx and harrypottergeek2 on this one - 1. we don't know the parentage of other Order members, and 2. given Mrs Black's rather extreme views about "blood", anyone who was not of demonstrated Pureblood status would most probably be termed a "Mudblood". Apart from Hermione, we know from one of Jo's interviews that Remus is a halfblood, and as a werewolf he'd be doubly damned in Walburga's eyes. And then there is Tonks - her mother Andromeda is Walburga's pureblood niece, but Ted Tonks is a Muggle-born, and Andromeda was struck of the tapestry for marrying him. So Tonks too would fall within the Mudblood term. The Weasleys are purebloods, but are regarded as 'blood traitors'; we don't know the parentage of the remaining Order members like Kingsley, Mundungus, Emmeline Vance, Hestia Jones, etc.

Alkari

Posted by: Oryx Mar 19 2008, 09:41 AM

Phineas Nigellus refers to Mundungus as a halfblood.

Lily and Severus were together on the train before their first year, they talked in front of James and Sirius, so it was obvious to them that Lily and Severus knew one another before school. James and Sirius must have known Severus was Lily's 'neighbor' (I can't see her never mentioning this factoid in years). They saw one another at school. Everyone must have known about Snape's vigil in front of the Gryffindor common room. Lily said she defended Snape verbally to her friends for years, that they did not understand why she still talked to him - which means they were aware that Lily and Snape did socialize.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 19 2008, 11:36 AM

Ok, so I can buy that James and Sirius may have known about Snape and Lily's friendship, even if they just knew that they knew each other, but there's no denying that any connection that they have with Snape is something they consider unpleasant. Not only that, but Lily clearly thought Snape was despicable (hence the reason she dumped him as a friend), and James and Sirius obiviously do as well, so they would never want to mention any friendly ties - however distant - they would have had at one point, so I don't see any real risk of Harry finding about Lily's friendship with Snape during his conversations with Sirius or Lupin (Lupin understands that Harry doesn't like Snape, so he wouldn't be fool enough to mention the friendship either).



IMO, it does make sense, because these sorts of conversations don't reveal anything that advances the plot, and we only see conversations that do. I'm imagining the sort of conversations where Sirius talks about what sort of trouble they got into, what detentions they were sentenced to, and maybe a few details about James' memorable Quidditch games. Obviously, these sorts of details do nothing whatsoever to advance the plot, so Jo doesn't include them.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 19 2008, 12:05 PM

The Dark Mark on Severus' arm is pretty compelling evidence that he indeed courted the Death Eaters. He was, as Dumbledore said: Indeed a Death Eater. He becomes a Death Eater after the conversation with Lily, and Jo says one of his reasons was to impress Lily.

As to James and Sirius knowing Snape and Lily were friends: I imagine Lily's lofty little "Come on, Severus, let's find another compartment." was a bit of a hint.
There is nothing to show that James, Sirius, and Lily were friends even at fifteen. Lupin might have been, but not James and Sirius, although I'd like to think of Lily as the source of Sirius' contraband. As Lupin was a half-blood it is more likely Sirius learned about the neat Muggle things from Lupin. But if Lily's other friends are asking her how she can stand Severus, I'm certain the boys, especially James who likes Lily have noticed the friendship.

I would imagine Walburga knew who was in her house because Kreacher and her Great-grandfather Nigelus told her of the people's background. I imagine she recognized Arthur and Molly.

Either she loved Tobais, or as the last of her bloodline, but because she was not rich or beautiful like Narcissa or Bella, she could not find a suitable PUreblood mate. And motivation behind racism is not intelligent or logical, but based in fear, ignorance, often misunderstanding. As Obama stated last night on Nightline: the average white person watching the news would not fear that his neighbors would connect the actions of some white criminal with him; not so with minorities in this country. Too often are minorities painted with the same brush as anyone who is the majorities eyes. If a person is Asian, Indian, of African, or European descent or is of a certain faith, or from a certain geographical area, we sometimes make the mistake of treating the person according to an artificial identity. Skin color or language and to a point culture are artificial methods of judging a character. But because people have a tendancy to treat certain people a certain way, or because there are cultural differences we often judge the person by how we respond to a bit of culture. On the other hand we have to learn not be so sensitive. Dislike of a certain kind of music, or preferring straight hair to kinky is not racism. Feeling you have the right insult someone by calling them a "ho" because "you" consider her a member to a certain sub-culture is racism.
Without thinking that the likes of Walburga and Bellatrix would think any child she (Eileen)would have would be polluted by Muggle blood, Eileen might it thought it better to Marry a Muggle than a wizard polluted by Muggle blood. I know it makes no sense, but I actually had someone give similar sentiments to me. I couldn't even get angry because it was so stupid.

Posted by: momwitch Mar 19 2008, 08:21 PM

blue bold mine

Hmmm...that is what I was originally considering here. If Tonks is technically a Mudblood according to this logic, wouldn't that make Snape a Mudblood as well? Especially since we heard that Ted Tonks was muggle-born magical, yet wasn't he one of those who only performed some magic later in his life? The terms are a little muddled which might be contributing to some of the interchange between usage - much like Black Magic and Dark Magic are similar, but not entirely the same. Just a thought...

Posted by: Oryx Mar 19 2008, 08:39 PM

Look, Draco never calls Harry a Mudblood (nor Seamus), though he directs this insult at Hermione often enough, so I don't see why Tonks or Snape would be Mudbloods. Even Kreacher makes a point of calling Hermione 'the Mudblood' but not Harry.

Of the known Order members and occupants of 12GP the Weasleys are purebloods, but blood-traitors, as of course was Sirius. Dumbleodre, Lupin, Harry, Mundungus, Snape and Tonks were hallf-bloods. (Of course Lupin is also a part-human, being a werewolf, as is Hagrid, as a half-giant, though he didn't have the chance to visit 12GP). The status of McGonagall is unknown, though between her dress-style and the fact she stayed at Hogwarts during DH she was probably not a Muggle-born. The status of Sturgis Podmore, Elphias Doge, Dedalus Diggle, Moody, Kingsley, Emmeline Vance and Hestia Jones is unknown (though since Diggle tends to appear in robes in Muggle supermarkets I think he is wizarding raised).

Posted by: momwitch Mar 19 2008, 08:57 PM

True, Oryx, and I'm not looking to dispute canon, but it seemed to me (though I can be wrong here), that Draco used "Mudblood" against Hermione as an insult because although she was Muggle-born, she was the best student in their entire class. Hermione's top marks would be a low blow to anyone who might place "pureblood" and "exceptionally talented wizard" in the same context, and whose self-evaluation was based upon status and not merit.

Posted by: Oryx Mar 20 2008, 01:40 AM

Draco used 'Mudblood' as an insult against Hermione because that was what she was to him. He also used the term to refer to Muggle-borns in general (as when he wonders why they haven't packed and left yet). Also during the DE rampage at the World Cup, Draco insinuates the crowd would be after Hermione. Even when Harry retorts Draco implies that Hermione alone would be targeted, as a Mudblood. When DiaryTom tells Harry of the change in his plans he says he is no longer interested in attacking Mudbloods but in Harry. As I said, Kreacher, who refers to Hermione as 'the Mudblood' does not do so wrt Harry. There is no place in canon where a half-blood is refered to as a Mudblood. At most, we have Bellatrix talking of Harry's impure lips (sounds bad, sorry).

Posted by: momwitch Mar 20 2008, 10:11 AM

True, Oryx, but the theme of the thread is Underlying Themes and Dual Interpretation. It is simply amazing at the context words take on in different circles, much like Maime mentioned in a previous post. Hermione was to Draco a living embodiment of a "Mudblood", but why would he care unless her skills were superior to his own, with his status as a "Pureblood"? Using "Mudblood" was a way to cut her down quickly and minimize her in his own eyes, making him feel to himself superior, in that he could affect her in such a way by using the term against her.

As far as I remember, Harry himself had no idea what the big deal about "Mudblood" was until both Hermione and Ron informed him what it meant. If Hermione feigned indifference or was truly ignorant of the term, it would have backfired on Draco, because it would confirm that despite what he was taught to believe, being a "Pureblood" doesn't make one a greater or more talented wizard (or witch). It might have gotten him to question a little sooner the values he was brought up with, contrasted with the true reality which exists behind the fairy tales.

Posted by: Shard Mar 20 2008, 11:02 AM

I just wanted to ask is it wrong for there to be Dual interpretations?

Posted by: harrydavid Mar 20 2008, 11:24 AM

Absolutely not! These forums would be pretty boring if we all had the same interpretations. Because of our differences, we get to debate each other and try to bring them around to our own viewpoint, or to be convinced by them that they may have a better idea.

Posted by: lirene Mar 20 2008, 11:45 AM

I would venture to say that Draco may have just assumed that Hermione would know what Mudblood meant. And everyone's sudden boisterous reaction to Draco's words shows that Draco had just uttered something extremely insulting. As you point out, Draco believes himself superior to Hermione because he is a pureblood; even if she has more magical skills than he does. Plus, in this particular scene, Hermione had just pointed out to Draco that he had made the Quidditch team not based on merit, but as a consequence of Lucius' generous broomsticks "donation" to the Slytherin team. He was essentially saying look, you're just a Mudblood and you have no right questioning how I made the team; I'm more superior than you are no matter what! I read this as a "how dare you!" allow yourself to even give an opinion.


I don't think it's wrong at all; dual interpretations lend greater depth to understanding and discussing different facets of the HP series. And I also agree with harrydavid's post above. I really enjoy reading everyone's interpretations, views and ideas. This gives me an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective and facilitates my own understanding as well .

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 20 2008, 12:02 PM

Not really. I think he knew she wouldn't know, so he possibly got more pleasure at saying it. Lily would know what Snape meant because times were different and Lily was older. It is possible that Snape himself told Lily about the term and to ignore it. Lily lived in the midst of a crisis that was based in bloodlines. Embolded by Voldemort's doctrines of Pureblood superiority and the fact that he had risen to such power that people feared to say his name, I imagine the wannabe DeathEaters were quick to use that word, or in discussion Voldemort, the term came up.

But who would tell Hermione what "mudblood" meant? Her Muggle parents? Most children learn the street terms or epithet for their ethnic or religious group in the street or at school from children who are taught these things at home. And some parents, especially if they are new to the community or speak a different langauge, are not aware of certain terms or attitudes the society has towards their ethnic group or religion or skin color.

I imagine Ron learned the term from one of his pureblood, but not so tolerant relatives, and I'm pretty certain Snape learned the term from his mother. Just as Hagrid tells Harry "you're not from a Muggle family", Eileen was quick to tell Severus he wasn't a "mudblood" just because of his Muggle father. Something about his hesitation when Lily asked would the fact that she was Muggle-born make any difference gave me the idea that his mother had already discussed this with him. There parents don't seem to know each other. It seems that as they were the only people with magical children in the neighborhood one of them might have reached out to the other...but there is nothing to suggest that Snape and Lily's parents had any thing to do with each other.


I wholly agree. Dual interpretations is really not accurate. There are and will continual to be multiple interpretations of the novels as our experiences with the many themes in the books are as varied as we, the readers are.

Posted by: lirene Mar 20 2008, 01:17 PM

How could he be sure? True, I don't expect Hermione's parents to have told her. I also don't see how Hermione not knowing what it meant brought greater satisfaction to Draco. I think he would have in fact been surprised to hear that she didn't know it's meaning. Draco is arrogant enough to believe that this wasn't the first time; that there were other students who called her Mudblood as well.

Posted by: momwitch Mar 20 2008, 02:17 PM

*Just a sec to give a big wave to Shard * Welcome back!!!

In different contexts, the word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dual can mean multiple - lending a dual interpretation to the meaning of dual itself! LOL The very nature of being dual is that is isn't precise to one, alone.

harrydavid, I'm getting the feeling that you are getting very "punny" in your http://www.answers.com/topic/duel response:

(my own sense of humor thanks you...I love a good pun! )

As for Hermione knowing what Mudblood meant...it seemed to me that she must have read up on it before she ever stepped foot into Hogwarts. On another thread (or essay, I'll have to look it up) there was a discussion of the Seven Deadly Sins in relation to the different characters and the Potter series. In a way, I see in Hermione being the "know it all" that she is suffering from the sin of "Pride", and that since she knew what Mudblood meant, it held some sort of power over her in damaging her when it was used against her. If she had no idea about its implied context, it would not have affected her - yet it was her pride that gave Draco that kind of power over her, to affect her own self-esteem. Thoughts?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 20 2008, 02:33 PM

When Harry explains to Hagrid what happened to make make Ron curse Draco, Hagrid is infuriated but Hermione answers:

Insert and Emphasis mine. Page 115 COS

Hermione's ignorance of a racial epithet would have nothing to do with "her" pride. Unless she's reading a book of insults and epithets there is no reason for her reading to lead to this term. And in the book they dismiss this subject to discuss Lockhart's incompetence, Ginny's visit to Hagrid's shack and Mcgonagall showed up to give them detention. Hermione wasn't crying or upset although Hagrids comments about her skills made her blush.

Draco using the word speaks of "his pride"--his pride in his mere existance is based on his belief that as a Mudblood she has no right to exist and certainly no place at Hogwarts.


I understand what you mean. However, Hermione didn't know what the word meant. Draco wasn't trying to insult her in the traditional fashion. He was attempting to put her in her place. It's not like calling her a "b" word. He means what he says: she doesn't dare address him or enter the conversation for the same reason servants don't speak up when their masters are discussing matters, no matter how strongly they feel. She's a mudblood. She has no place in the affairs and conversations of her betters: wizards.

A racial epithet of this kind has a little different concept that making the person feel bad. It is designed to make the person feel inferior to others, even to a lowly house elf. Her fuzzy hair, her crooked teeth and braces are all--to Draco's mind, proof that she is not favored by nature, therefore magic. Now is she was fully magical, her long fuzzy hair might be seen as that of pre-raphealite beauty.

As Hermione is always speaking out of turn, Draco feels that teachers, with the exception of Severus Snape, were indulging her by letting her speak up in class, deluding her as to her talents, of deluding her that she was equal to wizards who had at least one magical parent. Her outburst in class were nothing but memorizing -- magic by rote--which Snape intimates in HBP.

Look at how Snapes peaks to Hermioneas opposed to how he talks to Harry and Ron in class. When Hermione speaks out of turn he does not put her in detention but takes points from Gryffindor. The inference of such behavior to someone like Draco is that because these purebloods and Halfbloods don't keep their "mudbloods" in line, they lose prestige and house points.

Note that Draco first addresses Ron as to Hermione's safety: You wouldn't like her spotted, would you?" Page 121 GOF

For Snape, Harry is "arrogant" like his father in his trust of Black, but he tells Hermione to "hold your tongue" and told "KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL! and DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND! Page 360

It sounds more like Snape is telling Hermione to know her place.

Posted by: Shard Mar 20 2008, 06:16 PM

thanks Momwitch!

I'm glad were talking about the Mudblood word and it's meaning. I've always felt that alot of people didn't give enough wieght to what this meant and could lead to. I think we see that in DH, I have always felt that mudblood was as bad as any of our real world racial slurs.

I think the parallel of Draco or Snape using that word is just like a white racist using the N-word against a black person. It's all to demean the person to make them less then human and thus justified in their hatred of that person.

I think Hermione is smart enough to get the idea of what Draco was saying when he called her that. I also think Lily is justified in her breaking ties with Snape over the word as well. He shows a complete lack of respect for her feelings and opinion when he does that.

Also on the whole James and Lily sacrfice I do think the choice Voldemort gives is important and critical. It doesn't make James any less noble but it is the oppertunity given to Lily to stand aside and live that makes all the difference. I also believe the spell has significance as well. Had Voldemort used another spell things may have been different as this spell seems to directly affect the soul and not the body.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 22 2008, 01:33 AM

(bold mine).
I couldn't agree with you more. I also think that, perhaps the reason that it seems most people don't give enough weight to the term 'Mudblood' is because most people (interestingly enough) don't deal with that type of blatant racism in their lives.

And they should consider themselves lucky on the one hand, that they don't. But on the other hand, they really are clueless as to how racism has gripped this world (and especially this nation) for so very long, and refused to let go. And the term 'Mudblood' in my mind is exactly like the N-word if applied to the real world. Which is quite a horrible word indeed, when used to hurt.

And then of course, you have those that argue that the N-word, when absorbed by the culture that it was originally intended to hurt, can be turned around and used in a positive way. I'm not sure what to make of that, as I am not, by my race, and therefore by default, a part of that specific culture.

However, it's certainly clear that no one in the wizarding world embraced the term 'Mudblood' and attempted to remove the negative connotation from it. This topic is a prime example of why I love these books so much. Rowling managed to bring up a myriad of different themes and topics - political, controversial and otherwise - and weave them beautifully into a magical world that we enjoy comparing to our own.

The themes of racism and slavery are HUGE in her world....as they are in ours.


Go go Gryffindor!

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 22 2008, 02:08 AM

I think people live with racism, but it's layered so intricately in our society, that we simply do not recognize it. Confronting racism--at least in the US--means confronting a troubling and painful history that has left residual anger, guilt, resentment on all sides. Racism in this society has never been simply black and white--that is simply the most obvious form of racism.



You're not what by your race?
I would say Positive is the wrong term. What people have tried to do for decades is take the sting from the word, by using it themselves and giving it a alternative meaning. But it still stings. Hopefully it will become a nonsense term, forgotten. Hopefully we will get to a time when human beings not feel the need to define ourselves, or have others define us by something so superficial as skill color, the shape of eyes, the texture of one's hair, how we pray or don't pray.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 22 2008, 03:07 PM

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough!
I meant that I'm not Black, so therefore not part of the race that unfortunately gets the N-word thrown at them in a not-so-nice way. However, I agree with you in that they've attempted to take the sting out of the word, but I've had plenty of conversations over the years with my numerous Black friends where they've tried to explain to me that the N-word, from their point of view at least, was in fact a positive term, used in affection with their brothers, friends, etc.

Now, I've admitted freely to them that I can't truly wrap my head around that - but then again, that was my original point. How could I possibly understand completely when by the very color of my skin - I don't truly belong to that culture?

I share (quite sincerely) your hope Maime, that at some point in time, racism as it exists in its current form (and all the negative baggage that accompanies it), will be a thing of the past.

*Sigh* The cynic in me, however, won't hold my breath!


Go go Gryffindor!

Posted by: cobhome Mar 22 2008, 11:56 PM

since we are talking bout the meaning of words and their impact - I thought that the term "muggle" was racist - demeaning. It sounds like a name one would give to a circus clown or a mixed breed dog. Unlike "mudblood" its use is accepted by all parts of the wizarding world - a good example of the often subtle ways in which racist attitudes are passed on - if even someone like Ron - who clearly rejects a term like "mudblood " as offensive - but still uses muggle without any thought what so ever - then we get a notion of how pervasive certain ideas are in the ww culture and how they are passed on - muggle is not a word which would be likely to encourage a young child who heard it - to think of that person seriously - with respect - muggle does not imply that a person has power or authority. Compare the image one gets from a word such as "wizard" versus the name "muggle" - from the very beginning - people in the ww are traught to think less of a person who is not "magical".

Posted by: Sionna_Raven Mar 23 2008, 01:58 AM

You're right,cobhome, the term 'muggle' is racist. According to JKR in an old interview it comes from 'mug' in the meaning 'a person easy to fool'. It's not so bad because of the suffix '-gle' which plays it down a bit. So we have the official term of wizards for non-magic people meaning 'a cute, harmless person easy to fool' . Wow I'm impressed by the respectful tolerance of the good guys.
Sionna

Posted by: Alkari Mar 23 2008, 02:12 AM

Well, in all fairness about the use of "muggle", just look at the pejorative effect of the term "witch" in the RL "Muggle" world. People have been burned for being witches. And isn't one of the criticisms of the HP books that they promote "witchcraft"?

Petunia and Vernon Dursley think of witches and wizards as "those" people - abnormal, strange, weird, etc. Use of the term "Muggle" in the wizarding world, whether as a general term for non-magical humans, or in a derogatory sense as being somehow a lesser person, is really just the same thing from the other side of the fence.

JKR is simply showing us that racism and prejudice can be both ways.

Alkari

Posted by: Shard Mar 23 2008, 08:05 AM

Though it does seem to be the Attitude behind the words, Fear of a word giving it power.

Posted by: Alysaw Mar 23 2008, 08:12 AM

I read this post and an old childhood saying popped into my mind: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." I guess it's true to some extent, a name can't physically hurt but the emotional pain can.

Posted by: lirene Mar 23 2008, 09:36 AM

Very true. Look at how the theme of witchcraft and the very use of this term has affected how the HP series is viewed in real life. Many have denounced the series based on this.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 23 2008, 07:21 PM

I don't see the term "muggle" as a racist term, at least not in the derogitory sense. Yes, it does categorize a race, but so does the term "White", and no-one has any issue with using that word. The only time Muggle is used as an insult is when select wizards call someone a Muggle-born as an insult, and even then those people generally prefer the term Mudblood.

Posted by: Alkari Mar 23 2008, 11:49 PM

I think it very much depends on "how" the term is used. I'd agree that it can be non-racist, in terms of simply distinguishing between those people who are magical, and those who aren't (with Squibs as people who 'should' be magical based on ancestry, but aren't). However, depending on the tone of voice and the general context (written or spoken), "Muggle" can indeed be derogatory and even racist, though not as bad as "Mudblood".

Alkari

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 24 2008, 12:22 AM

Good point, but has it ever really been used that way? The closest situation I can think of is when Hagrid comes to get Harry from the shack in the lake when he says "I'd like ter see a great Muggle like you stop him,", but here he's only trying to make the point that Uncle Vernon does not have any power (especially magical ones) to stop a wizard from going to school, and not trying to put him down for being a Muggle. He only ever insults the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry, not for their blood status.

I think the term Muggle was just used by wizards as a convenient way to classify non-wizards. Hagrid himself says that the word is just the one wizards use for "non-magic folk" like the Dursleys, so the origins of the name certainly aren't derogatory. When you think about it, any classifying term could be used in a derogatory sense. For example: the term "Canadian" is the term used to classify people from Canada, but unless someone calls a Canadian a "stupid Canadian" or something to that effect, the term "Canadian" is not a derogatory one in nature, and that was the point I was trying make for the term "Muggle".

Posted by: Alkari Mar 24 2008, 01:27 AM

Well, the term was certainly used in a very racist way in DH - the "Muggle-Born Registration Commission" was absolutely racist in its objectives and operation!

Alkari

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 24 2008, 11:07 AM

It's more like owning the term, like a woman using singing "I am B---t" at the top of her lung. Do we really want to be "B===ts?" No, but it is better coming from our own lips than someone else calling us that. It isn't positive, but some feel they take the power away from those who would use it to put them down.

When Severus called Lily a witch she didn't think it was a very nice thing to say, and when Severus called Petunia a Muggle they were both aware that the way Severus used it it was a put down. I think many wizards, including Hagrid and at a point, when he was worried about Harry, use the word to denote people one can dimiss or who are unpleasant simply because they are Muggles.

What is racist is the attitude that non magical people should have to accept they are Muggles because magical choose to define them this way, and witches having to accept that they are Witches because non-magical people choose to define this way, so I agree with Alkari.

The need to define others according to how they are different from the majority is racism.

Posted by: Shard Mar 24 2008, 11:17 AM

It was used against Hermione during GoF, Pansy or someone in her cadre wrote her in a letter to "Go home, you Muggle"

Truly it is the way someone uses the word, the context matters. I've heard people use the "simple" terms white and black to sound like the racial slur counterparts.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 24 2008, 12:51 PM

You're preaching to the converted here. I don't feel the term is any more positive than you do - but I was commenting on what many Black friends themselves have said about the term being deemed positive by them and theirs. I may not agree, but clearly some people choose to see that horrid word as an endearment. Go figure.


So then, are you saying the terms 'White', 'Black', 'Arab', 'Mexican', etc. are racist terms because they are used to define a people according to how they are different from everybody else? (Not being snarky, just trying to understand your statement).


Go go Gryffindor!

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 24 2008, 12:53 PM

A few posters have given excellent examples of when the term Muggle has been used as an insult, so there's no denying that it can be used this way.

However, in my last post, I made the point that the same can be said about any classification, so even though a select few can use a classifying term in a derogatory sense, it does not necessarily mean that the term itself is a racist term (at least not in a derogatory sense). For example: the word "human" is certainly not meant to be derogatory in nature, but one centaur (I think Bane is the one I'm thinking of) used this term to insult Umbridge near the end of OotP ("who's Forest is it now, human?!", and "our intelligence far outstrips yours").

As for the term "Muggle" in particular, the word was orginially meant to be used as a means to classify non-magical people with convienient terminology, rather like the term "Canadian" is used to classify people who live in Canada. It would be very frustrating to say "person/people from Canada", or in the case of "Muggle", "non-magic person/people", every single time. Therefore, the underlying intent of the word "Muggle" is not for racism in the derogatory sense. This was the point that I meant to get across in my first post on this matter, but I definitely should have explained myself a bit better.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 24 2008, 01:28 PM

Canadian is not a classification. It tells the person's alliegiance or where she lives, where she pays taxes. Both the magical and non-magical people of England are English. Black or white are not--or should not be classification. There are not many types or classes of humans, just human beings. But certain groups of people have given themselves the right or privilage of trying to classify the human race by giving things like hair texture, skin color far more significance than they should. Were we to classify people by their individual abilities as another race as Wizards and Muggle do, would musicians be one race of people and mathmeticians another? If by appearance, would brown skin people of Africa descent be of another "race" than a tawny skin persons of African descent?

Racism, especially social racism is not so easy to define. As Malcolm X said to Maya Angelou, (Paraphrased) racism layed in the fabric of our society, science, history, even our language in such a way we do not know which our beliefs, or words, or even polciies are racist and which are not.

For example: Obama's American (that is as in citizenship, as American is not a "race") ancestors are of European descent, not African. He is an America because he was born here, and his mother whose Ancestors are from the Europe was an American Citizen. Why is he then called an "African American"?

Posted by: lirene Mar 24 2008, 01:32 PM

I agree that the term "Muggle" was coined to refer to non-magical people; and I do believe the word "Muggle" can be used in derogatory and racict ways, as we have clealy seen in several examples given above. It is just unfortunate that terms that are really not meant to be racist; are used as such. So I will also agree with Shard that the intent and context in which the words are used are very important.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 24 2008, 01:58 PM

Yes, but both Americans and Canadians are North Americans, yet each prefers to be classified accordingly.

This is why I'm saying the term "Muggle" is not racist - it's more of a classification, but, as other posters have shown, some wizards have taken it and used it in a racial sense.



This is exactly what I'm saying (or at least, what I'm trying to say ): there's a difference between classifying people and distinguishing races. At my University, we classify students as "Mathies", "Arts Students", "Engineers", etc., but we don't consider each other as people from different races because of this.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 25 2008, 12:00 AM

How are you using the word classification In my experience Classification is a scientific term.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html

You would not classify someone as Canadian, but identify them as such, and only for purposes of taxes, residence, other wise it doesn't mean any thing unless you're in a war with Canada.

I personally would not use the word classification to define one's citizenship.

Muggle is not the same as saying one is Canadian. Ron and Dudley are both English. One is magical, one is not. They speak the same language, use many of the same slang words, share, except for magic, the same holidays, eat the same foods. There is a church in Godric's Hallow. They share the same culture, except for the culture of magic.

Muggle to Wizards mean Non-magical folks, not non-English. They are defining Muggles as a race, and the racial difference is magical abilities or in this case lack of magical abilities.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 25 2008, 01:08 AM

Well, if you are going to get technical about it...

I was using the term classification loosely, and I meant to use it to the same effect as identification, sorting, organizing, however you want to say it.

Bear in mind I'm not really talking about the legal aspects of being a Canadian as opposed to an American, but more of the cultural aspects (Canadians are known for liking hockey, Americans are known for liking football, etc.).

Typically, when one compares an American with a Canadian, one looks at the cultural aspects and not the legal ones (unless they are a government official or something ).



Pretty much all of the similarities and differences you just listed can be related to the difference between an American and Canadian:

Similarities: they are North American, typically speak the same language primarily (there are a few Canadians that speak French, but the vast majority of us speak English), use mostly the same slang words, eat the same food, have most of the same holidays, use the same technology, even play the same sports.

Differences: some slang words ('eh' in Canada, 'ya'll' in the States), a few different holidays (such as Canada Day and Indepedance Day, even though they are celebrated within days of each other), ability to handle cold weather (we brag about that a lot!), passion devoted to certain sports as mentioned above, and of course, the accents.

This is why I used this analogy: if you consider it from the right perspective, it's a perfect comparison.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 25 2008, 11:26 AM

What perspective is the right one?

Please--Ever been to Michigan, the Rockies, or Montana in the winter. And Yes, I know Michigan was in Canada until 1796 and the Jay treaty. And Alaska is in the US.

The difference between Ron and Dudley is not geography or citizenship, as is the difference between American and Canadians. (Actually, as you as a Canadian knows, as Canada is in North America they are Americans also. Is that what you mean? Because citizenship is not a classification. ) Actually the terms African and European is not about race, but geography. Sirius' family lives in what seems an up-market part of London, therefore is a Londoner.(Spelling?) He has Muggle neighbors.

The difference between Ron and Dudley is magical ablity, not geography. Wizards call non-magical people Muggles because they don't share the ability to perform natural magic.

The intolerance of both groups is called racial, not national. A national tiff would be Hermione and Fleur in GOF. Both Hermione and Fleur are Europeans, both witches but have a different "national" heritage they are proud of. It's not quite the same thing as Muggles and Wizards.

Now imagine that the majority of North Americans who lived in the Canadian provinces could skate and are stellar Hockey players, and the majority of North Americans who live in the US cannot skate and have no idea that Hockey exist. (There are those who think this to be true.) Imagine the ability to skate is something genetic. There are now a group of skaters and non-skaters in North America.

The Skaters see their ability as proof that they are favored by nature and superior in ability to the Non Skaters and give the Non-skaters a funny name: Stumblers .

Occasionally, as both Skaters and Non skaters (Now known as Stumblers) are human, a Skater is born to Stumblers. As there are no schools among Stumblers for those with Skater skills, the young Skaters has to go to school with Skaters. They discover the Skaters are hostile, scathing of the Stumbler born Skater's abilties, and think this Skater is some kind of freak. Because this Skater has Stubler's parents the Skaters want to differientiate between them and this stranger from the Stumbler world.

Posted by: lirene Mar 25 2008, 12:28 PM

But you have to remembe that people are biased and even racist according to nationality as well. Both of my parents are from Europe; they endured a lot of criticism and even hatred from Americans when they first came to this country. And I was looked upon as a freak from other children because of what was perceived as a "genetic" flaw.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 25 2008, 01:20 PM

I agree that fanatical nationalism is expressed in many terms that are racist. I would guess that the flaw the children siezed upon was dress and language or accent--even religion? On behalf of my countrypersons, I apologize for how you were treated.

But that is not the example given or the disagreement. Citizenship is not a classification, as "race" is used as a classification. You may be an immigrant but that is your citizenship status. I work with Canadians and people of Spanish or Mexican descent. For the most part, no one bothers to question the citizenship of Canadians unless they are from certain very visible Ethnic groups. But there are people whose family have lived in this area since it was Indian and Spanish territory, never been to Mexico, and don't speak Spanish but who are met a certain hostility because of physical features. Note this about the census: Canadian is not listed. German is not listed. Polish or English is not listed.

As was pointed out: North Americans in Canada and the US share langauge and cultural heritage. A lot of the Northern US was Canada. And there were French speaking cities in America's south and the North. Many of the settlers in Canada came at the same time and some of the same places as the those in Canada.

The difference would be some feel Canada has better hate crime laws than the US.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 25 2008, 01:56 PM

The cultural one.



I know perfectly well that some Americans can handle cold weather, but when you think of a nation that is known for harsh winters, the States don't immediately jump to mind because of the number of areas that never see a flake of snow. When you think Canada, you think "Great White North", with the white referring to the weather, not the race of the people living there.




Actually, there is a large geographical difference between Dudley and Ron (good thing too ), but again - I'm not referring to citizenship.



Yes, they are part of the same continent, but their cultural differences are what I'm comparing.



True, but when one compares Americans to Canadians, they look at cultural differences and similarities, not just geographical. The geography is a given, but the cultural differences/similarities are what people look more closely at.



Ah! An analogy! I like it.

However, the problem with your analogy is the second part I bolded. Not everyone in the Magic world is hostile towards Muggle-borns; it's mostly the Slytherins. So, to say that all the Skaters are hostile towards the Stumblers is inaccurate in comparison to the WW that Jo created. This is the very reason why I'm saying that Muggle is not a racist term.

In the first part I bolded, the name Stumbler should only be used as a means of distinguishing a person who can/can't skate, just like with the term Muggle. Yes, Skaters have an advantage over Stumblers, but in order to make an accurate comparison to the WW that Jo created, most Skaters can't be prejudiced against Stumblers: differentiate needs to be the optimal word. Yes, there are select few magical people who are prejudice against muggle-borns, but most of them aren't, so to say that all Skaters are prejudiced against Stumblers is not an accurate comparison to the WW that Jo created.

This is why I'm saying that Muggle is not a racist term: the majority of wizards are not hostile towards muggle-borns. Yes, the hostility exists, but only in a few wizards, not the entire wizarding population.

Posted by: lirene Mar 25 2008, 02:36 PM

The flaw the children seized upon was my last name it sounds foreign and usually no one can pronounce it. I don't have an accent, so they couldn't capitalize on that. Thank you: I very much appreciate the apologies . However the treatment I received only made me stronger.


I wasn't replying to the disagreement. I was just pointing out how nationality can give way to racism. And on that note, what brings about and breeds racism is fear. And we needn't go any further than to compare Dudley and Harry in this regard. Dudley didn't give two farts that Harry was British; all Dudley knew was that Harry was different because of his magical abilities. Dudley feared these things to the core of his being; and he never questioned those feelings since his parents treated Harry just as badly or worse than Dudley did.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 25 2008, 04:32 PM

(Bold mine)
Ah, yes. Here I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've always agreed, overall, that fear is the culprit behind most of what ails us in this world, and it is definitely the breeding ground for hate, intolerance and racism.

What gives me pause for thought, however, is what, exactly, people are so blooming afraid of? Let's take the Muggle/Wizard example.

Well, why on earth would Magical people be afraid of Muggles? I can understand, obviously, why Muggles would be afraid of Wizards and Witches - they used to burn women in effigy after all for the merest suspicion of witchcraft.

But a Wizard like Draco wouldn't necessarily be afraid of a Muggle, yet he has been taught to dislike them anyway. I can't imagine Lucius Malfoy fearing a Muggle, but he loathes them, and anybody - even a magical somebody - being associated with them.

The only thing I can think of for why Magical folk would 'fear' Muggles is in thinking that, by intermarrying with them, they would in fact somehow 'taint' the magical blood that runs through their families.

That somehow, bringing Muggles into their families would eventually nullify all the magical abilities handed down from their 'pure' ancestors. Well, I guess having typed it out now, this is a viable fear, but it's also rubbish, as most reasons for racism are.

Clearly, there have been many examples over the years of Muggle-born or Half-Blood Witches and Wizards with exeedingly powerful magic in them. Not the least of 'witch' is our darling Ms. Granger.

So, it's obvious that magical prowess does not disappear by intermarrying with Muggles. And the only way magic would really die out is if Wizards and Witches stopped procreating with Muggles.

Racism is such an ingrained product of the human experience that it's no wonder it crops up again, and again, and yet again in popular culture, from books to movies to politics. I don't see any end in sight - but I do have the, um, audacity to hope that things will slowly....slowly....change for the better.

Because they have. More or less.

Posted by: Puzzlepiece Mar 25 2008, 05:08 PM

I think its the fact that Muggles are unfamiliar to wizards, especially those who grew up in the wizarding world. And they are clever, with all of their nifty devices to substitute magic. They have these big things called nukes, etc.

And I don't think they hate muggles as much as there is the group of pure-blood supremacists who think that you have no right to be a wizard if you don't have all wizarding blood, because it's spreading their power out to other folks. Muggle-borns and half-bloods are living proof that the magical line is thinning, that the wizards are losing their power, that they are not as special, as unique as they used to be in the olden days.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 25 2008, 09:37 PM

As a Muggle, I can't really speak for wizards, but I'll give it a shot:

I think the real fear is of Muggle-borns, and that Muggle-borns will out-do Pure-bloods in the magical world, so the pure-bloods feel threatened that the Muggle-borns will over-shadow them. They don't feel that Muggle-borns deserve to be magically gifted. The best analogy that I can think of is from the movie Happy Gilmore:

Shooter McGavin felt threatened by Happy - he could see how popular he was becoming, and this was overshadowing his own success. Not only that, but Happy literally picked up a club for the first time about a week or so prior to his first tournament, so he felt the Happy didn't deserve all the fame he was getting. Shooter had been playing golf all his life, and he was finally getting rewarded for it, then along comes this wacky hockey-player wannabe who's becoming a golf hero in a matter of weeks.

Posted by: cobhome Mar 25 2008, 11:06 PM

Brilliant analogy Maime - lol - very creative - and it does capture the point I was trying to make - what is damaging about the use of the word Muggle is that - it is a silly word - applied to a person - it makes that person seem silly - less than a person - a muggle. That even seemingly non biased wizarding folk use the word is a demonstration of how subtle the development of prejudice in a culture is - and how hard it is to root it out of a culture.

There was a movement which started some 15 yrs ago in the US - called "people first language". It applied to people with disabilities. The idea was that when you referred to a person as "mentally retarded" you were making them less than human - they became not people but "retarded" so the people first movement replaced such terms with "person with mental retardation" - the idea being that what you hear first is "person" not "disability". The aim of this of course was to break the vicious cycle of prejudice that people with disabilities experienced. What we call people does matter - it matters to that person and it matters in terms of how we develop our notions about others.

I am not always sure that prejudice is simply a function of fear - it may be the result of competition - the notion that there is a pie that only has so many slices and so one must compete with other social groups for the biggest possible slice of pie. Of course - as Dylan noted in his song "Pawn in the Game" - people are often set against each other so that the elites can keep the biggest slices of the pie - we are manipulated into blaming this that and the other group for our ills so that we fail to see the real culprits. In America the phenomena of working class ethnic groups hating each other - instead of banding together to oppose the real sources of their economic condition is an example of prejudice being fostered as a tool to keep one group of people down so another group can prosper.

It seems to me that prejudices of wizarding folk against non wizarding folk could be a function of the development of technological advances in the non magical world so that "muggles" could use technology to do many of the things that wizards did magically - in which case - what made a wizard so special anymore??

Just a note - people accused of witchcraft in England were not burnt at the stake - they were hung - for a truly gruesome look at witchcraft penalties - you should look at what was done to accused witches in Scotland - too gruesome to even mention!

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 26 2008, 12:59 AM

Ron and Dudley both live in England. They both speak English. Their cultural differences --brooms instead of motorcycles, are due to their individual abilities, not where they live. Molly doesn't knit with magic because she lives in the country, but because she's a witch.
Classification when it refers to culture is more scientific--as in anthropology. I spent a great deal of time in Canada growing up, watched the CBC more than CBS, and don't recall feeling like this was a different culture except for the exchange rate and on Canadian Sesame Street they counted in English and French instead of English and Spanish. This is the only point we disagree on, so I'm not going to dwell on it. I've never heard of the nationality described as a classification, except when that country is used classify an ethnic group. For example few African Americans have been to Africa, therefore the term African does not define one's national identity but serves as a racial--and as far as I'm concerned a racist-- distinction, even though to save time I have used it and tolerate it myself. If fair skinned Americans had to call themselves European Americans then the term African-American would make sense, but most fair skinned Americans would be offended at such distinction.

As to why Wizards fear Muggles: we might start with what Professor Binns tells the class: " Page 150 COS

The Wizards are a minority, but they a minority with ambition, privilege and self defined high morals as illustrated by the Fountain at the DOM--and have the power to back these things up. Magic has "entitled" them, in the same way weaponry, wealth, and technology can entitle a nation, religious body, or a corporation.

It may be easier to think of Wizards as one would regard the British Empire.

The Wizards don't exactly take over or colonize the Muggle World, but look at how they walk into "Muggle Ministry" setting terms as how to deal with Voldemort. Imagine being white and English living Australia or New Zealand, or in China, or in India. You would know privilege equal to, if not exceeding that of the ruling classes of that colony.

As in the United States, the European Colonist assumed rights to liberty and self-government, but entitled themselves with the task of determining when the people they had conquered or enslaved merited theses freedom, or the uses of the resources of their own lands.

To be fair, Britain, (Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, Germany) behaved as did every conquering nation before them and before this were themselves, at various times conquered and enslaved peoples. The European nations were just the most recent in memory to conquer other nations and they did so during a period of great discovery in technology and science, and when the world began to think differently about man kind's place on the planet. Inventions like the printing press allowed ideas like liberty and equality to spread among the "common" man. In a way, especially in England, Canada, and the USA, the beliefs of the intellectual class and scientific community lead to the demise of Imperialism and slavery.

I think Dumbledore, when he was young, falls very much in the category of those who felt a Manifest Destiny or that they had to take on the White Man's Burden--or in his case the Wizard's Burden-- to control the non magical world. The Muggle world had spilled over into his household and help cause tragedy (at least this is what I thought were his reasons, but it seemed he wanted to take on the Wizard's burden and subjugate Muggles because he was blinded by love...)

With magical people born among "Muggles" the secrets of the magical world are exposed. You have Healers examining Muggle techniques. Painting had given way to enchanted cameras. What next? Mass production of Flying cars and motorcycles instead of brooms? Television? the Ministry freeing Owls to use Email? Hiring domestic help instead of enslaving Elves? Eventually there will be no secrets, because witches will have as many Muggle family members as magical. Persecution is very difficult to forget, and it is difficult to give up privilege or entitlement, and certain traditions and belief in one's own value after knowing it for decades.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 26 2008, 01:22 AM

The problem I have here is that Muggle wasn't intended to be damaging or demeaning - it was just a means of categorizing, distinguishing, identifying, sorting, organizing, however you want to say it. Look at the way Hagrid, Harry, the Weasleys, Hermione, DD, Sirius, Lupin (i.e. all the decent, unbiased people - at least when it comes to non-magical people) all use it. The very first person we see in use it in the series, Hagrid, even emphasizes this:



When Hagrid says the Dursleys are "the biggest Muggles he ever laid eyes on", he's not saying that they are stupid or mean to Harry - he doesn't know about that aspect of Harry's life yet. He's just saying that, because they are Muggles, they are so out-of-touch with the magical world that Harry doesn't know what Hogwarts is, or even how him and his parents are percieved in the WW. Yes he's angry at the Dursleys for not telling Harry anything, but he doesn't directly despise them for being Muggles; he merely understands that it's because the the Durselys are Muggles that Harry doesn't know anything.

The only insults he throws at the Dursleys are in reference to their physique (Dudley), and a random a couple of random ones at Uncle Vernon, and this was only because Uncle Vernon was being hostile towards him ("Ah, shut up Dursley yeh great prune").



This is exactly what I meant in my Happy Gilmore analogy: deep down, Pure-bloods know that Muggle-borns are potentially just as talented magic-wise as they are, so some of them feel threatened by these newbies. They think that just because they were raised as Muggles, they haven't "earned" the right to use magic (just as Shooter felt that Happy hadn't earned the right to play on Tour so quickly).

The fear isn't of the Muggles' power (as some have pointed out, they aren't much of a threat, save for nuclear bombs, but even those can be stopped by a wizard if he's given enough of a heads up), but rather of Muggle-borns' potential to overshadow them at their own game (this was literally the case with Shooter and Happy).



You may have a point there, but the key word here is 'many'. When you think about it, anything that can be done using Muggle technology can be done ten times more efficiently using magic (either that or else the effectiveness of the technological object in question can be greatly enhanced with magic). In fact, magic is capable of many things that Muggles will never be able to match: the effects of Evansco and Reparo will never be completely duplicated by technology, so wizards will always have an edge on Muggles.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 26 2008, 01:47 AM

I think that the reason you don't see my point the same way I do is because you think that since I compared Muggle-wizard differences using the differences between two nationalities, you assume that I think that Muggles and wizards are different because of where they live. I understand that Ron and Dudley are different because one has the gift of magic, but because of this difference, their culture is different.

Canadians and Americans live in different countries (an obvious distinction, just like that of Muggle and wizard). However, because of the difference in nationality, Canadians and Americans grow up with different cultural views/lifestyles. I only used different nationalities as a way to outline what can influence cultural differences.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be two people who work in an office building - one is a janitor, one is a CEO. Lets assume for the sake of simplifying matters that they are both of the same nationality. They both work in the exact same building, occasionally in the exact same room, but they obviously have different jobs, so they therefore have different ideas of what qualifies as a day's work for them, or what average salary to expected for themself. They both speak the same language, they certainly share the same holidays, and they might even have the same experience in technology. However, there's no doubt that they have their differences in their perspective of work, and what it involves.

From an ethical perspective, both of these people are equals. One has a wider range of skills (just like a wizard has more skills than a Muggle), but their job titles are only used to make this distinction, and not demean one of them. The term "janitor" isn't meant to put down the person working that job, but it helps distinguish people like CEOs as people of a higher skillset in the working world. There's a big difference between putting one person down and complimenting the other. The term "Muggle" can be percieved as putting wizards above them, but not as putting the muggles down.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 26 2008, 01:47 AM

If someone is working as a Janitor he choose the job, suited to his skill, knowing Janitor is his title. How many "Muggles" in the HP universe know they are "Muggles"?

You're missing the point. Who gave wizards the right to categorize anyone?

The "N" word wasn't intended to be "damaging" or "demeaning" either. It was a bastardization of the German Niger. Slave traders didn't bother learning the names of the African nations and communities, or the language of the people. They did not bother to understand boundaries or the social structure of the land. They came to Africa to exploit the people and the resources and got away with it because Africans looked different enough from Europeans as to be considered another and treated as another "species". If the community did not have a flag or a standing army, or fortifications, the communities were not considered as having sovereignty. Their rights as people were disregarded. Persons of African descent had many names that told of their national origins or identity, their languages, their family or communities, but the right to declare their own names was taken from them by those who stole, bought and sold them.

Muggles are not slaves of course. The only difference between Wizards and "Muggles" is magical ability. The word Muggle becomes damaging when one considers that Wizards have given themselves the right to identify others according to their own standards and abilities. Non-magical people did not choose to call themselves Muggles.

If indeed Wizard and Witch are terms given to Magical people by non-magical people then the same is true of the term witch. But like "black" in the sixties and seventies, or the "b" word among a certain generation of women, wizards and witches have come to own the terms, redefining the words "witch" and "wizard" to mean what they want it to.

I disagree. I think Hagrid is saying they are stupid and mean to Harry because they are Muggles and more so than any of the "nice" Muggles he may know. I think Hagrid did mean it in a derogatory manner. He tells Harry that he, (Harry) is not from a Muggle family) Yes Harry is from a Muggle family--his mother's family. He complains about Muggle transportation, and Molly complains that the train station is pack with Muggles. It is benign racism, but it is racist.

Posted by: Shard Mar 26 2008, 11:09 AM

I thought the N word was from the Spanish word for Black, Negra?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 26 2008, 11:30 AM

Negro. Pronounced Nay-gro. I've heard that explanation and it is possible. However, for the most part the Spanish and Portuguese use variations of the names Africans gave themselves. However, the "N" word was used in the English community and there were a number of Dutch and German indentured servants in the English colonies in the time. Also there were some Dutch and German indentured servants among the Spanish, as well as the German settlements. Few Germans settlers had slaves, the idea was against their religion, but for the most they called the many peoples of Africa Nigers-Blacks. The Pronunciation of the "N" word would suggest an English pronunciation of the German or Latin Niger, rather than the Spanish Negro.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 26 2008, 11:42 AM

DUH. Thought the post was lost.

Maybe Muggle has something to do changing a word that means Non-magical?

Posted by: Sionna_Raven Mar 26 2008, 12:12 PM

Maime, the German word is spelled 'Neger; the vowel -e- is long and pronounced the same as in Spanish Negro. Both are derived from the Latin Niger = black.
In German it went out of decent people's use about the same time as the English version.
Sionna

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 26 2008, 12:15 PM

Well, we could play this game till the cows come home. Who gave anybody the "right" to categorize us as Homo Sapiens? Who gave anybody the "right" to categorize blue as the color we think of today?

I think, and harrypottergeek2, correct me if I'm wrong, that the point is the term "Muggle" is merely used to signify a non-magic person, the same way the term "Wizard" is used to signify a magical male. Or the term "Witch", a magical female.

Sure, you can add a negative connotation to the word - same as you can with the "N" word or any other term. It's not so much about who gave who the "right" to categorize any person, place or thing, it's about the fact that words and terms are used to describe everything under the sun.

I don't think the term Muggle was coined to be racist. And Molly Weasley commenting that the station was packed with Muggles is as innocent a statement as me complaining that the freeways are too crowded with drivers.

This does not mean I'm prejudiced against drivers, any more than it means Molly is prejudiced against Muggles.

That's my take on it.

Posted by: lirene Mar 26 2008, 12:25 PM

Very well said Oxymoronic . Words can be taken and twisted and used in negative ways, even if they were initially coined to mean something else entirely. I also don't believe that "Muggle" was initially created to be racist, but as we see it definitely can be used in a very negative way. I don't think Hagrid complaining about Muggle transportation is being racist; I complain about it all the time .

Posted by: JohannMdlAmerica Mar 26 2008, 02:22 PM

Ahh, but there's the rub. Dark Wizards could and did assign a malicious connotation to the term. Witness Riddle/Pettigrew and the property keeper in GOF. Witness the murder of Professor Burbage in DH.

All it takes is one usage wit the "wrong" person to catch on...

RFE: bbcode

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 26 2008, 02:29 PM

Yes. Dark Wizards assigned a negative connotation to a word that was coined simply to refer to a non-magical person.

I thought I made that point clear in my last post. Anybody can assign a negative connotation to whatever word they wish. If I wanted to use the word "purple" to describe an ignorant person, then other than the fact that people would think I'm nutters for doing it, I could.

But magical folk like Molly, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, etc. don't use the term in a derogatory sense. Not as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: cobhome Mar 26 2008, 05:57 PM

The problem I have here is that Muggle wasn't intended to be damaging or demeaning - it was just a means of categorizing, distinguishing, identifying, sorting, organizing, however you want to say it.

We disagree - the wizarding folk could have chosen any word to describe non magical folk - they chose a word that connotes silliness - muggle - they did not choose a word that connotes competence or respect or authority etc etc - that we see Hagrid etc - wizards who clearly are not prejudiced people using the word without any consciousness that it is not a particularly respectful way to describe non magical people just goes to show how deeply ingrained prejudice against non magical folk is - of course Molly Hagrid etc do not use the word with the intent of being disrespectful - but that is because they are not aware - they haven't thought it through - because the word is so common to their society. In our own society this happens all the time - biases are so ingrained that even unintentionally we use language that is not respectful to others.

I think too that in terms of Wizard prejudices against muggles - the wizards are seriously outnumbered by the muggles - plus it would seem that before seclusion - wizards occupied positions of importance in a common society - which they now are deprived of - with perhaps some major resentments about that

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 01:24 AM

The ones that have wizards/witches born into their families. There aren't very many of these, but they do exist, and Hermione's parents don't seem to take offense to the term, nor do Muggle-borns take offense in being called Muggle-born.

Also, by the logic you just described, this whole situation is impossible to draw a parallel to; every commonly-used distinctive term is known by everyone who is distinctive in that way.



No-one ever said that wizards had no right to categorize, but in the given context, there's nothing wrong with it. They don't need the right to do it, because there's nothing unethical about what was done,



How would Hagrid know this? The last time Hagrid made contact with Harry, he was left on the doorstep of the Dursley's house, so he has no way of knowing just how bad they really are to him at this point. As you know, the term "muggle" refers to someone who isn't magical, so when Hagrid says they are the "biggest Muggles he ever laid eyes on", he's referring to their exaggerated lack of contact with the WW.

As for the second part I bolded, just because someone complains about some aspect of so group's work, doesn't mean they don't respect teh group that made the product. Many people complain about how inefficient computers are at times, but they don't hate the company for giving them such a valuable tool. Hagrid isn't complaining about the Muggles themselves, but rather their means of transportation. The same goes for Molly - she would have said the same thing if they were in Diagon Alley and there were so many wizards there that they couldn't get their shopping done.

To Oxymoronic: yes, that is the exact point I (and you as well) have been trying to make over the last several posts on this thread. I like how you used 'wizard' and 'witch' to enhance our point.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 09:26 AM

Edited for content, tone, and organization:

White European nations invading and colonizing the African continent and assuming the right to capture and enslave the many dark skinned peoples of Africa and calling them savages, heathens, godless, uncivlized "Nigers" is not quite the same thing as someone deciding that the sky is blue.

The purpose is different. When one group of people assumes entitlement and choose to name another group of people according to what they think the differences mean, it is usually for the purpose of discrimination, exploitation, or exclusion, not to identify the people.
To note this group of people have black, brown, or reddish skin is one thing. To ignore their chosen names for their nation, community, or family is assuming entitlement over this people. You are what we name you.

Proof of whether or not a term is used to identify or to lable for reasons of isolation, discrimination, exploitation, or persecution is in the actions of the groups towards one another. The Romans didn't call the Britons barbarians because they lived mud brick homes, but because the Roman had assumed the right to burn down the Briton's home and place their own culture there, and so no one in their own culture would protest their intent to do so. After all these were barbarians, without leadership, led by a woman at one time!! and in dire need of civilizing.

To call people with special gifts "witches" was a way to brand them as evil in reality, and I would imagine the same was true in Slytherin's time--hence his fear of bringing in the children of people with such beliefs to Hogwarts. Branding a person's natural abilities as evil gives the persecuters the right to exploit the gifts and destroy the people. Note the word "witch" generated hostility in Lily, a Witch. It doesn't have any positive connatations in her society. Calling a woman a witch, as Alkari pointed out, was at one time in England a sentence of Death, certain toture or banishment.

To call non Magical people Muggles became the Wizard way of labling non-magical people that allowed them to discriminate and exploit the differences, as well as justify their self-imposed isolation (to proect themselves)--as Dumbledore wanted to, as Grindlewald and Voldemort did. They named the people, then created their own definitions of what "Muggle" meant not only to their isolation, but also justify the use of methods like memories spells on non-magical people that might be illegal when used on Wizards to enforce the isolation, yet exploit the society/culture/country they and Muggles share. Note Severus uses the word as a slur and this connatation was learned behavior on his part.

Note Molly's statement about the train station: "--packed with Muggles, of course--". It's a train station Molly, packed with people like you and your children trying to get their destinations. Change Muggles to any national or racial term for any group other than yours. The phrase sounds slightly off kilter. Molly isn't racist in the terms of someone like Narcissa, but why is her understandable annoyance at a crowded station focused only on Muggles? Certainly there are other wizard families running for Platform Nine and Three Quarters.

Hagrid calls the Dursleys at one point" Lousy Muggles. Hagrid is in a remote place where Harry is sleeping on the floor. He has been sent to rescue Harry and gets a first hand look on how Harry was treated. The letters were addressed to Harry in his cupboard. I think Hagrid had a pretty good idea. Look how he reassures Harry and "compliments" Lily:



Hagrid calls Vernon and Petunia "lousy Muggles"--Are Vernon and Petunia are lousy Muggles or parents/guardians. Vernon doesn't consider himself a "Muggle" because he can't perform magic, so what right does anyone have to insist that Yes you are a Muggle because that is what we call people like youl
Petunia isn't abusive and filled with envy because she non-magical. She's abusive and filled with envy because she longs to be magical like her sister. Hagrid doesn't know that.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 11:02 AM

That's pretty recent, in my life time in fact. And thank you for the correction. I did some research. First: I'm not blaming the Germans for the "N" word. Schwarz is German for the color Black, or for the often negative connatation that goes with the word.

Neger is the German word for Negro, not black, and the term refers to a person of dark skin color. (There's a German/English) Dictionary online.

Negro is not the "N" word, nor does it have the same negative connatations and was actually prefered as well as Colored peoples, People of Color. All were considered polite term. ( Who said racism made sense?! ) Niger was adopted by the Germans for the river in Africa from the But the "N" word is not from the Spanish word Negro, but the word Niger--But in the English speaking culture the "g" was given a "hard" sound. Actually at one point (During Greek and Roman domination) all Black people from African were called Ethiopians, Nubians, and in some cases Moors.
Looking at my Grandchildren all these terms seem a bit silly.

As to making fun of someone because of a name--People make fun of things they have the difficulty pronouncing, because they "think" or feel the struggle to pronounce or understand someone makes them look "foolish" or even "stupid". So rather than admit ignorance or asks for help or the correct prounciation , they strike out.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 11:07 AM

The difference with you examples and ours is that you pick examples of terminology that has deragotory intent, whereas ours (like Muggle) does not. There are numerous examples of terms being used for the sole purpose of distinguishing certain people with no intent whatsoever of putting that group down.



Yes, but Lily didn't understand what Snape meant, did she? Nor did Snape understand that the word he was using was an insult because he wasn't brought up as a Muggle.



There's your problem right there - all the other witches/wizards were already on Platform Nine and Three Quarters - in the WW, not the Muggle world, and she was still in the Muggle world at the time.



For one thing, Hagrid doesn't say this until he's seen a bit of what these particular Muggles are like. For another, when he says they are "lousy Muggles", he's saying that these particular Muggles are lousy, not that all Muggles are this bad. If you call a Canadian a "lousy Canadian", you are directing the insult at that one individual, not Canadians as a whole. If anyone has a reason to hate Muggles because of the Dursleys, it's Harry. Yet he doesn't - why? Because he's seen enough other good Muggles to know that the ones he lives with are terrible. The same goes with all the other wizards in the world - they have heard enough about the good Muggles to know that the bad ones are just "bad apples" to use Aunt Marge's words.

As for your example of Hagrid putting Lily in a better light despite her sister, he is merely saying that even though Petunia (and her family) is as non-magical as can be, her own sister grew up to be a highly talented witch.

As for the letters being addressed to Harry in the cupboard under the stairs, there were only a couple of letters addressed like that, and considering the names of some houses in the WW (like the Burrow), he probably didn't think too much into that address if he even saw it.

Also, the fact that Harry was sleeping on the floor is no indication of bad treatment - he made Harry to the same thing not long afterward. Besides, Hagrid, bless him, is not the most observant person in the world, so I don't know if he even noticed it when he crushed the door open.

Also, Uncle Vernon refusing to use the term "muggle" is not strange. He flinches at any word associated with he WW (except for Dementor and LV, oddly enough), so it comes as no surprise that he ignores the term Muggle as well.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 11:23 AM

Vernon is not a Muggle because Dumbledore says he is in the same way the gentleman who plays Kingsley or Alfie, who plays Dean are not African-American because we have been taught in this country to look at someone of their complexions and call them African Americans. They're Englismen. Are English people with distant or recent African Heritage required to classifiy themselves as "African English or African British? What about in Canada. Are Canadians with African heritage required to classify themselves as African Canadian?

I think we may be confusing what is "hateful" and what is deragotory or demeaning, what denotes difference as "Privilage". Racism is more layered than hate.

Negative to the people would be the suggestion that they are powerless, that because they are Non-magical Wizards have an often exploitative advantage over them. Because they are non- magical they have no understanding of the way wizards function. But of course, Wizards like Arthur can tinker with primitive Muggle toys like plugs and cars.

When using the words these people are Muggles: the Ministry assumes the "right" to bewitch people without their knowledge or permission or any way to defend themselves or perserve their memories. They are doing this for their own good because they are Muggles and will not understand magic. They are doing this for their own good because they are Muggles and will exploit Magic if they find out it exist.
Because of what wizards believe Muggles will do they have assume privilage to not only to hide themselves from Muggles, but hide in plain sight by maniupating Muggle perception of things.
If a Canadian was doing this in the US, he or she would be suspected of espionage or trying to take advantage of the decreased value of the dollar.

Wizards can exclude these people from certain function or knowledge even if the knowledge--like Voldemort's war, concerns them. It gives witches power and rights over people who are not magical. The MOM for example has the right to flying carpets in their country. That's their privilage--England is their home. But they cannon ethicaly modify the memories of Englishmen if they are wizards.
It's a train station. Other people who need to get from one place to another would be there. Where else would people who need to get somewhere be, Muggle or witch? Her irratation that the train station is packed with travelers is understandable. Her statement that the train station is packed with Muggles is no more harmless than an American woman (Not of Asian heritage) at the Airport in Bejing, in a hurry to get her children to the check in, fussing because the airport is packed with Chinese as usual. Where else would they be?

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 12:03 PM

The key word here is would, because this is not the case for wizards and Muggles. Just because someone acknowledges that they have more physical/magical power doesn't mean they think that everyone else is powerless. Look at DD - he knew perfectly well he was one of the most brilliant/powerful wizards of the age, but he considered LV a force to be reckoned with, not to mention the fact that he knew that Snape, Bella, Sirius, Molly, etc. were also very powerful. Yes, wizards do know that they have a distinct advantage over Muggles, but they do not exploit it, which is shown in the Statue of Secrecy - it's for the protection of Muggles just as much as the well-being of wizard kind.



No, they don't. They only use memory charms on Muggles in extreme circumstances - when Dark wizards terrorize them, and they don't affect their older memories, just the ones involving the magical attack on them. They also have to keep the magical war a secret from the Muggles, because if the WW is exposed, there'd be chaos (again, this is why the Statute of Secrecy was put in place).



Well, as magical people don't use muggle transportation on a regular basis (hence the reason why Hagrid complains about the pace of the Underground) because of their more efficient methods of travel, I assume that's where all the magical people are on a normal day. The only wizards at Kings Cross are the families of Hogwarts students, and they don't stick around in the Muggle area - partially because the owls attract too much attention. Again, when Molly says the area is packed with Muggles, she is merely stating the obvious: they are in a Muggle area, so naturally there will be loads of Muggles there.

You can't read too far into certain comments, especially the casual ones, because then you are likely to interpret it the wrong way. There's that old saying: it's not what you say, it's what you mean. You have to consider the context in which a comment is made to understand what the person is trying to say.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 12:12 PM

Oh. Who are these Wizards who believe it is not necessary to "Protect" Muggles (who don't have magical children) from even the postive aspects of magical life, because the Muggles will not understand, will be frightened of wizard's power, will become either hostile or exploitive of wizard ways?

I personally can think of only one person: Arthur Weasley and even he agrees concealment of wizard's gifts to protect Muggles not associated by family to Wizards.

Did Dean's Muggle mother accompany him to the world Wizard cup? What about Seamus Muggle father? What about Hermione's Muggle parents? Hermione asks as a parent to her parents because they are non-magical.

When a group of people assumes the right of protector over another, or care taker, feelings of inferiorty or superioty are bound to emerge.

The principal reason that non-magical people cannot defend themselves against wizards and witches is because they have not been allowed contact--or otherwise, knowing us--they would find a way to defend themselves.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 12:19 PM

Sory for the double.

Page 77 GOF

Since when is awarness an Extreme Circumstance? I'm certain Mr. Roberts has had other groups camp out and have rally's. How is Mister Robert's curiosity about the ways and trinkets of wizards any different from Arthur's curiosity about non-magical life?

I did consider the context in which Molly's comment was made. She's a busy English woman at a crowded English train station on the way to a particular platform. She doesn't notice that their are a lot of busy English people traveling this time of the year as always, but that the place was packed with Muggles as always.

It is not racist in the same way that Narcissa would have meant it--that is it is not hostile. It however, does indicate that kind of unconscieous awareness and attention to differences that is a symtom of greater presence of racism in our society. I remember reading a post in another forum where someone discussed the romance between Ginny and Dean, and the worry about American reaction to the romance; Alfie, who is British was called an African-American actor. Now the person knew they were not using a "racist" term but the politically term for a black person--who lives in the USA. I've seen more than one or two dark skinn people from Ghana, Nigeria, the Bahamas, England, Germany, Ethiopia, Angola bristle when someone calls them African-Americans--and it the term is more true of them than it is of someone whose family has been in this country for four hundred years.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 12:40 PM

Sorry, I forgot about that part. Let me re-phrase: Memory charms are only used as a necessity. The memory charm you mention above was necessary to prevent the secret of the WW from being discovered. Never once does a wizard put a memory charm on a muggle purely for the sake of using magic; it is only ever done out of necessity.

The difference between Arthur's curiosity and Mr. Roberts' curiosity is that Arthur already knows about world he is curious about, and Mr. Roberts is coming close to discovering a world that cannot be discovered by his kind. An FBI agent is privy to some very important information that civilians cannot find out about, yet the FBI agent knows a lot about civilian life. Arthur is like the FBI agent, and Mr. Roberts is like the civilian. Does that make sense?



I never once said that wizards don't see the necessity to protect muggles, but shielding Muggles from the WW is a different form of protection, and one that is necessary. As I have already explained, if the Muggle world was aware of the WW, even the postive aspects of it, there would be chaos. As you pointed out, there could be hostility or exploitation - neither of which benefit the WW. OTOH, you also point out that Muggles could be afraid of wizards, which obviously wouldn't be good for the muggle world.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 27 2008, 12:45 PM

Duly noted. However, it's one thing to discuss the oppression of the people of Africa due to colonization, quite another to discuss the terminology of the Wizarding World. I am not equating the "N" word or any of its versions to the word "Muggle". "Mudblood", sure. Perhaps that was why the term mudblood was coined to begin with. Muggle wasn't a commonly accepted derogatory word, so those who were racist and prejudiced coined the use of "filthy mudbloods".

(Bold mine)
Usually. Sure, I'll give you that. But regarding the term muggle, I sincerely believe that it was merely another word in the wizarding vocabulary used to describe a non-magical person. We have no idea where the word ever originated, and therefore can only debate back and forth about whether or not it was coined in order to be discriminatory.


People are people, despite what term wizards/witches use to identify anyone. Are wizards and witches people? Or are they something else, due to their magical abilities? Vernon and Petunia and their little son are rather insufferable people - regardless of how wizards/witches choose to label them (muggles).

And, to someone like Arthur Weasley, the various people that do not inhabit the magical world are quite dear to him, and he certainly had no issue with calling them muggles. They are what they are - regardless of what the WW has chosen to describe them as.


But, this is a completely different scenario! It's one thing for Romans to come and ravage a people and purposely label them as insignificant while feeling the need to "civilize" them. It's quite another for the magical community to use a term already in existence which does not necessarily imply that they felt superior to non-magical people. Nor is that term necessarily used as a reason by the WW to persecute. After all, the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. Some will take the term muggle and make it negative. And some will use it as it was intended - to describe non-magic folk. And besides, like I stated earlier - that's probably why the "baddies" coined the term 'mudblood', as 'muggle' was just a descriptive word, neither good nor bad, just descriptive. Like the term 'thestral' described those eerily lovely creatures that inhabited the Forbidden Forest.


Yes - muggles have their own prejudices. But the term 'witch' is certainly not given a negative connotation in the magical world. And who is to say which 'witch' was coined first? The muggle version (negative connotation), or the magical version (neutral connotation).


Of course the word can be used as a slur. We've been over that already. But where we strongly disagree is that you think the term muggle was coined to discriminate and allow the magical world to exploit that difference for their own ends. While wizards and witches have certainly used memory spells and what-not on muggles, the "good" ones like Arthur or Dumbledore had no intention of harming or abusing that power. The "bad" ones like Lucius and Voldemort most definitely used their abilities to harm innocent souls - wizards and muggles alike. I certainly don't think the term muggle was used to justify any of that, good or bad.

Because she doesn't want any of her children or herself to be seen attempting to cross the barrier. That's how I took it the very first time I read it - certainly not in a racist or derogatory way. It wouldn't matter if any magical people spied them crossing over - she was frustrated that it was so packed with muggles because there would be a higher chance of them being spotted.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 12:50 PM

Why not? Why can't Mister Roberts discover the wizard world. What's the worst that can happen? What disadvantage to non-magical people would come from knowing there are wizards? Not knowing there are wizards doesn't stop wizards from killing them, does it? Not knowing there are wizards doesn't stop wizards from exploiting Muggle goods or Arthur wouldn't have a job.

Now as part Choctaw Indian whose family was driven from their homes unto reservations during the Great Walk, I wholly agree with that sentiment that discovery is not a good thing, especially when the word "discovery" is used to disguise the actions of Conquering a land. But since when discovery, exploration consider wrong?

I would not agree that the N word does not work as an analogy. Black to describe the skin color of some people is accurate. White to describe the skin color of some people is accurate. Therefore white and black people are in agreement that these terms describe their skin color. They would not agree however that these terms describe their personalities, their culture. No one wants to be called "a typical white person" or a "a typical black person" especially if the terms Black and White are applied to culture or ability, and mindset rather than mere skin color.
Wizards and Muggles are not in agreement that Non-magical persons should be called Muggle. The majority of the Non-magical people have not heard the word. As both groups speak the same laguage and Muggle does denote an image of someone clumsy or silly in that language, that explanation doesn't exactly stick. It's not as if Wizards speak Latin, and Muggle is a Latin term meaning non-magical.

Hermione and Harry live in the wizard society that has chosen a name for non-magical people. What about (And granted, Jo possibly didn't concieve of such of community--but I can think of several communities, cultures and societies who would welcome a magical person as part of the society--starting with England if you look at the Arthur tales) those societies where non-magical people and magical people have found a way to live in the same community?

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 12:58 PM

If Mr. Roberts had discovered the WW, and the WW wasn't aware of it, who's to say that he wouldn't leak the information to anyone else? The Muggle Prime Minister is different - he had to know about the WW in case of emergency situations like the LV war, and he can be trusted not to expose the information.

How many times has someone accidentally discovered something they weren't supposed to know, and tried to use it to their advantage only to backfire on them? Snape is a perfect example. He wasn't supposed to hear part of the prophecy, but because he did, he tried to use it to his advantage, resulting in the death of the one person he loved.

If Mr. Roberts had tried to share his discovery of the magical world, either he would be blamed for doing so successfully, bringing about the chaos I've mentioned several times, or he would be considered insane for thinking such things. Neither of these outcomes are good for him. The memory charm was for his own saftey as much as the WW's.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 01:14 PM

And then what? Why should discovery of the Wizard World prove negative to non magical people? Is this the Men In Black explanation that people are not smart, tolerant therefore they don't need to learn something new--like reading? I love that Aliens slip in a few "discoveries" now and then. The wizards don't live in the future. Or is the Wizard's attitude of don't let the Indians have guns--they may use them to defend themselves against us?

Hagrid says Muggles would want magical solutions. Magic doesn't keep wizards from being poor, from dying, or anything else, and non-magical people would learn that just like many people learn that living in America is not an instant solution to their problems. Imagine fleeing your own country to avoid persecution and being shot dead in your apartment because someone made a mistake based on the color of your skin, or your accent, or the way you dress is similar to another culture someone doesn't like.

I think non-magical people in no time at all--just like Harry--get over the wonders of magic pretty quick when they see the same set of problems exist in the wizard world as the Non-magic world.

At one time it was forbidden to allow women to read, or to take certain classes at university because the knowledge was dangerous for them. It was forbidden to allow enslaved people or common people, unless they were in the church to learn to read because they would start to question their way of life or the right of certain people to dictate to them how to live their lives.

Jo is very clever. There is not one explanation for keeping the Wizard World hidden that hasn't been used by one group of humans at one time to isolate themselves while they took advantage of technology, learning, weapondry, even perceived genetic abilities to entitle themselves or exploit others.

Children can't learn certain skills because they're children. This group of people can't learn these skills because they're child like and misuse this knowledge. Slaves can't learn to read because they will see quite clearly that they are as entitled to freedom as we. Woman can't join this exclusive club because of the kind of things we men do in business deals will be revealed as not exactly ethical or moral.

I would and did say yes, and did agree with Alkari that the wizards and witches were possibly forced to accept what was a negative word in the English language and culture to defend their abilities, but like people in the US who use the "n" word or my "Black and Proud" generation, the witches seem to have taken "ownership" of the word and defined it according to what it means to them. We do not see the Muggles with this opportunity.

Posted by: Pleione Mar 27 2008, 02:01 PM

I believe this is addressed in the very first book when Hagrid explains to Harry why the magical world is secret. He explains that if Muggles were aware of wizards they would be seeking magical solutions to their problems. This, it seems to me, would not be beneficial to either wizards or muggles. It's a situation that would lend itself to hostility.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 02:41 PM

Again, compare this attitude to attitudes of real society who doesn't want "savages" who lands they have colonized to know about guns, or people to learn languages that will increase their understanding of technology, or women unable to obtain a driver's license because they may be exposed to "danger", or government monitering the use of the Internet to prevent ideals that challenge a system of government or view of what is an is not human rights.

Yes there will be exploitation and problems. This happens when different cultures meet and one seems to have more wealth or power than the other. But "discovery" in this case could lend itself to disciplines like learning, science, medicine, mathmetics, even the arts in the wizard world comparing and merging their knowledge with the non-magical world and miraculous things coming forth: like Arthur's car.
For example for a long time there was a marked prejudice in the medical community towards natural remedies and certain disciplines like acupunture, meditation, herbal remedies. Physical Therapy used to be folk medicine.

Posted by: Pleione Mar 27 2008, 03:32 PM

Apparently the wizards have decided that the "problems" of making themselves known to muggles isn't something they wish to deal with. That they have chosen, as a society, to live in secret and segregation is their right of self-determination. Other than informing the PM, they are apparently (as a society) not intruding into the muggle world and wish to be left alone. Should they be compelled to share their magical knowledge "for the greater good" if they don't wish to?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 03:44 PM

Who is giving judgement. This wholly fictiticious group of people behave a lot like groups of very real people. The fact that they are wholly fictititcious gives the reading audience an opportunity to examine such practices "safely", that is without offense.

Who has determined that intergration into the Wizard society would be detrimental to all? The Wizards or the non magical people? Who has decided that Wizards may call non-magical people a funny name--as they speak the same language? Who has decided that non-magical people can call magical people wizards and witches, as it has many negative connatations in their shared society and history? Why is it permissable for Wizards to infiltrate Non-magical society at will, with little restrictions, or restrictions set forth only by the magical society, but not permissable, but considered dangerous, for the Non-magical people to explore, study, and otherwise infiltrate the or intergrate into the Wizard World? Was there some unwritten between the non-magical government and the Magical one, or did the magical government as in the first chapter impose their will because of their greater power upon the Non-magical government?

What is the fear of negative results of discovery based upon? Slytherin's fears were based upon persecution of wizards by non-magical people who were persecuting non-magical people for looking through telescopes and saying the Sun revolved around the Earth. There have been changes in attitudes towards abilities and beliefs so it seems unfair to pre-judge the behavior of non-magical people in the present by the behavior of non-magical people who lived one thousand years before?

Posted by: Pleione Mar 27 2008, 03:46 PM

I edited my post as I changed my thought, but I'll happily answer that I don't judge them for wishing to remain separate. That's their right of self-determination. THEY have made the decision.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 04:01 PM

So because they have made the decision to keep their society a secret from Non-magical people, it justifies them doing so by any means necessary including as in GOF, using Muggle land, but bewtiching the Muggle when he "discovers" their activities?

Isn't that rather like a Secret Society renting a bit of public property for a gathering, then drugging the caretaker or manager when he stumbles on their ceremonies?

By the way: I understand that the first Wizard who called a non-magical person a "Muggle" may have not meant it as a put down, but consider that both Wizards and Witches speak the same language--therefore "Muggle" was as much a nonsense word to both groups, and had to sound equally like a "funny" name. And by the same token, I'm certain the first magical person who was called a Wizard, if he was called this when Christianity was spreading through England and there was a purge of the old religion, even the old Christain practices, that the magical person reacted with fear. I wonder how long it took the Wizards in Jo's world to "own" the terms "witch" and "wizard"?

Posted by: Pleione Mar 27 2008, 04:25 PM

Of course not. Whether their actions are justified is a judgment call, but even if they acted unjustly, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be compelled to reveal themselves. Note, however, that they did pay for use of the land they camped on. The book is silent about compensation for the land where the stadium was.

How could we justify forcing wizards to reveal themselves to the muggle world and forcing them to "share" their magical abilities? Do their desires and right of self determination not count? Shall goblins be forced to reveal themselves? Werewolves?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 04:39 PM

Who in the HP universe is qualified to make this "Judgement call"?

No they don't have to reveal themselves, but if it is their intent to remain secret wouldn't it be better to remove themselves from non-magical society entirely? Buy their own island or something? Have their own country, rather than build community within a standing community. The problem of exposure is because they live in the Non-magical society (as well as the appearance of magical children in non-magical family)--like the Guants who don't bother to hide their house, or the Blacks who do. They share the English Culture--(I wonder if both magical and non-magical people are buried in the Church yard) The Wizards freely borrow what they want from non-magical society.
The need for secretcy and such methods to maintain secrecy would not become necessary if there was absolutely no contact.

Posted by: Pleione Mar 27 2008, 04:55 PM

Well, there's the rub. Who in any society is qualified to make such judgment calls? The WW is no different from our own world in that respect.

I agree that removing themselves entirely from the non-magical world would be the best idea. Unfortunately, the author doesn't make that a viable option with magic babies popping up amongst the most mugglish of families and the need to expand blood lines in the magical world.

At then end of the day, I think the Statute of Secrecy is simply a plot device. Jo put all sorts of lessons throughout the books, but, IMO, that isn't the case here. Of course, I respect those readers who think differently and enjoy reading everyone's thoughts.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 06:48 PM

Likewise. I frankly don't know what Jo's reason for the Department of Secrecy was. That's what this thread is for to explore underlying themes and different interpretations.

For example: Although some readers have concluded that the elves should only be given Freedom if they ask for it, and that keeping someone in bondage is permissiable if you are kind to them and thoughtful of their feelings, was that Jo's intent?

Was it Jo intent to suggest-- through Dumbledore's recommendation that Harry be kind to Kreacher but not free him lest he prove a danger to them-- that there are groups of people (Wizards)who, although they feel liberty, free will, and the pursuit of happiness (fulfillment) is their natural or creator given state of being, feel it is in their providence to decide and grant other groups of individuals what they (Wizards) assume is their by birth, if the other individuals prove themselves loyal to their master's beliefs?

Posted by: Shard Mar 27 2008, 07:26 PM

Ah Slavery the other hot issue that I think not enough people really discuss here. I have to say that I was throughly amazed that there were those who felt that it was ok for the House Elves to be continual slaves. I think every creature has the right of Freedom of choice.

The arguement you mentioned Maime is the same one I saw about Blacks being enslaved by "nice" owners who took care of them so it was "ok" for them to work for those owners and not run away and in fact defend the homestead during the Civil War.

I thnk Hermione was right about getting SPEW going, she was however going after the wrong elves. The Hogwarts elves don't feel oppressed or abused they felt comfortable and so thought Dobby was unsual. I think this was the point that DD was showing, that showing kindness goes along way.

The case of Kreacher is still complicated though, what can they do against Kreacher if they free him and the first thing he does is go to the Malfoy's? Which he did do anyways, it seemed the more important thing to have done was earn Kreacher's trust first. As we saw in DH the transformation Kreacher underwent.

Posted by: lirene Mar 27 2008, 07:38 PM

If I remember correctly, the Statute of Secrecy was employed in the year 1692; the very same year of the Salem Witch Trials in New England. The Statute was implemented to protect the wizarding community from the Muggles and to hide the wizarding world at large. So it is fitting as a plot device. As witches were being persecuted, the magical world needed a way to protect itself; and not only to protect the magical world, but to protect the Muggles as well.

This isn't the first time Jo has correlated an event in HP with a significant historical event. Dumbledore defeated Grindewald in 1945, the year of Nazi Germany's downfall.

I also enjoy reading everyone's thoughts as well .

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 08:46 PM

Yes, Hagrid says that Muggles would want magic solutions to all their problems, but he's not really referring to ethical issues. Think about how many ways magic makes life convenient for wizards, and how many ways magic could be used to make life even more convenient. This is why it's best for wizards to be left alone - Muggles would try to use wizards too much.

As for the problems for Muggles in the discovery of the WW, in the case of just one of them finding out about it (which is what we are discussing), the Muggle would not likely be believed by the rest of society if he were to try to spread the word, so he would be an considered an outcast for his "insane claims". If the Muggle in question is believed, then the people who are convinced will try to search out the wizards, spreading the word along the way, making it very difficult to put a stop to it. This is still mostly a problem for the wizards, but as Pleione has already said, they have the right to keep themselves a secret.



Perhaps with some of the basic concepts of magic, but just as in the muggle world, there is still so much to discover about magic, so this sense of wonder would never die out. Besides, how quickly will you get over the fact that if you wreck your car, magic can fix it perfectly? There are so many ways that magic can enhance your life style that it would take a very long time for the idea to die away.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 08:54 PM

The part I bolded is a bit of an over-statement. A simple memory charm that has no dangerous side-effects isn't a very extreme measure. Wizards don't go over-board in their quest for secrecy, they merely do the minimum amount of work needed. If they were taking Muggles prisoner, and torturing them as punishment in order to "persuade" them to keep their mouth shut, yes, this would be extreme. But to say that wizards use any means necessary is unjustified.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 09:14 PM

Do Non-magical have the same rights: that is keeping themselves, like their magically gifted children -- a secret from Wizards? Can they band wizards from going to non-magical primary or nursery schools, or zoos, or working in non-magical positions in the Ministry or can they band wizards from going to department stores or using their train station as a gateway to the magical world? Shouldn't the right to keep one self a secret go both ways? Can Vernon make complaints to the MOM that he has cared for a wizard for fourteen years without one cent of monatary compensation?

This is a bad thing? Not to my pocketbook. Well I guess it is if you're a mechanic, but people in the Muggle world lose jobs because of improved technology every day.

It's a matter of perspective. By any means necessary is not an over-statement. I think the person who had their memory wiped, if they realized what happened would disagree with you on the amount of harm done. There are a couple of things I wish I could forget, but I would insist on choosing. The wizards make the choice for the people who see what Wizards don't want them to see.

Here's the thing: For those of us who believe in the precept of the Declaration of Independence--some of which T. J. borrowed from some English thinker, but his name escapes me ...I want to say Locke, but I think that's after Jefferson-- Liberty is not a choice, nor is it a gift in the province of men to give, but a gift for mankind to claim.

Now elves are not Hu-man, but they are thinking beings and Dumbledore, who chides Sirius for not thinking of Kreacher as a equal and fellow being, speaks of them as equals.
Therefore "Freedom" or Liberty is not a matter of choice. One can choose to be a servant, but it does not follow that that one chooses enslavement--that is chooses to relinquishes choice, self-will, and self-determination. Other People can by force, custom, tradition appropriate it from an individual or a nation.

But if these persons value liberty they are honor bound to release anyone from unfair bondage--that is bondage without mutual contract. One can choose to serve and take as payment lodging, food, training, transportation, or money. But Kreacher did not enter unto any contract with the Blacks-he was born into bondage. Sirius when he accpeted his inheritance accepted ownership of Kreacher. As far as I'm concerned the only kind and ethical thing to do was to free him.

It could be what Jo intented, but Hermione was right about Spew, but she didn't approach the wrong elves, as the elves treated kindly or not, had no power to break the magical bond between them and Hogwarts. Dumbledore held this power. She approached the wrong people. Harry didn't free Dobby. Lucius Malfoy was tricked into giving Dobby his freedom. Dumbledore would not have to be tricked to convince him that the elves because he felt they were beings with rights equal to mansshould have liberty. After that it was just a matter of placement, finding home and salary, and allowing the elves to seek education or what ever they wanted to pursue.


Then what complicates the matter is not Kreacher's "right" to liberty, but what the elf will do with his liberty. Why should Kreacher have any less choice of what to do with his liberty than Muhndungus Fletcher or any other wizard? Does one people have the right to withhold liberty from, detain, evict , or imprison another people because the enslaved (or other wise disinfranchised) people, who although obey the laws of the land do not share beliefs, appearance, values, and ethics with the "individuals" who have enslaved or disinfranchised them? I edited it to amend that the enslaved person is willing to obey the laws of the land in all things except where it interferes with their personal sense of integrity or religion. i e. Quakers for instance will not serve in combat position in the military.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 27 2008, 10:34 PM

To the subject of liberty I found this website: I hope some of the ideas here add to the discussion about liberty as expressed by the plight of the elves in Harry Potter. I claim neither to agree or disagree with this, but I thought considering our discussion this POV might be interesting. The entire articles can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 27 2008, 11:17 PM

Muggles don't need to ban wizards from their world because wizards try to stay in their own areas with anyone telling them to. Besides, wizards living amongst Muggles is not an issue - they keep to themselves, and do nothing to disturb their peace.

Also, the wizarding world needs to keep tabs on Muggle-born witches and wizards because if they walk around with powers that they can't control, there is great potential for mayhem. For this very reason, the Muggles can't keep themselves a secret, not to mention the fact that you can't hide from what you don't know is there.

As for Uncle Vernon "caring" for a wizard for 10 years (he got there at the age of 1, and his years at Hogwarts don't really count), you can hardly consider Harry's life with the Dursley's care, but for the sake of arguement, a Muggle family (an orphanage is completely different -it's designed to take care of orphans) taking in an orphaned wizard would never happen in reality. The only reason Harry went to Muggles was because it was necessary for DD's charm, which protected the Dursleys as much as Harry.



Let me re-phrase: how long will the wonder of being able to magically fix something that's broken last? I don't know about you, but I would be pretty excited about such an advancement in my life style.



So you're saying that if you accidentally became privy to knowledge that you couldn't reveal or use, you wouldn't prefer to have it erased from your memory? Having the knowledge of a secret world that is full of wonder and potential, but not being able to explore it or share it with others, would drive you crazy. Not only is memory modification safer for the WW, it's kinder for the unfortunate person who stumbles upon the secret.

Posted by: fiasco Mar 28 2008, 03:23 AM

You're a smart Wizard: you couch your argument in low-impact words: kinder, unfortunate, stumble. You appear to give me the ultimate power, the right of refusal: you wouldn't prefer. You show compassion: it...would drive you crazy.

And I can hear your seductive whisper in my ear: "You did nothing wrong. You didn't mean to stumble upon this secret. I can help you live without this terrible burden. It'll be better for the both of us. And it won't hurt a bit."

Mmmm. Sounds good. And easy.

But then I remember that I don't really know anything about you or this Ministry of Magic that you represent. As Glinda asked, are you a good witch or a bad witch? Are you a benign, non-corruptable entity that I would be proud to submit my person and my liberty to? Do you truly have my best interest at heart?

I hesitate for a number of reasons. You see, I'm one of those post Cold War, post Vietnam, post Watergate kids. Remember, cynics are made, not born.

I. Don't. Trust. You. Sorry, but there it is. My experiences and my history, my gut, tells me not to trust you. So I'm going to have to decline until I learn more about you and your Ministry of Magic. I do get to learn more about who you are and what you represent, right?

No? I've already taken one too many bites out of the apple, eh?

Well, I still have to decline because I'm also one of those pesky Americans who strongly believe in individual liberty and self-determination. No one else might think my body is a temple, but I do. I control my body, my thoughts, my self. I will not willingly hand over this control.

But it will be better for me in the long run? Perhaps, but with incomplete information, how do I know? And besides, part of the human condition is pain, suffering, discomfort. It's kind of what we do. Sure, we make strides to erase it: indoor plumbing, the internal combustion engine, the Miracle of Flight, Nutella. Those "advances", compromises I can live with. Submitting to mind control, I can't live with that.

But all this is moot. There is no question of what I may prefer: the Ministry of Magic does not offer one a choice.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 10:01 AM

Welcome fiasco, and you answered much better than I:

Where is this indicated?
Like Seamus mother, or Snape's father, or Dean's father, maybe Lupin's mum? These are wizards married to non-magical people. I'm certain they didn't meet their Muggle wives and husbands over coffee at Madame Puddinfoot's. Vernon notices "People in cloaks. Mr. Dursley couldn't bear eople who dressed in funny clothes. Page 3 SS/PS Harry is greeted on the street by wizards.

This is the point. They do not offer the non-magical population a choice. They make the decsions for them.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 28 2008, 01:17 PM

This is the whole point: you don't know the danger or predicament you are in, but wiser people than you do, so they make the right decision for you. Stopping the problem before it even starts is the most effective way of solving the said problem. Parents have tell their kids what to do because they are the ones that know better. The same thing happens with wizards and Muggles: Muggles have no idea of the dangers involving even incomplete knowledge (I'll explain this more in a bit) of the WW entails, but wizards do, so they know that is best for the both the Muggle in question and the WW at large to erase the memory.

Incomplete information, particularily of such a complex world, sparks curiosity. Curiosity tends to lead to asking other people for confirmation/clarification; how many times have to asked someone about some strange phenomenon you witnessed or experienced but didn't understand? This directly leads to spreading of the information to others, who will then likely spread it to others (as they likely don't understand it either), and so on.



Occassionally straying into the Muggle world is unavoidable because of how wide-spread Muggles are, but notice that it's only on "Harry Potter day" that Uncle Vernon notices these people. This indicates that he only notices them when it's impossible not to. Muggles are not very observant when it comes to magic. Like Arthur says: "The Muggles will go to any length to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face" (or something to that effect - he's referring to when Muggles come across bewitched keys and such etc.).

So yes, Wizards do stray into the Muggle world on occassion, but it's not very often; not often enough for anyone to take notice, anyway, as they attempt to blend in when they do.
It is also indicated that they don't often linger in the Muggle world by the way that they struggle with Muggle money. If they were in the Muggle world that often, they wouldn't struggle with the money so much, or have the need to study Muggle life in school, or not be aware of how to use phones, cars, post, etc.

Posted by: lirene Mar 28 2008, 01:54 PM

Warning: long post .

In a perfect world, segregation of any sort wouldn't exist. Jo portrayed a fictional world that in many ways mirrors the real world we live in. Like it or not prejudices are all around us. The question is, do we let these prejudices bother us, or not. So if Molly says that the train station is crowded with Muggles, should I take offence at this, or call Molly prejudice? I see Molly's comments as just that; she's making a comment that the station was full of people. Just because she chose in this instance to single out Muggles, to me at least, doesn't mean anything, nor has it changed how I feel about Molly as a character in the series.

The segregation in HP really doesn't exist if you look at the big picture. Non-magical and magical people are really coexisting. Hermione is born from Muggle parents; she is now part of both worlds. So for me as a reader, I don't really see a segregation as others see it. Jo has created two worlds that blend together. Do you expect wizards to go up to Muggles and introduce themselves as such? No, I see this as I see different people of different cultures everyday. If a person chooses to shut themselves away; or if a person has magical powers they don't want anyone to find out about, what's wrong with that? Having said this, being diverse lends to better understanding of different cultures. But if said culture is afraid, or doesn't feel the need to share, then it is their right.

To respond to the Statute of Secrecy and memory modification. I see that several posters are against memory modification. However, the purpose of memory modification isn't to suppress the Muggles or control them. It was done in order to protect not only the Muggles, but the wizards as well. How would Muggles feel if they knew certain information about wizards and then were tortured later by DE's for said information? Or worse yet; killed? Look what happened to Frank Bryce when he stumbled onto Voldemort. I realize that no one wants to have their brains messed with, but I believe it was necessary. However, post Voldemort; this Statute could possibly be lifted; maybe the Ministry of Magic can work with other governments to implement protection for everyone. And witches and wizards can come out in the open. However, is this prudent? Aren't Muggles themselves scared of magic? The Salem Witch Trials were horrendous: are Muggles ready to accept the magical community with open arms? It's easier said than done.

On to elf slavery. With Kreacher, the situation is complex. Dobby and Kreacher are two elves with very different personalities. We see Dobby disobeying the Malfoys by warning Harry that there is danger at Hogwarts. Yes, he punishes himself, but very early on we see that Dobby has the capacity to think for himself; to know right from wrong; and he knows that he wants to be free. Harry couldn't free Dobby because he wasn't his master; so he had to trick Lucius into doing it.

Kreacher on the other hand is very willing to serve his master, even Sirius. Not once did I see Kreacher disobey a direct order. When he left to go to the Malfoys, it was because Sirius told him to leave. I have said in other posts that Kreacher was always loyal to the Black family no matter what. Even when Kreacher is told to betray Sirius he does it.

Dobby does well as a free elf. Can the same be said for Kreacher? I think it would be much more difficult for Kreacher to assimilate as a free elf. He doesn't want to be free, not because he doesn't know what his rights are, but because he has been a slave his entire life. Should Harry offer to free Kreacher? Well, you really can't offer someone freedom when they don't know what freedom is. I can see Kreacher throwing a hissy fit of epic proportions if he is offered freedom. However, Harry could free Kreacher and ask Kreacher to live with him. I am sure Kreacher will want to stay with Harry. I can't see him doing what Dobby did. But maybe someday, when Kreacher is more comfortable, he can get a job somewhere.

The question is, should elves be enslaved; no, of course not. Why has Jo chosen to mention elves and their enslavement to begin with? As with many other themes in her books, with Hermione creating S.P.E.W. she is giving us food for thought. Elves have been treated badly and even abused for years. Elves can be ordered to kill themselves and they will only breed if told to by their master to do so. And interestingly, an elf can override a wizards' enchantments. So this to me is very telling: slaves seem to be more powerful than wizards; however instead of embracing their power; and ignoring their capabilities; they have been turned into slaves.

Now, as far as Dumbledore having the power to free the Hogwarts slaves, we do not know this for sure. We have no idea who their true master is; it very well might not be Dumbledore or whoever the headmaster is at the time. So, here, it's only conjecture. I can't blame Dumbledore for not freeing the slaves simply because I as a reader am never told who has the power to do so. So, I agree with Shard that Hermione was approaching the wrong elves.; however, those were the elves she could come in contact with. Because in my opinion the best place for an elf is Hogwarts. We don't see them mistreated; they never took any of the things Hermione knitted for them; they didn't want to be free. Would they be happy being free? Where would they go? Where would they get employment? At the very least they could be offered wages for working in Hogwarts; that seems reasonable. Will they take it? Before all of the elves can be free, the Ministry of Magic needs to overhaul the Department of Magical Creatures (Hermione would be great here) and institute help to the elves. They've never known freedom; they need to be shown that they can be free in the magical world.

I just have the following question; what if said elves don't want freedom? What if they still want to serve their master? Will certain elves commit suicide out of despair? As far as I remember, elfish slavery isn't licensed; so who has the authority to implement freedom for the slaves? Does each and every house/master an elf belongs to have to be willing to do this?

I agree that wizards do not spend much time in the Muggle world; and I don't see them randomly erasing people's memories at will or causing any harm.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 01:57 PM

You call courting and marrying a Muggle straying into Muggle territory? Maybe Dean's father was on his way to school and just happened to trip over Dean's Mum at the train station?

Does magic put the wizards in place of non-magical humanity's parents?
Exactly what group of Wizards are wiser people than non-magical people? Fudge? Dumbledore who wanted to subjecgate them, Voldemort who proposed genocide as a solution, Umbridge, Mcgonagall. And why are you defining discovery of something wonderful "dangerous"? Dangerous to whom. What would Mister Roberts have felt but a sense of wonder--maybe tinged with fear, but England is no stranger to invasion. Knowing the English he possibly would have sit with George and Fred and bet on the Irish to beat Romania just because.

How does having magical abilities equate to Wizards being wiser than non-magical people therefore the only persons capable of making the right decision? Because Mcgonagall can turn into a cat, she has the right to stun the non-magical person who sees her do it, because her ability shows she is wiser than he, therefore she has the right to alter his memory for his own good of course?

That sounds like entitlement, the very definition and spirit of concepts like the White Man's Burden and Manifest Destiny, and ancient definitions of civilized and barbaric behavior that is behind every act of enslavement, colonization, forced eviction of people from their homelands we have know since the beginning of time. It is what Dumbledore tried and realized was wrong. Forgive me if I decline to agree with these concepts. They are in my mind invitations to tyranny.

It is barbaric to live in a grass hut. It is not barbaric to burn down the hut, displace or slaughter the family, and enslave the inhabitants. It is "wise" to be magical. Those who are not magical are unwise therefore they should be controlled and their actions monitored and their knowledge of our existance curtailed because we, Wizards have determined they are too weak of mind and will to absorb this knowledge.



This is not the question I would ask. As they are not free to choose the question of whether they want freedom or not is moot.

A person who believes that Liberty or Freedom is the right of all beings does not ask someone he owns if the person wants to be free. He asks himself what right does he have to own another. The Wizard gives the elf his freedom and ask what does he owe the elf for his years of service.

Frank was not killed because he was curious about Wizards, but killed because Voldemort is a criminal.

Posted by: lirene Mar 28 2008, 02:21 PM

Why are we assuming that wizard secrecy and memory modification was implemented by wizards without running this past Muggle governments? In HBP, we see the Prime Minister being visited by Fudge, then Scrimgour. This scene shows me that there is more than meets the eye. Let's not forget that the US government time and again isn't straightforward with people. I can absolutely see where the governments of different countries know about these things, but choose not to tell people.

I think it a very plausible question. I agree that elves don't know anything else but being slaves. However, aren't you also taking away their right to stay put if that's what they want? Also, how can you ask an elf how much they want for their years of service? It contradicts the question you are saying shouldn't be asked. When has a slave had money, knows the worth of money, or what he/she can buy?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 02:30 PM

Page 4 HBP

He wanted to talk to the President of the some other country. How do we know that this meeting was not of "National Security" matter that also was of grave importance of the people.

But we know governments are not always straightforward with her people because of all of those public hearings when such things are revealed. How often a week do we hear of curruption hearings all over the planet. How many leaders of how many different countries are facing trials for blantant human right violations?

Because we can do something and get away with it, or other have always done it, doesn't mean it is right, and I don't think there is any thing to suggest Jo feels this way.

Why would she suggest that the MOM which she shows as incompetent to handle the wizard world, is still--because they are wizards--equipped to ethically manage the Non-magical one?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 02:58 PM

Or you speaking of continuing to serve or continuing to remain enslaved?
I'm in health care, in a "service" position. I understand it is a position of trust and responsibility so I have a great deal of respect for "service" as a vocation.

This suggest that enslavement is a "right"? How is it possible that enslavement is a "right" of beings if we have natural right to freedom or liberty, self determination?

The wizard who liberates the elves is honoring the concept that they share the right of liberty and self-determination. Liberating the elves does not mean the elves cannot choose to continue to serve at Hogwarts. But service is no longer a condition of their continued existance.

Dobby is asked "That's not the point of a [i]house-elf.." [/i] Page 378 GOF

In other words the point of an Elf's existance, their only purpose of existance, according to these wizards, is to serve wizards.

A individual who lives in a community where it is decided that he has only one purpose for thier continued existance cannot choose to stay put.

An elf is not a chair, which has one purpose, but is treated like one. We do not ask a chair if it wants to cushion our behinds, because a chair is a thing. It was made by us to serve a purpose. There is no evidence that elves where made by the creator to serve wizards, only that wizards assumed that they were.

Jo's choice to give Wizard's power so absolute that the non-magical community cannot defend themselves is not a common occurance in fantasy. In most fantasy novels, magic is revealed to have some weakness that non-magical people can expliot to their advantage and for the most part magical beings (Elves and men in LOTR) are joined in the fight against the common evil. In Jo's universe, Non-magical beings are forced by their lack of magic to accept protection of the more powerful Wizards, and have to hope whatever the answer to Are you a good witch or bad witch, means they have to hope like heck the present group of Wizards in Charge do not dislike Muggles. It is not an equal partnership in fact the differences are so blantant as to suggest that in matters of magic Non-magical have no recourse but to give way to the greater power--as the English Minister has to delay his talk with the president to talk with the Wizard.

Actually it is amazing to me that when the Wizard Ministry fell, the Muggle Ministry did not fall as well as the Wizard Ministry provided the protection of the Muggles and Umbrige certainly was no champion of Muggles.

Posted by: lirene Mar 28 2008, 03:20 PM

I can't comment on what Jo thinks or feels simply because I have no direct evidence from her what exactly her opinion is on the matter. The fact that she has shown disarray in the Ministry is just that: there is a war; of course things will go wrong; that doesn't mean wizards are incompetent.


I also work in health care. My patients are of the highest priority; I work to serve and heal them. I am not suggesting in any way that enslavement is right. What I am saying is the following; after a slave is freed; they should have the right to stay with their master and serve them if that is their choice. Service then will be a choice.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 03:32 PM

I do not pretend to know what Jo intended either. However, What did she write to make you think Dumbledore, Harry, or even Arthur who worked for the Ministry thought the current adminstration was competent? She shows Dumbledore and Harry scorning the Minister's offer to work together. Yet are we to suppose that because the Minister is a wizard and the Prime Minister of England is not, the Minister who is not able to maintain protection for himself is able to give protection to the Non-magical society.

If they are free and choose to serve their former master, their master becomes their employer. They are not slaves, but servants--although I agree there are Employers and Managers across the board who do not seem to understand the difference.

The terms Slave and Servant are not and have not been for at least five centuries interchangeable. A slave is property. A servant is an employee. I don't recall suggesting that the elves should not have a choice of vocation, but asked, how can they as enslaved persons make a choice?

Posted by: Pleione Mar 28 2008, 03:46 PM

This would probably be about the kindest method. It would allow elves like Dobby to choose their own path, yet allow elves like Winky to remain with their families. For the elves that choose to remain with their families, perhaps there would be laws about the treatment of house elves. I think the mentality of the elves themselves would be one of the biggest obstacles.

What I haven't really seen addressed (and we have no way of knowing) is whether the magic that binds a house elf to its family is something that can be tampered with or altered. Perhaps freeing elves isn't a simple matter of saying, "Right, well, you're free. Off you go." Perhaps being bound is part of their magic and Dobby was, as Hagrid pointed out, an oddity.

I think Hermione's method of hiding the socks was well intentioned, but cruel. After seeing Winky, I find it hard to understand why she would have chosen that particular method.

Posted by: lirene Mar 28 2008, 03:49 PM

I belive Rowling wanted to show us that there can be discord and incompetence in the Ministry of Magic, just like in the Muggle world. I don't believe she is showing one better than the other. Also, different governments of different countries in the Muggle world can be biased; they believe their government to be superior and others to be inferior.


Agreed. And I can go on and on about employers and managers...


Of course the terms are not interchangeable.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 28 2008, 04:09 PM

Judging by Dobby and Kreacher I would say no. Lucius was tricked into freeing Dobby, but it was important that Lucius give Dobby the sock, not Harry. Kreacher could not choose to walk off when Sirius gave Harry Grimmuald Place. Harry is the only person who can free Kreacher. I would imagine the ownership of the Hogwarts elves passes from Headmaster to Headmaster, as Helga Hufflepuff has been dead for ten centuries.

To some us us, deciding that knowledge of your existance trumps the right of another person--and modifying a persons memory is a violation of that person, "harmful" or not--suggest heavily that because one considers their concerns more superior to the less powerful person's rights, they consider their society, their abilities, superior. Look at the description of the fountain at the DOM again.

Posted by: lirene Mar 28 2008, 04:34 PM

I am not discontented in the least that Rowling has created a universe that includes magical people. That is what the story is about. The fact that in Potterverse I am a Muggle and someone else is a wizard who has powers that I don't, doesn't trouble me in the least. If said wizard is more superior than I am in that regard; I can only be happy for that person. I would hope, however, that just because I don't have magical abilities, that I do in fact carry the resilient magical gene .

So then, why has Rowling showed that wizards do have powers and Muggles don't? Because I see it like this; in her world, Muggles can have children with magic. That is one of the things that fascinates me. Rowling is cleverly showing that yes, we are different, but we are alike in more ways than one.

By the way, in Potterverse, wizards are a minority. I believe Rowling is championing minorities here and showing that minorities can be truly powerful (this is my own opinion of course).

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 28 2008, 05:09 PM

Why not? How many stories have you heard where a couple just randomly bump into each other, get to talking, and fall in love? It's not the most common way of hooking up, but it does happen, and once this pattern starts, it tends to happen more frequently. How many inter-racial couples existed in the Muggle world way back when? Not nearly as many as there are now. Also, Merope fell in love with Tom Riddle when she only caught glimpses of him. She was pretty much tethererd to her house 24/7 because of Marvolo, so she wouldn't have had any opportunity to make contact with him. People fall in love with people they meet briefly on holiday because they continue to meet after they enjoy the first meeting, so such forms of meeting are by no means out of the question.



Sorry, my use of the term "wiser" wasn't very clear. What I meant by "wiser" is that wizards in general have the advantage of knowing the dangers of what can happen when a Muggle finds out about the WW, whereas a Muggle doesn't even know that the WW is there to begin with, let alone the consequences of discovering it. So, in a situation where a Muggle stumbles upon the secret WW, at that point, the Muggle in question has no idea what the repercussions (spelling?) are of having that knowledge. A wizard, on the other hand, knows exactly what the danger surrounding such a discovery are, and since the wizard has a means of erasing this knowledge from the Muggle's memory in an peaceful way (i.e. with no unethical side effects), the wizard has every reason to perform the magic required to do so.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 28 2008, 05:31 PM

When you put it that way, you make it seem as though wizards are keeping themselves a secret just because they can. This is not the case. As I have already explained, if wizards were to go out in the open, there would be chaos - neither muggle nor wizard would benefit from this. Therefore, by keeping their world a secret they are not only protecting themselves, but the Muggles as well. Basically, keeping the WW a secret serves a dual purpose in terms of protection. Modifying someone's memory for their own safety is not violating their rights. Everyone has the right to be protected from dangers outside of their control, and by keeping their world a secret, using peaceful means, wizards are maintaining that right.

Posted by: fiasco Mar 30 2008, 01:19 AM

Wizards, I went home and mulled over the predicament in which I've unwillingly found myself and your kind offers of assistance. Admittedly, the idea of a quick, painless, and no-effort-on-my-part solution became very tempting--especially as the hour grew later and I had puzzled and puzzled until my puzzler grew sore. Because really, in the long run, what would it hurt? After all, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and who am I to argue about my personal sovereignty when my having this knowledge can only mean Armageddon?

But then, but then...

Now that just pushed me not only back to the I. Don't. Trust. You. side of the fence but also to the I. Don't. Like. You. side. See, what I failed to mention last time when I was giving you my curriculum vitae is that, along with being a post Cold War, etc, kid, is that I'm a feminist who is not afraid of the F-word. And with the "wiser people than you" and "Parents have to tell their kids" argument you just slapped me in the face with the much-despised P-word: Paternalism. Funny, I didn't hear the condescension in your voice yesterday.

Besides, what I didn't mention just now is that this wizard named--well, I better not mention her name, cause God knows what you'll do to her--probably give her to those Demonors who suck out souls. Now that's an enlightened philosophy: suck out the souls and leave the husk behind.

Anyway, this wizard took me aside for a word or two. She told me about those Demonors. And about this evil Voldemore--kinda like a Hitler--and how this kid kept telling everyone he was back and no one believed him and they--that Ministry of Magic that you represent--spread lies about this poor kid. And did you know that at this school the kid goes to, there was this teacher who punished this kid by, I don't know, somehow cutting into the back of his hand and scarring him up.

So when you get all paternal and tell me it's for my own good, well, who are you to decide? You who tell me that these are wise people looking out for my well-being, when I see they can be just as evil and messed up as we muggles are.

Besides, how do I know you're not going to do a Blade Runner on me? What's a Blade Runner? Oh, that's a movie
and one of the characters is an android and she finds out, well, I don't want to ruin it for you.

So, anyway, can I trust you to take out only the memories which might endanger your people? Can I trust you not to put something else in? Can I trust you not to make me do evil things while I'm under mind control? Or stupidly embarrasing things that'll end up on Youtube?

Oh, it's not "mind control" but "memory modification." Wow. That has a nice 1984 ring to it. What's a 1984? Look, skip it, it's apparently not important.

from Lirene:

QUOTE

I realize that no one wants to have their brains messed with, but I believe it was necessary.

Honestly, I can't even get my head around that statement. That philosophy is so foreign to me, I don't even know how to respond. I guess wizards and muggles are more different than the same after all.

QUOTE

Aren't Muggles themselves scared of magic?

Well, I wasn't before but I sure am now!! Or, rather, to put it in a modern American muggle political way: magic doesn't kill muggles, wizards do.

QUOTE

The Salem Witch Trials were horrendous: are Muggles ready to accept the magical community with open arms?

Hey, thanks for comparing a muggle in 2008 with a muggle in the 1600s; I mean, it's not like our philosophy has evolved or anything.

I swear I was thisclose to buying your argument, but when you wizards toss off beliefs like this
from harrypottergeek2

QUOTE

Modifying someone's memory for their own safety is not violating their rights.

Well, I can see now why you'd be afraid of what we muggles might do to you if this is what wizards think.

I will not let you invade my body and control my mind; I won't let you, or I'll die trying. Not that it'd be a fair fight or anything--that wizard told me how you have a killing curse that can snuff me out BAM! --but if you wizards are remotely human--and I'm seriously wondering this now--well, muggles don't have killing curses but we know where the vulnerable parts are.

Look, I'm an American and my government has done--is doing--some pretty lousy things--without my consent. There are factions that want to take away my personal liberty and sovereignty over my own body, but they haven't won yet.

My government, as immoral as it can be at times--you know, there was government-sanctioned lobotomies given to metally challenged people for their own good--has not done anything to me. You and your Ministry of Magic want to do something to me.

And I don't think you honestly know how fascist, how immoral, how evil, that is.

Greater good or no, I think I'll pass.

But, you can probably disregard this discussion we've had. I mean, you're going to control my mind--erm, modify my memory anyway, right? You've only given me this choice for discussion's sake. All along you've had every intention of--


How in the world did I get here? d'oh! What a maroon! Must've taken a wrong turn at Albuqueque. Now, back to the store for diet pop and creme-filled horns, and then it's a night in front of the tube. Ahh, life is good.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 30 2008, 02:24 AM

I had no idea that you Muggles didn't have parents who knew what was for your own good, let alone did what for you own good. I figured everyone had some sort of respected elder to guide them in the right direction, or keep you safe from harm. No wonder you don't trust anyone who is supposed to have the knowledge, experience, and tools to help you out of a tight spot.



Well, what this wizard neglected to tell you was that this boy was telling the truth, and that by not listening to him, our position in the war against this wizard was held back considerably. The Ministry leader who was in charge of this whole fiasco was voted out of office before you could say 'justice is served' for abusing his power in ways that we rarely see in our government. Also, the teacher that cut students for punishment was a twisted, power-hungry lunatic with no moral compass, and was also a sorry misrepresentation of the Ministry I represent.

I am also curious as to where you got the idea that we use Dementors to intentionally suck the souls out of petty criminals. Only one person has warranted this attack in recent years with proper authority, and we had hard evidence to link him to numerous murders - even the wisest, most brilliant wizard in our world was hoodwinked by these unfortunate circumstances.

However, in light of your right to choose, I will let you free. Just don't tell anyone else about us, because as soon as other people do know about us, they will try to find us, but we can hide ourselves quite thoroughly, and you will be blamed for sending them on a wild goose chase. Once they realize you can't find us, they will think you are crazy and out to cause trouble; I don't think you want that.

Also, be on the look-out for strange people in KKK-like attire. They will already have your information from our Ministry: our Ministry already knew about you from the moment you discovered our secret, and word travels exceptionally fast in our world. These strange people have inside contacts with people in our Ministry, and they will torture you in ways you can't imagine just for being a Muggle. They would have left you alone, but since you insisted on keeping your knowledge of us, they will consider you what we call Mudbloods - magical people born from muggles; they especially dislike Muggles who have a connection to our world - they think it's unethical for Muggle-born humans to have knowledge of our culture. However, you know what's best for yourself, so I'm sure you'll be as right as rain.



Just so you know, parents aren't the only people in the world who take care of the well-being of others. People who have the advantage of seeing things from a different and more accurate perspective should be listened to when they have everyone's best interest at heart. When a police officer nabs someone for reckless driving, the offense can be extreme enough to warrant a loss of licence and car impoundment, making the roads that much safer for all drivers. Yes, some cops are corrupted, but if we didn't trust the vast majority of cops who aren't, the world would be a fiasco (considering your name, I think you have a pretty good idea of how bad this alternative is).

Posted by: fiasco Mar 30 2008, 03:30 AM

:: befuddled ::

What in the world am I doing with diet pop and creme-filled horns? Did you get this for me, wizard? Thanks! Yes, the diet pop kinda cancels out the pastries. Why do you ask?

But you're not talking guiding me, are you wizard? I have no choice in this, remember? You're talking making decisions about my body without consulting me. You're talking about forcing me to undergo a procedure--for want of a better word--which will alter me irrevocably.

I don't trust you mostly because I don't know you. You appeared out of thin air--like a big far--erm, pop. And then you start telling me that what I know will cause chaos and you can help me by mind control. I don't know you from Adam, never heard of this Ministry of Magic, and I'm supposed to trust you implicitly? Gull-i-bull thy name is muggle, eh? Or am I supposed to be a simpleton? Or simply in awe?

See, in my world, blind trust can get you killed. Perhaps you didn't know that?


Which is exactly my point: you're asking me to trust in your greater knowledge and wisdom, you're telling me that you're going to do something for my own good, but for all I know you're just handling me. For all I know you're as bad as--see, I just can't trust you. Your system has flaws in it, too. And how do I know that your philosophy of mind control, that your reasoning behind it, isn't flawed, too?


Well, fair enough. That wizard didn't give me the Harvard School of Law text on your system of crime and punishment, to be sure it was just the cliff notes. So I'll admit I could be a bit reactionary on that score.


Ahh, don't think I don't know what you're doing here. Instead of a nice, soft, seductive "for your own good" you're going to the scare tactics of the mad woman in the attic. Oooh, all you need is a couple dozen cats and this and you'll be known as Crazee Fiasco. Kids'll make fun of you; you'll never get a date again, let alone a second husband. You'll be an outcast. An outcast. A fate worse than death.

But really, what makes you think I'll tell anyone? I've seen The X-Files; I know what is done to people who tell. By both sides.


Wow, wizard, you better have one of these pastries because I think you're puzzler is getting sore. I mean, you're sounding oddly petulant and childish here, and it's diluting your argument.

Look, I get it. I'm going to suffer pain. A lot of it. Now, when I'm on the rack or whatever you guys use, I'm sure I'll be wishing I had chosen differently--after all, I had to get, erm, use liquid courage to get my ears pierced the second time; I am a certified ninny. Besides, they say there are no atheists in a fox-hole.

But for all my muggle flaws, and my American flaws, I truly and reverently believe this: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Now, when push comes to shove, will I have the moral and physical strength to stand up for my beliefs? I want to. I pray I do. If I'm found wanting, the shame and the pain will be mine.


Whoops--forgot something else on my cirriculum vitae: I'm a government employee. In the state police. So, you see, I'm someone who has her finger on the button, so to speak. But whatever; my occupation isn't pertinent here.

However, giving a ticket to someone is not the same as violating their person.

We have a civil contract: we pay taxes, we obey the laws, the government protects us from foreign invaders, all sorts of things are in this civil contract. But the civil contract does not allow the government to mind-rape us. Even for our own good.

Posted by: Shard Mar 30 2008, 07:17 AM

I'd just like to add a little bit in here about Mr. Roberts, when we last see him he is severaly damaged and can't seem to even figure out what time of year it is. To me that is VERY bad thing, how do we know that will even wear off? Will he be able to keep his job and support his family? Do the wizards even care what their constant memory modifying may have done to him?

Look at Lockhart did to himself and that was only one spell imagine what has happened to Mr. Roberts. I truly don't understand why they didn't have wizards only at this event, they could have found ways to keep the "muggles" or rather non-magical HUMANS out.

Posted by: lirene Mar 30 2008, 10:40 AM

I say this with a smile; Fiasco, I think your sarcasm is absolutely precious . I would like to point out that when I give an opinion about memory modification, this opinion applies to the fictional world of Harry Potter. My beliefs outside of this realm are very different. We are different people, with different views and every point of view is valid, even if I don't agree with it. And by the way, I am not a wizard, so referring to me and other posters as "wizards" is umm, just a tad off .

To address the Salem Witch Trials; I do believe we have evolved; no question about this; however, your reply to my post was out of context. When I said that Muggles couldn't handle the knowledge of wizards and witches I was speaking of those early times. I will repeat; the Statute of Secrecy in Potterverse was created the year of the witch trials. I was highlighting the fact that Rowling references historic dates in her books and she does so for a reason. In Potterverse, the witch trials, in my opinion are what caused wizards and witches to fear for their safety. I didn't say that wizards had cart blanche to do whatever they wanted; however, again, so no one is confused, in Potterverse I am sure that Muggle governments knew about this. In Potterverse, I believe that the Statute of Secrecy was necessary, as was memory modification for the protection of wizards/witches and Muggles. However, later in my same post, I replied that it is very possible post-Voldemort for these to be lifted. (Also, let's not forget about Ariana. Did she deserve the treatment she got from those Muggle boys? Who gave them the right to attack her to begin with? She was doing magic out in the open and because those boys were scared they brutalized her). So the take away message I got from Arian's plight is that people are still very scared by those who are very different from themselves. And unfortunately, I see it too often in real life.

Real world view: I live in the US too; we have come so far in our "philosophical evolution" we can't get past racial differences in our own Democratic presidential candidates. That's all we hear and see. It is pointed out all the time. And this from a government and society that tells us race shouldn't matter. So, in a very real sense, memory modification is going on all the time in the real world; it's just more subtle. And we don't even have to call it memory modification; we'll call it influence. I believe we are influenced all the time; by good things and by bad. And the media is no less innocent in this regard. I really do hope this changes.

As for your being a feminist fiasco, that's wonderful; however, I don't recall having to be a feminist to be able to use the F-word; so this is irrelevant.

By the way, 1984 is one of my favorite books of all time (I love Orwell's books), and I loved Blade Runner. After I read your post fiasco, I went and bought myself some cream filled horns.. Yummy..


I believe that Mr. Roberts at this stage in his life developed Alzheimer's dementia and that this dementia was most probably only age related; dementia can be severely incapacitating in this age group. Lockheart: the memory charm backfired from Ron's very damaged wand.

Posted by: harrydavid Mar 30 2008, 01:19 PM

Just to keep the facts straight:
Mr Roberts condition was temporary, according to Arthur. And it only came about because they had to make him forget a really big thing, the torturing of his entire family by the Death Eaters. Not because of repeated small modifications as you imply.
Lockhart's problem didn't come from a simple memory modification, he was deliberately trying to wipe out Ron's memory when the charm backfired.

Fiasco, your reaction is exactly why wizards don't ask us if we would like to have the memory modification. They just do it and what we don't know can't hurt us.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 30 2008, 01:26 PM

Unfortunately, as Lirene has pointed out, the Potterverse is so different from the world we live in that it is impossible to draw an exact parallel to the situation we are discussing. OTOH, you are also over-exaggerating the principles of a memory charm. You seem to think that the memory charm has uncomfortable side effects that will forever change your life. A memory charm simply erases a memory, causing no physical side-effects or permanent damage. The Lockhart example was different: he was using a broken wand that backfired - this was the only reason it had "damaging" effects (as we saw, only his mind was altered, not his body, and he mind was slowly healing).

As for the Mr. Roberts situation, Arthur Weasley explains:



Mr. Roberts' situation was once again an extreme situation, but even here, the side-effects are neither permanent nor damaging.



You don't know doctors all that well, though do you? When you break your ankle, you trust a doctor to put a cast on you, give you crutches, and keep tabs on your healing progress. But how do you know you can trust this doctor? How do you know that the diplomas on the wall aren't fake? How do you know that this doctor's real intention is not to help you, but to make your injury worse? Because the vast majority of them are good, and can help speed up the healing process. You don't know the first thing about medicinal remedies, so you rely on someone well-practiced in them, knowing that if you don't, no good will come out of it.

A wizard is no different in this situation. A Muggle has no idea how magic works, but a wizard does, and any good, honest wizard (which the vast majority are) will do you a great favour. The only difference is that the Muggle has no idea what dangers will come from not having their memory erased, which makes the Muggle's situation that much more dangerous. As you said, blind trust can get you killed, and walking around with information that is harmful to you can be seen as blind trust: you are blind because you don't know the danger you are in, but you are trusting the fact that no harm will come out of this knowledge.




This is why I gave the second scenario - the DE one. It doesn't matter what you do with this knowledge, you will be in danger if you keep it.



So, you now understand that you are in danger - grave danger at that - and you still aren't willing to submit to protection for the sole reason that you don't understand it?



I don't blame you for this, but this is a moot point because the memory charm's effects are permanent - you won't be in danger again unless you stumble upon the WW again (just like a broken ankle won't break again on it's own).



But the government does have the power to prevent catastrophes, and deal justified punishments to law-breakers. A Muggle discovering the WW is against the law (unless the said Muggle is related to someone in the WW), and even though it seems harsh to "punish" someone for something they did by accident with no intent to break any laws, the "severity" of the punishment in question isn't exactly harsh. The memory charm has no damaging effects, nor does the person even feel disciplined. The "punishment" is just as innocent as the "crime".

Besides, in the Muggle world, memory modification isn't an option. If it could be done with as much effeciency, and with as few damaging effects as the magical one, I'm sure that it would be used when sensitive confidential information is leaked (whether accidentally or on purpose), so there's no reason why wizards should feel ashamed of exercising their opitions.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 30 2008, 03:45 PM

Really is there any evidence at all that Scrumgeour or Fudge is wiser than the most competent of all non-magical leaders?
The only power Wizards have is magic--magic does not to me indicate intelligence, or better methods to deal with mental illness for example, like depression or behavior disorders. Wizards still keep a other intelligent beings in bondage. The only thing Magic indicates is Wizards wizards have bigger and better weapons. That can be equalized with knowledge.

Again to assume because Wizards have greater ability to kill non-magical people than the other way around, denotes Wizards, like the Carrows for example are 'wiser" boggles the imagination.

Posted by: Eir de Scania Mar 30 2008, 04:12 PM

The only wizarding society we know is the British one, and us Muggles could take it over in a week if they knew more about it. First, we make a deal with the Goblins. Wizards migth let those ever-rebelling magic beings control their economy, but Muggles have more sense. Then, we put a couple of hardened Fleet Street hacks in charge of The Prophet. The wizarding world will not know what hit it.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 30 2008, 04:13 PM

I never once said that the Minister for magic was wiser than all other leaders. The "most brilliant wizard" that I was referring to was DD, if that's what you are referring to.

What I'm saying is that the wizarding community as a whole is wiser than that of the Muggle population in terms of knowing the dangers surrounding the event in which the WW is discovered.



Not necessarily. The only genetic difference between wizards and Muggles is magic, but there is also an intellectual difference that follows: Since wizards are part of the WW, they know exactly why it's a secret. Obviously, Muggles aren't even aware of the WW to begin with (for the most part, anyway - families related to wizards and the Prime Minister are the only exceptions), hence they cannot know what the dangers of discovering it are. To Muggles, the discovery of the WW would be just like any other discovery: something to be amazed by, and something that can be potentially used to try to make the world a better/easier place in which to live.

However, wizards have the extended wisdom of knowing why this wouldn't work, which makes wizards very different from Muggles even without the obvious genetic ones. Yes, the genetic difference is a result of this, but you can't say that this knowledge is genetically hard-wired into the magical community's brain; it's a knowledge that is passed down from generation to generation, rather like the spells, potions, etc.

Posted by: fiasco Mar 30 2008, 10:49 PM

This virtual world is indeed a difficult one for me to navigate, which is why I have so few posts here. I thought of putting an absurd amount of emoticons in my posts or leading off with some sort of disclaimer, but I was certain that the spirit of the thing would shine through. I mean, I referenced Bugs Bunny and the Grinch and I got my memory modified right at the end of one post, and got it back at the beginning of another. I thought the playfulness of the thing was obvious. I was mistaken.

But my modus is inappropriate here, so before I withdraw from the discussion--which I have been reading and enjoying since its inception--let me state, even though it should go without saying, that I do not think anyone in this discussion is a wizard. Likewise, I do not think I am a muggle who has just discovered the existence of magic and is being interrogated by a wizard. I adopted the personna--and assigned personnas to some of you--merely for discussion's sake. That, and because I thought it was fun twist.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 31 2008, 09:12 AM

Please don't. I greatly enjoyed your post.

The intellectual difference is like comparing Chruchill and Mozart--with the wizards as Mozart. And I think--someone correct me--they were both Masons. Masons are a secret society but not because of their talents, but tradition.
It does not justify Wizards modifying memories.

That's just using magic as force, HarryPotterGeek no matter how nicely a package we try to wrap it in.
Jo doesn't give her non-magical side a chance, she doesn't choose to recognize their virtues and gifts and powers except for their ability to produce a witch. For a wizard what's the point of Muggles in the world other than cluttering up the train stations?

Posted by: lirene Mar 31 2008, 10:58 AM

The entire plotline of the story centers around the magical world. I really don't see why Muggles and their gifts and powers should have been a focus; what chance is she supposed to give them? The coin could have been flipped and the story could have been told about Muggles. The Muggle population for the most part is in the background. So my question is this: do you think the fact that Rowling does focus on the magical powers of wizards and witches, and can sometimes overlook virtues of Muggles (or what is perceived as being overlooked); does this take anything away from the enjoyment of the books in general? I politely disagree with the last sentence I bolded: I don't think a single comment that Molly made should be taken as a generalization of how wizards view the Muggle population.

I interpret what Rowling is saying that yes; Muggles can conceive wizards and witches; so yes, Muggles and wizards are different; but are they really all that different?

Fiasco; hindsight is 20/20; after careful consideration and discussion with a friend of mine, my comment about being called a wizard being "a tad off" is not warranted; and I apologize. As you posted above, it was done in fun, and I take the entire blame for the misinterpretation . (I would love to be a wizard ).

Posted by: Oxymoronic Mar 31 2008, 10:59 AM

No, it doesn't allow them to, um, "mind-rape" us, so to speak, but it certainly doesn't stop them from attempting to do so. And that of course depends on what your definition of mind-rape is.

Governments of the world have been doing lots of sinister stuff to the populace, for the "greater good", or so they tell themselves I haven't a doubt. Even attempts at mind control.

There are those in the WW that, for whatever nefarious reasons, meddle with muggle memory (try saying that five times real fast). However, overall, as I understand it, the governmental body of wizarding England at least, does so only in extreme circumstances, and not to gain a mastery over the hapless muggle.

Does this make it right or 'ok'? Not necessarily. But it's not like (as far as we know) they're imprisoning people in some sinister torture lab, where Ewan Cameron backed by the CIA is attempting to erase and remake the human mind. Which actually happened 'for real'.


Hah! That's terribly funny.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Mar 31 2008, 11:49 AM

I would have to disagree here about the focus of the story, as the villian of the piece makes war on the Wizard world and the non-magical world. The Hero lives in the Non-magical world and is targeted for his "blood" connection to this world. The Older Hero admits to wanting to subdue the Non-magical world. Rarely in fantasy stories is the culture who targeted by the evil been shown as powerless and ineffectial as Non-magical England in Harry Potter.

Harry is rescued by a wizard family, instead of Hermione's parents who positinn in society certainly would have impressed Vernon.

Posted by: lirene Mar 31 2008, 12:16 PM

I'll clarify. I said several posts ago that wizards and Muggles coexist. Yes, the characters reside in the Muggle world. However, what I meant was, that the plotline focuses on how the magical population deals with the problems they are presented with: it is up to the magical community to stop Voldemort and the mayhem he has created. And let's not forget, that Harry is the one with the power to stop him; a wizard. So of course, Muggles do come into play, however, they are not the central focus. If you look at what Rowling says below, she focuses on wizards and witches; this is a group of people who have been oppressed; however, this very same group of people very much have the capacity to feel bigotry as well.

Muggles are powerless in the sense that they don't know what is causing the damage. Had they known, it would have created worldwide panic.

Exerpt from an http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0900-ew-jensen.htm Rowling made in 2000;


Reason for edit: clarity and to add the quote above.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Mar 31 2008, 12:29 PM

I agree to an extent, but it's not like us Muggles never use force to prevent a catastrophe either. As I said in earlier posts, spreading the secret of the WW to Muggles - ones that are not the Prime Minister or a relative of a witch/wizard, that is - violates a wizarding law that has been put in place for the protection of wizards and Muggles alike.

When a wizard uses magic in front of a Muggle (like Morfin did), memories have to be modified, and the wizard is disciplined accordingly (even Harry's acceptable use of magic in the midst of a muggle was questioned). When someone commits a crime, whether accidentally or on purpose, there has to be consequences. That being said, crimes that are commited accidentally are dealt with far less severly than ones that are done on purpose. For instance, killing in self defence doesn't usually go past a court trial, but the trial is still considered a consequence. Memory modification works the same way: it is as light of a consequence as you can imagine - the person who's memory is wiped doesn't even know what happened - yet there was still technically a consequence.

Posted by: cobhome Apr 1 2008, 01:34 AM

Fiasco - loved your posts - don't go!!

I can't even wrap my mind around this statement - but - something along the line of all men are created equal - is popping into my head - meaning that NO ONE is wiser than any one else - you know - the basic premise of freedom is that the person is in control of what is done to their body - modifying a memory - is to take that which makes you who you are away from you. Seems self evident to me that this is not okay. The parent - kid arguement implies that muggles are children but wizards are adults?? See little evidence of that in the HP stories.

I do also recall that Arthur Weasley's job was to undo the damage that wizards did to muggles - implying that wizard misbehavior was normal and frequent and that muggles were damaged by it. And then wasn't there that small problem with collapsing bridges and destructive storms ?

I cant imagine that when wizards decided to go into seclusion that there was a mutually agreed upon treaty between the wizards and muggles - since the terms of seclusion clearly put muggles at the mercy of wizards - and even a few hundred years ago - muggles would not agree to such. The seculsion thing seems to have been unilateral - and it also seems to me that wizard society isnt too adept at controlling aberrant elements within their society which put the muggle community at risk - so frankly - why should any muggle trust the wizards?

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 1 2008, 11:47 AM

I know of this statement. I know Miss Rowling worked for Amensty Internation at a time when people of the same skin color were behaving very violently. It was a heartbreaking time. But just because these persons have the same skin color does not denote they are all experience the same hardships and have the same needs and goals. It is not one of Jo's better observations.

If the little bit in GOF in the kitchens was intended to represent this point of view, the kindess thing I can say to Miss Rowling is that her view is simplistic and and naive. The scene too closely resembled the highly offensive Hollywood/Gone With The Wind version of slavery to sit well on the stomach.

I belonged to two groups of persons thought of as oppressed in this country during the fifty, sixties, and early seventies. As individuals people react differently to oppression. In the US the oppression took many forms. Overcoming in the South meant something entirely different to people in the North, many who had fled Jim Crow. Of course the people in the North knew discrimnination and oppression because of skin color, but in different guises.

In the Southern States in the fifties people were trying to sit anywhere they wanted to on the bus. In the Northern states the fight in the late thirties and post war years people were trying and successfully got jobs driving the buses.

Find a copy of Martin Luther King's 1963 in Detroit --I was there--he changes his message of intergration to a message about self-determination. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was in 1955. That was Alabama. But people in New York in 1955 had a different set of problems Compare the dates of the bus boycotts.
It's easy for someone on the outside of the situation to look in and ask why aren't you people working together, but the needs of the people were different, so naturally the fight and attitudes were different based on the individual's . Many people in the North had left the south to flee Jim Crow laws, and had long grown impatient with things as they were in the South.
For example Doctor King and Malcolm X were both very well respected in our communities. People like Ossie Davis had great respect for both men, and could understand although the approach was very different, they had the same goal.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Apr 1 2008, 11:54 AM

As I explained the post immediately after that one, I used the term "wiser" to imply that wizards have the intellectual advantage of knowing what the dangers of having Muggles find out about the WW. Muggles don't have this "wisdom" - or knowledge, if you will - simply because they don't even know about the WW to begin with. Wisdom is relative to particular situations, and in the case of the WW and what happens if it is discovered, wizards are the "wiser" ones.



Notice that the wizards who commited these crimes were punished (or at least, the Ministry tried to catch the DEs responsible for their terrorist movements, but the petty criminals were apprehended). Attacks on Muggles violate two laws: the Statute of Secrecy, and a common-sense one about unprovoked attacks (which also exist in the Muggle world), so the government dealt with these crimes accordingly.



You seem to be under the impression that wizards went into hiding because they were dangerous to the Muggles. This may have some truth to it, but really, the Muggles were dangerous to the wizards. Even before the Statute of Secrecy was put in place, the WW wasn't all that obvious, and when it was discovered (or rather, when the Muggles thought they discovered it), they became hostile, resorting to capital punshment once a conviction was made. By establishing the Statute of Secrecy, both parties are protected, which is why actions must be taken by the Ministry of Magic to uphold the secrecy, whether it's a muggle stumbling upon the hidden WW, or a wizard "muggle-baiting". Both of these scenarios violate a law that was established to protect muggles and wizards alike, so wizards must to what is necessary to right the wrong.

The mere fact that the SoS exists, along with the other by-laws that were established later on, shows that wizards are more than willing to help protect muggles in ways they can't manage to do themselves. They realize that if wizards don't control themselves, Muggles are in danger, so the Ministry set up laws to protect these muggles from this potential danger.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 1 2008, 12:00 PM

Magic used to modify memories against one's will is magic used as force, not wisdom. I have a gun, you have a spear is not claiming superior intelligence or wisdom. It's just one group enforcing it wants because they have better weapons. The group we should fear is the group who has made better weapons. I know the excuse: Better weapons to "protect" the so called better society. This so-called ethical argument falls apart when we see the "better" society exploiting the resources of the other society at will.

The "Other Minister" chapter shows Voldemort managing to kill Muggles whether they knew about him or not, so what lesser danger is there in "not knowing" what is coming after you to kill you?
At least if the Muggles knew what to expect, they could make some move to defend themselves.

But this is not how Jo sees it. I think she does see the story just about the wizard world, like the dime westerns, and the early movies of the "how the west was won" was really not about Indians, although there were cardboard Indians in the movies for the Cowboys to shoot at will, ocasionally to romance a Indian Maiden to prove how much more suited, kinder the Cowboy is as a mate, or how much more desirable the pale haired woman is to even savage men.
The formula is the same in HP.
Muggles in HP are exist for Wizards to protect, kill, laugh at, and reprimand, but not as real persons, as bad abusive husband, or like Hermione's parents nice but impotent cardboard characters.

Posted by: Shard Apr 1 2008, 12:35 PM

I think there are differences between the House Elves and Blacks Maime.

Blacks had been enslaved for about 300 or 400 years, there way of life and memories of what it was like to be free reletivly still fresh in their minds. They still had their spirit is what I mean. The house elves seem to have been slaves for thousands of years PLUS we do have to consider just what that magical contract does to them. It may sap some of that lust for freedom especially if an House Elf is treated fairly, they get to comfortable and forget what it is to be free.

The House elves seem to be a race that doesn't need material things so have little need for money. We do I think need to remember that they aren't human, and I don't mean that they are inhuman, just that they have a different view of the world. Much like the Goblins and Centuars have their own view and culture and way of doing things.

The Wizards for instance do not agree with Goblin property rights but does that necessarly make the Goblins wrong?

If there is one complaint I have seen from some who read Sci-Fi and Fantasy stories is that the non-human races don't seem to be "different" or "alien" enough, that they are just humans in costume. So I feel it is a mark of good writing to create a race of creatures that truly acts differently then the way we think and feel should be right or wrong.

I still think the House Elves should have the right to choose whether to be cleaning machines, I just see nothing wrong if they continue to choose that once given the freedom to choose otherwise.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 1 2008, 12:51 PM

Human beings as a race have enslaved each other for longer than that wizards enslaved elves. I used the British/American enslavement as an example. Remember the US inherited the institution of slavery from it's forefather's mother culture's--the majority of the Founding Fathers were British citizen.

During the fictional time elves that elves were put in bondage to Wizards, the people of the British Isles had been enslaved by everyone from the Celts, to the Romans, to later the Saxons and Normans.

The spirit of Freedom managed to rear it's head in the british Isle, against the invaders, and then against the serf system, and then against the Crown itself, resulting in the House of Commons.

For the one thousand fictional years the British Wizards held the British Elves in Bondage, Britain led the world in letters, speeches, ideals of freedom or liberty that these people from the highest born to the lowly, held as their right-although as Empire they often robbed other nations and cultures of this same right.

What makes the Wizard enslavement of elves so wrong, is that everything about the wizards suggest that like their non-magical brothers, they feel entitled to certain freedoms, opportunities, and freedom of movement simply because they existed. Every one else: Muggles, elves, Centaurs,goblins existance was to bask in their glow or provide for them. Goblins only funcion in the society was provide a safe place for Wizard goods. Elves to serve--they did more than clean house it seems.

There is nothing particularly innovative in the elves condition considering the country they are in bondag. The elves are kept at a non-threatening minority, their culture erased as if it never existed--so I would disagree that there are no similarities even with the enslavement of the various people's of African in the English, French, and Spanish Colonies of the US.

Posted by: Shard Apr 1 2008, 01:21 PM

I didn't say there were no similarites I only meant that the Elves seem to have been enslaved longer then any one group of people. That if they had any individual culture or way of life it has long been forgotten and replaced with eternal servitude, it's all they know now. They don't use folk songs to remember the past, they don't have secret meetings to celebrate and keep their way of life going.

I do agree about your point on the Wizards feeling superior to everyone else, Hermione has been very vocal about this.

I have seen each race in the books, from the Giants to the House elves really give a different way of thinking and perspective. The only thing I am defending here is Jo's use of Slavery in GoF, I do think given long enough and the right methods a group of people's spirit can be broken. It is I believe as Hermione said that the House Elves have been brought up to only think of themselves as servants, they don't know or remember anything else.

They have been denied creating anything of their own having to use human rags to dress them selves. They don't seem to sing or dance or anything other then work. The problem with their own lack of spirit seems to come from the constant and consistant keeping them in place with Magical contracts. These are not simple pieces of paper, when Harry's name came out of the Goblet he HAD to play. It was a binding contract just like House Elves contracts. Why didn't they just say no to his playing? Was there a conseqence if he didn't? To me it seems that Harry was under magical obligation to enter the Tournament just as the House Elves are Magicaly ordered to work and hurt them selves when bad.

I think that would break any ones spirit eventually, Human, House Elf or any race.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 1 2008, 01:48 PM

Maybe this is the difference in perspective, then.. I saw nothing to suggest that elves' spirit was broken. Rather it seem that in knowing their place, they had no understanding that liberty was their by right of existance--knowledge that the Wizards had.

Kreacher and Winky were very spirited and sincere in their love of the masters. Dysfunctional or not, the Blacks and the Crouch's were their family. But it's not about surface kindness, as much as Mrs. Black or Mr. Crouch treating their servants as part of the household. They had a place in the household. It is easy for we who are without the household to accuse the wizards of exploiting the position of the elves, which they did, but they possibly didn't feel they were doing anything wrong. It becomes more wrong when someone like Dumbledore, who acknowledges that the condition of bondage is wrong, nonetheless exploits it for his benefit. Giving the Elves who are in bondage the right to call him a balmy old coot is less justifiable that Sirius, who after Kreacher insults him and his guest to get out. Dumbledore, who acknowledges their equality yet does not give the elves their freedom, does the "idea" of liberty the greater disservice if that makes any sense. Hermione should not have to ask Dumbledore to do this and convincing the elves that they do him a greater honor working for him as a free elves should not have difficult for Dumbledore at all.

It's rather like Jefferson telling Madison (also a slave owner) or John Adams (never owned slaves) that he allowed his slaves a rich education- some better than most freed white people of the time--as long as they as they used this education in improving Monticello--his estate. Jefferson sold slaves to settle his debts, and his concubine and sons were not freed until after his death.

He could not see the hypocrisy between his words and actions. When this was brought to his attention(Not only concerning the peoples of African descent, but the US encroachment upon "Indian" territories) , rather than correct his actions he began to put forth theories of racial superiority based in physical attributes that still haunt us. He is hardly the first; the ancient Greeks and Romans had a list of things they consider defined civilized and barbaric behavior. If one's culture was found barbaric, then the Romans and Greek felt it was their duty to enslave the people, exploit their resources--of course giving the people a chance to raise themselves to "Roman" standards.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Apr 1 2008, 01:59 PM

I'm not disputing the fact that the act of modifying memories is using force, but the reason why memories are modified is wisdom. In your example of a gun vs. a spear, if you are using your spear to harm/kill others, then my use of a gun to break the spear is justified. By letting a Muggle run amok with the discovery of the WW, the WW itself is in danger (as are the Muggles, which I have already explained), so wizards using their "weapons" as tools to eliminate the threat with as little force as possible is justified. Remember, wizards don't kill muggles for finding out about the WW, they simply eliminate the source of the threat (the memory) just like how I eliminated the threat of your spear with my gun rather than killing you.



For one thing, you can't judge the entire WW on the actions of one deranged lunatic. It would be like judging all the Germans based on Hitler's actions.

For another, telling the muggles that there is a murderous wizard on the loose would make things far worse than what they already are. The muggles, out of panic and fear, would immediately start running around trying to evacuate or hide, making them easier targets for LV. Not only that, but then the WW would no longer be a secret, and once LV's reign of terror ended, the mayhem of having muggles know about the WW would take effect.



How on earth can you suggest that Jo doesn't think Muggles aren't real people?! With the way that DD, Harry, and all the other good wizards attempt to protect the muggles from LV (see the Potterwatch scene), you can't possibly think that the WW doesn't recognize Muggles as real people. Just because they have no power to help with the war, doesn't mean they aren't valuable as human beings. A more accurate comparison would be to compare Muggles with children: neither can really defend themselves in a war situation, but the people doing the fighting are committed to protecting them.

Posted by: lirene Apr 1 2008, 02:16 PM

I am having a hard time understanding why you feel that Muggles are being portrayed as "cardboard" characters. Because this isn't my impression at all. This implies to me at least Maime (and I very well might be wrong) that you believe that there is gross discrimination toward Muggles. That by showing that wizards and witches have powers, Rowling is maligning the Muggle world. I don't share this view at all and I believe the quote I referenced in my previous post by Rowling herself is right on the mark. She is showing wizards and witches, that have been ostracized for so many years dealing with their own struggles. She shows how the magical community; which seems so different than Muggles; how many of them are just like Muggles. They love, hate, murder, joke around, are bigoted, etc. She demonstrates, quite brilliantly how wizards and witches, who share the power of magic, deal with hardships in their own society; and how that society in and of itself can be divided.


I quite agree with your statements.

Posted by: Oxymoronic Apr 1 2008, 02:31 PM

(Bolding mine)
Actually, this doesn't make much sense to me. Are you forgetting that in this world that we are discussing, the elves thought along the same lines as Winky - who was clearly devastated to have been given her freedom?

You cannot realistically compare actual slavery in Jefferson's time to the plight of the house elf in Harry Potter because house elves wanted to serve, wanted to have someone to care for and please, and thought the very idea of freedom as an alien thing, a thing to be feared and scorned.

Remember, Dobby was the exception. So I'm not sure why you're determined to point the finger at Dumbledore. He actually wanted to offer Dobby more in the way of income and give him more days off, but Dobby shuddered at the mere thought. How do you know Dumbledore never attempted to discuss freedom and choice with the Hogwarts elves?

Seems like the very type of thing he'd do, although I'm certain he would have been met with utter resistance. That's the twist in Rowling's world - whether treated poorly or not, it seemed a life of servitude to a wizarding family was far preferable to freedom. It seems the majority of the house elves we come across are insulted at the mere mention of being given clothes. Why do you think they avoided Hermione's well-meaning but clearly misguided attempts at giving them their freedom?

They ended up avoiding Gryffindor tower like the plague! So I cannot comprehend how this form of slavery - a very weird and twisted form, no doubt - can be compared fully to those poor Africans who were brought here against their will and forced to serve their white masters. Of course there are similarities and parallels, but I highly doubt any of the slaves in Jefferson's time would have balked at the idea of freedom.

The fact that we know nothing about how the elves in Rowling's world came into their form of enslavement doesn't help this conversation along, but I'm intrigued by the magical powers that elves seem to enjoy.

In many ways, it seems a more powerful magic, an older magic somehow. Yet, for whatever reason, they as a race are portrayed as happiest serving their respective families.

I'm not excusing slavery in any form, but this is the overall context of it in Rowling's story.

Posted by: harrydavid Apr 1 2008, 05:18 PM

I agree with those who oppose slavery in any form. I believe however that we are not looking at the right way to free the house elves. We are told in many different ways that they are enslaved by magic. Dumbledore talks about Kreacher being bound by the "enchantments of his kind." We are told that a house elf is magically bound to serve one family for life. That is why the elves don't seem to want freedom.

We know that to free an individual house elf the master has to present it with clothes. But we want to free all of them. I believe that Hermione's attempt to free the Hogwarts house elves was well meaning, but misguided and could never have worked. She wasn't their master, so her giving them clothes wouldn't have done anything to change their status.

The better way to attack the problem of house elf enslavement would be to study the magic that holds them bound to their enslavement and find a way to reverse it. Then the house elves would no longer be magically enslaved and would want and welcome freedom. Then the wizards could hire them to do whatever work the wizards wanted them to do and the elves were willing to do at whatever salary they agreed was fair.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 2 2008, 01:50 AM

Been gone all day there is a lot to respond to--so this will be long--big surprise...

So the Muggles are justified in their existance because all of the "good wizards" attempt to protect them? What else do the Muggles contribute to the HP universe other than a group of powerless people for Dumbledore and all of the good wizards to protect? Other than human life, what body of knowledge in th non-magical society--besides music--do wizards consider valuable to both societies?
Did wizards travel by magical train before or after Muggles built trains and the train station for wizards to enchant? If it is after, then doesn't it appear that the Wizards feel free to use or exploit the technology of Muggles, but their society and method are kept secret, almost as if these secrets are "sacred"?

Hmm--but wouldn't that mean that I also believe that Wizards are out to get us or that Jo is a wizard? Just teasing.

The Muggles are not portrayed in any depth for someone to claim there is discrimination--just like Indians in the old Westerns.
There are no wizards in the world. Just people with unusual gifts, or societies with impressive technolgy.

There was an old Robert Taylor movie where Robert's character was helping a group of women move to the west. There were many hardships and encounters with Indians, who appeared to attack for no other reason than they were Indians was just another hardship these women had to endure to get to there home. Protecting Muggles are just another cause for the good wizards.

I've seen movies about protecting whales that give the whales more purpose in the universe than Muggles are given in the HP universe. I don't believe this is about discrimination--as wizards do not exist. But the Muggles are more cardboard like characters. Even in that strange Orca movie with Richard Harris, the Orca saves a human from a great white shark, before they kill it's mate. King Kong gets to save the girl, and before he is stolen protects the people of the Island from all the big bad creatures that possibly ate them up after he was taken. (Gotta wonder where the heck Kong came from...)

But Muggles are two dimensional and impotent in the HP universe. Hermione's parents are silent, background figures, needed so Hermione is a Muggleborn witch, but they have little other purpose than this. I don't quite recall, but do they know their thirteen year old daugher has been petrified or nearly killed in a battle, to want to try and help?

It is, for a fantasy, a very unusual choice for a writer to have a magical and non-magical world meet, and protray the non-magical world as totally dependent of the benficence of the "good wizards" for their protection. In most stories magical and non-magical, even mortal and immortal become partners. To protect the Muggles the wizards wipe their memories or hide them, but wizards do nothing to arm the Muggles to protect themselves. Of course in Jo's universe, arming the Muggle's is not possible.

Muggles are at the mercy of Wizards good or bad. I'm trying to think of another fantasy story that portrays the non-magical world as totally defenseless, and I'm coming up blank. Even in mythlogy, the hero's are given aids by the gods to stand up to the supernatural beings even if the evil is backed by another god-figure.

However, even with Muggles as props, I am not certain Jo means to imply that wizard's attitude towards others, including their treatment of Muggles, is right.

I never got the feeling that Arthur thought the worlds should be secret to each other. There is that section where we learn Arthur and the young Muggle-born healer attempt to blend magical medicine with non-magical medicine. Arthur at least could see the positive possiblities or blending the two technologies.

From a moral standpoint, consider what Harry's and Dumbledore's view of the fountain at the DOM.
Harry describes the fountain: " Page 156 OOP insert mine.

Dumbledore tells Harry: Page 834 OOP

Sirius showed Kreature outright and absolute dislike, so who is Dumbledore really speaking of? Did Dumbledore think of the elves as anything but the people who have always taken care of the castle until Harry tricked Lucius into freeing Dobby? Did he think of the posibities of paying any elf for his services before Dobby asked? Did he think of the elves as deserving of liberty until Hermione created SPEW? I think SPEW was a good idea, but it should have been aimed at the wizards, the only ones able to break the magic--and in a way, as Hermione is a Muggle born they might dismiss her as not understanding. Here is when Dumbledore has to step up.

By letting a Muggle run amok with the discovery of the WW, Run amok? You mean Muggles -- like Voldemort, his Death Eaters who killed Muggles for fun and sits on thrones made of Muggle skins, has giants cause storms runs amok in the Muggle world--doing the same in the Wizard World? I have a little bit more faith in we mere mortals than this. Of course if we see ourselves as extention of the Paparazzi in the real world, I can understand this fear of discovery--and of course we have history that we as humans do have tendancy to exploit technology.

Still, except for a thousand years in the past, where is the evidence of Muggles running amok in the wizard world? There is plenty of evidence of Wizards running amok in the Muggle world.

Modifying Muggles memories doesn't seem to protect the non-magical world. Hagrid talks about everyone wanting magical solutions. How long did it take eleven year old Harry to discover that there are no magical solutions to disease, hunger, poverty, intolerance, hatred, insecurity? I'm certain adults going into the wizard world would recognize this sooner than an eleven year old child.

And what is wrong with recognizing certain technology to improve one's life? I can't build a computer from scratch but I know how to use one. Of course it is abused by many, and it has a flood of information that can prove as harmful as educational, but as a tool for communication it has more benifit than harm--at least until someone can prove that the Internet is responsible for the hole in ozone layer.

This need for secrecy, and the imagine over the top reaction of Muggles is more plot device than anything. I forgot who said this, but I agree. If Muggles knew about the magical world, even a small group of specially talented Muggles, there would be no moment of discovery for Harry.

Was Winky given her freedom in the "pure" sense of the word or was she was thrown out of her home and leftto fend for herself world that asked what was the point of a Freed elf? Did she have a home to go to, or means to care for herself?

The elves know no other society other than the wizard society. If they had their own culture or place in the world it has been forgotten. Free or in bondage the elves have to live with wizards in the world Wizards have created and where wizards make all the laws. And as Dobby found out, Wizards have no use for free elves. Wizards see no point in a free elf. The Elves have no power to change the way that wizards think, and no means, it seems, like the goblins, to start a community within the community. The Goblins have riches the wizards want. What do the elves have?

Therefore do elves need to change their mind about liberty or do wizards need to demonstrate their rediness to change their minds about the purpose of elf existance?

If you are speaking of the caps, we know what Hermione does not. As she is not the elve's master, the caps were just one more thing for the elves to pick up. Would we be insulted by someone littering our work space with literature promising us something that we know the person had no way of giving us? Even if the caps did free them, was Hermione prepared to find the elves homes, employment, start a school for them?

She couldn't free the elves that way. The only person who could free the house elves (If we look at the situation with Sirius and Harry) was the current master of the House. That was Dumbledore.

I'm not certain that Jo meant to show the elves as not wanting freedom, as much as showing that freedom would be difficult in a world of Wizards who had decided the elves only had one purpose.

When I read the chapter about Winky I saw an individual banished from the only family she had known with no propects, not a slave clinging to bondage.

Her love for Mister Crouch, Barty Junior was real, therefore we have factor in Winky's attitude toward "freedom" that her concern and grief for them was real also. One of the more difficult things to learn as an abuse counselor is not to dismiss or try to make a person dismiss what ever true feelings they have for a husband or parent who has betrayed them by abusing them.

Winky is a better individual than her masters, because her sense of loyalty and love towards her "family" doesn't waver, even when Crouch maltreats her. Hermione does seem to understand and acknowledge that Crouch's cruelty stems from the fact that he has thrown the elf out of the only home she has ever known giving her just the clothing on her back. He owed her much than this.

I'm not certain that it is implied that Hermione in her continued effort for Elfin rights took this route.

The reason I used Jefferson as an example is because when Jefferson spoke, Young America listened, but they looked at his actions as well. He is still quoted by lovers of liberty and racial supremcist alike. In the fictional world HP world, when Dumbledore spoke, people took notice as well. It's not about "blaming" Dumbledore, but perhaps meeting Dumbledore who realized the extent of his power to influence in different manner.

Dumbledore understands that elves are equal beings to Wizards. He understand liberty or freedom on a deeper level than "freedom" means one is paid for one's services. Who better to set an example for his fellow Wizards than Dumbledore by freeing Hogwart's elves and giving them not only the opportunity to work as free elves at Hogwarts but to know all of the other benifits of liberty--including allowing elfin children to attend school there? Allow his fellow wizards to see that free elves enhance their community better than enslaved elfs with no self will.

Actually Jefferson sites this as one reason for educating his slaves. What Adams and freed men like Benjamin Banneker's tried to get Jefferson to understand is an educated slave, though better prepared for the world is still his property.

Dumbledore notes that Kreacher is as unhappy in his service as Dobby, but he does not recommend liberty as a solution. Sirius tells Hermione liberty is too dangerous because of what they might choose. If you read the letters of those who argued for and against liberty for Africans (There were white slaves or Indentured in the US--Irish, German) was fear, because these people were so obviously different. And in the Revultionary War there were persons of African descent who glady joined the British who promised freedom. Things didn't go well for them.

It doesn't matter that Dumbledore gives the elves more freedom and kindness than any previous headmaster--perhaps since Helga Hufflepuff herself. The elves, whom he considers equals to wizards, are still property of the School.

I understand that the needs of the plot shuts all the doors to the possibility of Sirius or Harry giving Kreacher his liberty, with the "Payment" for his services of allowing him choose whether or not he would like to stay on at the house, as he possibly couldn't find any other employment.
However, nothing about the plot suggest to me that this was not an option for any character--just not an option that suited the plot.

Actually I'm a bit puzzled: Bellatrix was free when Regulus was killed. The war went on about a year or two more. I'm certain that Mrs. Black would not have minded if Kreacher asks to assist Missy Bella or Missy Narcissa. Kreacher just wasn't supposed to tell Mrs. Black what Regulus had done--to protect the family. Mrs. Black had been dead for how many years while Sirius was in jail? When Sirius told Kreacher he went to Narcissa "the only black family member for whom he any respect left...Black's cousin Narcissa, sister of Bellatrix and wife of Lucis Malfoy." Unless the only way he could leave the house before this was someone ordering him to, why didn't go to Narcissa for help sooner? Of course he couldn't ask her either.

Posted by: Shard Apr 2 2008, 05:38 AM

In defense of the Muggles represented in Jo's story I don't think they have ALL be cardboard cut outs. The Prime minister didn't seem completly helpless, or rather he didn't seem to really need or want Fudge's help. Frank Bryce was downright inspiring in his bravery against Voldemort. Dudley actually grew as a person and redeemed himself.

Though Jo has admited to not reading alot of Fantasy so she perhaps hasn't seen how a Melee fighter can take out a Wizard. In the Modern world the Muggles would need to use what Kingsley referred to as "firelegs". The Wizards show very little respect towards Technology. Even Arthur's facination borders on patronizing "Bless them" as if he was refering to a child completing a difficult task he didn't expect them to.

Jo does want the main focus to be on the Wizarding world has Harry never really lives in the Muggle world, only visits it for short amounts of time and in a limited exposure. Especially in the later books. I really don't know how integrated he is with Muggle life in adulthood. Having an driver's license only means he can use a car.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 2 2008, 12:48 PM

What was his name again? How many kids does he have? Is he married, divorced, have a long time same-sex partner. What is his relationship with the Crown? Does he have to contact the Queen. What is he asked to do to help protect their country?



But what was more interesting:

Page 8
Why should Muggles fear to say a magical criminal's name.

Keep in mind that English wizards can ban flying carpets:

Page 9


I agree. However, strangely enough with the limited exposure the Muggle world is given, there is constant mention of their existance and wizards are involved in the Muggle world. It is Harry's second home. The Muggle world is Voldemort's second target and his hostage. Muggle-skin are Voldemort's seat covers.



Or a heat seeking missle take out an army of giants. She obviously has seen or read a certain kind of fantasy where a group individuals can be faceless victims or enemies.

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Apr 2 2008, 12:58 PM

What about Muggle technology? Not all wizards are terribly interested in it, but Arthur most certainly is, and DD and Ron show signs of interest in Muggle things (Ron's interest was sparked at the mention of hidden microphones and aqualungs). Even though wizards have found more efficient alternatives, many of them are fascinated by muggle substitutes.

As a muggle-world parallel: the Natives of arctic regions employ the use of igloos as their main form of shelter, but people in other regions hardly ever use them because they have other, more efficient forms of shelter to use. Does that mean that these Natives have no value to the rest of the world? Of course not!

Also, people live in certain area (such as Africa) where there are plenty of mosquitoes emplou the use of mosquito netting. Very few places have that big of a mosquito problem, so does that mean that the people who do use them have no use to the people who don't? Of course not!

In both of these cases, the said groups with "unique technology" live in places that the "other people" will want to visit (whether on holiday, for research, etc.), in which case the use of this technology will come in handy. The same goes for wizards and muggles. When wizards live in their own world, they have no use for things like cars, but when they venture into the Muggle world for whatever reason, such technology is quite useful.



You just proved my point about why running amok with information is a bad idea. one way or another, the information will get out.

But no, I don't mean run amok like LV and his DEs; you can't compare the two. Intentionally causing mayhem is different from mayhem building up from curiosity. You are comparing terrorism with a quest for discovery - these two are completely different. LV and his DE didn't target muggles in an attempt to use them for their different technology, they targeted them to kill them - to eliminate them from the face of the earth. Very different that Muggles trying to badger wizards for their magical abilities .



Again, muggles would be more interested in how magic can make life more convenient at first, and would milk this for all it's worth.



The problem is that this desire/curiosity would escalate to mayhem. When something is discovered, the full range of it's uses is tested. Some uses take longer to discover than others, but the quest to reach the discovery's full potential is always there. Since the magical discoveries that have already been made have a wide range of uses as they are right now, there's enough to keep the muggles pestering the wizards for magical help rather profusely.

With wizards, it's different, because they are only vaguely interested in what muggles have to offer. At least, most wizards are; Arthur is an obvious exception. In fact, considering how much Arthur ferrets for more information about Muggle stuff (which isn't nearly as useful as magical stuff), just imagine how much a Muggle would pester a wizard for magical ways of making life more convenient.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 2 2008, 02:27 PM

Note Shard's answer.

And the fact that we have to search the actions and comments of Wizards to discover what contribution if any Muggles make in the HP universe is very telling.

Which is a good reason to suspect their interaction with Muggles.

I don't consider free trade between different cultures pestering. Think of the nations who national product is tourism. They thrive on outsiders "pestering" them.

Posted by: Shard Apr 2 2008, 06:13 PM

Is any of that important or revelant to the story? I can tell you that Frank Bryce has served in the WW2 and possibly the first one. He got a bum knee from the war and has a passion for cleaning. Not only that but even in his old age still has the bravery to face down people he knows are dangerous criminals. If his Shade we see later on is anything to go by Magic wouldn't have freaked him out either. You are free to disagree but I do see Frank has a Hero.

I may not be able to answer those questions about the Muggle Minister but that doesn't stop me from having sympathy for him. One writers trick is that if you don't want your audience to get attached to a character and yet still use them as a tool you don't name them. Of course Jo would also be dating the book and perhaps connecting it too much if she did give a name. I'm sure she wouldn't have said Tony Blair or the current Gorden Brown.


Petunia does and knows what Voldemort means. They also did make sure the Muggle world know when Sirius was on the loose, his innocence not being a factor since they are alerting the ENTIRE populace of a possibly dangerous criminal on the loose.



I'm sorry if I misunderstood this point but what does that have to do anything? The creatures being brought in were not for use with Muggles nor were any muggles to ever know. I don't even see why Fudge should bother, the creatures are again being kept in the secluded Hogwarts area.

Is the point that the Muggle Minister really has little say in the matter? I suppose if Fudge was a better man he'd give more knowledge about the incidents. It doesn't feel corperative though which I think is your real point. It's all one sided.



Yeah but in Harry's heart Privet Drive NEVER felt like second home, more like a safe house he HAD to stay in. I believe there is a quote somewhere where Harry states that the Burrow is second favorite place. Hogwarts being the inferred first place in that regard. Isn't there also a saying that Home is where the Heart is? His heart is definatly not and never was with the Dursley's so I can never call that place his second home even if he did stay there for a time. Every summer after the first he has sought escape and even gotten out of having to stay there the entire summer.

It is much like Hermione's parents how she spends less and less time with them. How odd that we meet everyone elses caretakers and know them fairly well from Augusta Longbottom, Xenophilius Lovegood, the Weasleys and of course the Potters and Dursleys. Heck I know more about Seamus and Dean's mums then I do HErmione's parents. I think Jo WANTED them to be boring so we wouldn't care or be curious about them. I'm also not sure if Vernon would find them impressive either, he tends to judge people with a harsh ruler.




Someone should introduce her to a world called Shadowrun where Science and Magic DO work together and against each other for that matter. Though to be honest Jo isn't the only writer that has had society split with MAgic and Non Magic people. In the Dark Sword series Margeret Weis and Tracy Hickman have a world that has outlawed Science and Technology because the people considered it Evil and Unnatural. It is then a point of irony that the main character of the story rediscovers Science, the forbidden knowledge, and brings it to save the Magical world.

I'd actually like you to read that and tell me what you think

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Apr 2 2008, 08:59 PM

I didn't exactly have to rack my brains to come up with this example; it was a very obvious one. Arthur's defining character trait is his muggle obsession - anyone who's ever read a HP book even once could tell you that. Once you think of just a couple of scenes in which Arthur displays this obsession, you can immediatey remember other characters that do the same in various scenes throughout the series.

I'll admit that finding other ways in which the existence of muggles benefits wizards would be difficult (other than helping to increase the magical population without interacting with wizards), but considering how important the example I already gave is, and how obvious it is, I don't think you can say that muggles have no use whatsoever to wizards.



In all honesty, I don't see how that contradicts my point. Besides, I never once said that wizards don't interact with muggles - how else would they end up marrying them?



Demanding magical solutions to everyday problems without offering anything in return is not free trade. When I imagine muggles discovering magic, I imagine them greedily begging for solutions to their problems without offering them anything in return; they would not know enough about the WW to know that wizards don't use cars or computers. They would assume that, as humans living on earth, wizards have all the same access to everyday technology as the rest of the world, and have magic as an added bonus. Besides, even if muggles tried to "trade" magic for technology, what could they offer to make the trade fair? The powers of Reparo and Evansco, when applied to the muggle world, cannot not possibly be matched by anything that muggles have to offer.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 2 2008, 09:40 PM

Frank is a war hero. And he was brave. But in the Harry Potter universe, as a Muggle, he can only be a victim. However, Frank is a good example of the exception--a better example of an exception than the minister, in my opinion. As you noted: As a shade, he acts in partnership with the wizard shades to stand against Voldemort and hold him off while Harry escapes.

And Petunia does this too. Doesn't she endanger herself and her own son when she takes Harry in?Danger becomes a reality when Dudley is attacked by dementors? Still she does not allow Vernon to throw Harry out even though there is a clear danger to her family. But Petunia's courage and contribution is marred, almost overshadowed by her neglect and abuse of her guardianship of Harry. Petnuia can't do anything more than give her nephew houseroom, she doesn't bother to ask--and of course Petunia doesn't care enough about Harry or Wizards, (except they are powerful and some are evil) how she can help.

I think it is fair to state as an observation that the Muggles are for the most part, though given impressive background like Frank, impotent or defenseless. They exist in the novel for the most part to reflect the better qualities of wizards. They require the intervention of wizards to protect them--and it is their only source of protevction. The Minister of England could summon tanks to go after the giants and the Death Eaters would probably turn the tanks into field mice--with the Muggles inside. There is no question or expectations that of the existance of a Muggle underground or resistance. They are kept ignorant of what is happening because it is best they don't know that there is a magical world, because they might expect witches like genies to grant their wishes.
That was Jo's choice, and as I like the books, obviously I don't mind that Muggles are powerless and and more props than characters.

However, the Harry Potter books are also novels about the evil of intolerance, genocide, the one leader principal, and ethnic cleansing. How much of the writing for these themes are just for adventure's sakes, how much is written to challenge both artist and audience views about these themes?
As a critical observation the question a reader might asks is: Does Jo books reflect the world's what she has seen of such struggles? Are the Muggles only victims in the fight against evil, rather than partners, because this is what Jo has observed?

There are certainly groups of people in the world because of there social/economic/technological standing who must depend greater nations --greater as in having the resources for defense--for aid. What happens to compassion or the the balance of justice when we began to regard a group of individuals as only supplicants as opposed to partners in the fight against tryanny, poverty, injustice?
How do the greater powers treat such cultures or groups who seem constantly to require their protection or charity, (as supposed to support)?

What is she saying about government when she allows the Wizards to decide what to take from the Muggle world, but choose not to give anything, except protection when a bad wizard crops up. At least the aliens in Men In Black gave the world Velcro, Dennis Rodman, and K's third grade teacher.



Then the magical world and the world of science become partners in the fight against evil or whatever the enemy is in this novel does Magic become useless? Is it like, the Harry Potter series, very grounded in contemporary social dilemmas?

Posted by: harrypottergeek2 Apr 2 2008, 11:33 PM

Didn't DD say (during the end-of-OotP chat) that he explained to Petunia why he left Harry on her doorstep - that he placed a protective charm on 4PD that would work as long as Harry 'lived' there - in the letter he left with Harry? If so, then she would know that by keeping Harry, her family was actually being protected (inside the house, anyway).



I agree - for the most part . However, the key sentence fragment there is "for the most part"; they have other purposes than to just reflect personalities. What you pointed out does not mean that wizards view muggles as unimportant to their world. The qualities that you described here also describe those of children - they can highlight the good qualities of adults (in terms of morals), yet they depend on adults to protect them because they can't really protect themselves. However, just as children are important to the future of the world, muggles are important to the development of life on earth. Muggles make many discoveries that wizards would never think to look for, and many of these discoveries can be useful to wizards as well.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 3 2008, 11:53 AM

This protection didn't work for Dudley and Harry at the playyard. And it's the "inside" the house that mattered because she shopped, her husband went to work, Wizards greeted Harry on the street when he was little. It was not foolproof. I don't think the fact that her nephew was really in serious danger occured to Petunia until Dudley was attacked.

Name five nations or groups of people who would welcome the definition as a "Child Race" or "Child Nation" nneding the constant montoring of knowledge and information from another nation? Take the fanciful Shangri-la of movies and books. They kept themselves isolated, not moving into outside communities at all. I don't recall them wiping memories to keep their existance a secret--but it's been years since I've seen the movies.
But although the wizard world isolates it culture, it does nothing to keep it's citizens from moving out of magical communities and living with non-magical peoples.

Name five governments who would welcome the treatment the Wizard Minister gives the Muggle Minister in HP? We, of course, can name more than five governments who feel because of their system of government, religion, economic, technical or weapons clout, feel they have the right to treat other nations like children. Just because some of us are comfortable with the notion that some nations take on this mantle of parent to other nations and countries, doesn't mean the attitude is welcome. How many conflicts or hot spots are we engaged in at this very moment because of this attitude? In fact for the most part other governments and their people are down right hostile to interference. If the Wizards had an Embassy, Non-magical people would be there daily with protest especially after incidents like Tri-wizard Event with dangerous magical animals, or the giants causing storm and bridges.

Posted by: Maime the Hunter Apr 3 2008, 12:20 PM

These are a few quotes and statements from Jo to push the discussion forward a bit: All quotes and full interviews available on Accio-quote. Choose any of the quotes or interviews and discuss from a critical standpoint (Criticism can be positive, negative, neutral, or simple commentary) any of the statements of themes that catch your fancy and are--in keeping with the thread--interpreted in more than one way.

One on Hermione and the elves:

About political matters in her books: