[UrUROFlS]

The reason that systems of discrimination based on inherited characteristics cannot last in human society after the coming of reformations in social and religious systems is because the premise of any such policy of discrimination – that some group is genetically superior to another – is false. Blacks are not innately inferior, Jews are not innately money-grubbing, untouchables are not inherently unclean, and therefore discriminating or prejudging them based on these stereotypes is wrong. However, what if they were?

1. They can last, are lasting, and will last.

2. Groups do differ genetically in their abilities.

[denwerdinoss]

Originally posted by VetLegion
The reason that systems of discrimination based on inherited characteristics cannot last in human society after the coming of reformations in social and religious systems is because the premise of any such policy of discrimination – that some group is genetically superior to another – is false. Blacks are not innately inferior, Jews are not innately money-grubbing, untouchables are not inherently unclean, and therefore discriminating or prejudging them based on these stereotypes is wrong. However, what if they were?

1. They can last, are lasting, and will last.

2. Groups do differ genetically in their abilities. Nope. Given a few hundred more years, they'll be gone. The genetic differences will also be finished due to interbreeding. I'm talking about major advantages here (such as the ability to use magic, for example), not small changes in body or facial structure.

[JesexhiSeeces]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Within the magical community, a person's magical ability is directly proportional to how much magical blood they have inherited. The higher the amount of magical blood, the better wizard a person is likely to make (on average).

This is absolutely incorrect. Voldemort, who can be considered to be one of the strongest wizards in history is half-blood. His father was a Muggle (hence why he so desperately wanted to get rid of his "Muggle name", Tom Marvolo Riddle). Snape, who is also an accomplished wizards is also a half blood. And of course, I'm sure the irony is not lost on Rowling that Voldemort, a half-blood, is so anti-half bloods.

Ron Weasley, for example, is a pure blood wizard, but no one would argue that he's more powerful (or will even reach the powers) of Lord Voldemort, a half blood.

ALSO, recall that Muggle parents can give birth to someone with magical abilities. One need only look at Hermione Granger or Lily Potter (nee Evans). Both are/were powerful wizards.

This, I believe, conclusively shows that the 'amount of magical blood' matters not and it is the result of hard work in the learning of magic (as well as other qualities like courage, quick thinking, etc) that makes a great wizard or witch. Even children of muggle born can be great wizards in their own right (and, remember, Harry is technically a 'half blood' as his mother was Muggle born, even though she did become a witch). So the 'purity of blood' folk are wrong.

Unfortunately, I think therefore your entire essay will have to be rewritten to take this into account (and I'm not sure if it can be saved) My understanding of the story so far:

a) There existed a community of pure-blooded magical people, who were the "custodians" (so to speak) of magical blood and magical ability. No magical users existed outside this closed community.

b) This community dwindled, to the point where it became unsustainable without interbreeding.

c) Thus, they bred with the outside population (in limited measure) and spread the genes or blood.

d) So now there are three groups of people - pureblood muggles (no magical ability), pureblood wizards (guaranteed some amount of magical ability), and mixed blood people (magical ability may express itself).

e) Given such a scenario, magical ability can be treated as just another genetic trait, which can be suppressed for generations and then express itself. Hermione would be an example of such expression. Unless it can be proven that there was no injection of magical blood in her genetic line - a speculation about which Rowling is quite silent.


And I had anticipated this objection, so I added that "on average" in brackets there. AFAI can understand, pureblood muggles have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of having magical abilities.


And this is only one part (the first) of a long essay - the others are yet to come. Do not be hasty in judgement, Imran.

[thighikergove]

Originally posted by aneeshm
My understanding of the story so far:

a) There existed a community of pure-blooded magical people, who were the "custodians" (so to speak) of magical blood and magical ability. No magical users existed outside this closed community.

b) This community dwindled, to the point where it became unsustainable without interbreeding.

c) Thus, they bred with the outside population (in limited measure) and spread the genes or blood.

d) So now there are three groups of people - pureblood muggles (no magical ability), pureblood wizards (guaranteed some amount of magical ability), and mixed blood people (magical ability may express itself).

e) Given such a scenario, magical ability can be treated as just another genetic trait, which can be suppressed for generations and then express itself. Hermione would be an example of such expression. Unless it can be proven that there was no injection of magical blood in her genetic line - a speculation about which Rowling is quite silent.

And I had anticipated this objection, so I added that "on average" in brackets there. AFAI can understand, pureblood muggles have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of having magical abilities.

And this is only one part (the first) of a long essay - the others are yet to come. Do not be hasty in judgement, Imran. It is quite a streach, IMO, to think that Hermione has some magic genetic background. And there is no basis for assuming so. Seriously, the wizards and witches had to arise from somewhere. They just didn't pop out of the ground. They probably came from the regular human stock as Hermione Granger and Lily Potter did.

And Rowling being silent on whether there was magical blood in Hermione's past is no proof of anything and would go against her theme of the books that it doesn't matter who your parents where, it matters what you do. Draco belongs to two great wizarding families himself (the Malfoys & Blacks), but doesn't seem to be half the wizard that Hermione is, who is outside of any such line. Rowling goes to lengths to show that pure bloods aren't any better than Muggle born or half-bloods. For her to believe that Hermione has wizard blood would go completely against what the story is about.

And I realize it is long essay, but the intro falls flat in what it sees in the HP universe. IMO, it is wildly incorrect in its views and in the assumptions it makes.

[cefunonge]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is quite a streach, IMO, to think that Hermione has some magic genetic background. And there is no basis for assuming so. Seriously, the wizards and witches had to arise from somewhere. They just didn't pop out of the ground. They probably came from the regular human stock as Hermione Granger and Lily Potter did.

And Rowling being silent on whether there was magical blood in Hermione's past is no proof of anything and would go against her theme of the books that it doesn't matter who your parents where, it matters what you do. Draco belongs to two great wizarding families himself (the Malfoys & Blacks), but doesn't seem to be half the wizard that Hermione is, who is outside of any such line. Rowling goes to lengths to show that pure bloods aren't any better than Muggle born or half-bloods. For her to believe that Hermione has wizard blood would go completely against what the story is about.

And I realize it is long essay, but the intro falls flat in what it sees in the HP universe. IMO, it is wildly incorrect in its views and in the assumptions it makes. Let us go one step further back, then. Let us assume that this "magic" gene was once scattered across human populations. If so, why did this concept of pure-blood exist? Because it happened that over time, all the people with the "magic" mutation were picked out by the magical community to become part of their own, and thus was selected out of the general population. Hermione could be a case of really, really long suppression of this gene.

This is the only model that actually makes sense in the given universe, IMO. Feel free to provide an alternate one which can be as consistent as this one if you can - I'd be genuinely interested.

[tipoketpu]

Why on earth are you writing an essay on Harry Potter?

At least it isn't fan-fiction porn, though.

[imporrilk]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Why on earth are you writing an essay on Harry Potter?

At least it isn't fan-fiction porn, though. Because I sometimes like to exercise my mind over less serious things.

But what makes you think that an essay about Harry Potter is out of character for me?

[EvaQWmrm]

I don't know. But please change your flag. I like to locate my posts by my flag, and your presence in threads complicates things

[Honealals]

An analysis of the Federation in Star Trek also reveals that it is an evil imperialistic (albeit incompetent) civilisation a-la the British Empire.

[Averti$ingGuru]

Let me quote her site, to which you linked:


Section: F.A.Q.
Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?

The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents.

If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda.

This is no way invalidates the model I made for the caste-like structure of the houses, nor does it invalidate the selection structure elucidated in post #13.

[we0MA4MI]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And Imran - one of the more important issues is the dehumanisation of muggles, which is rampant even within the "good guys", so to speak. How do we deal with that? This is only true for the Dursleys, who are very clearly just extremely bad, close-minded, bigoted people and deliberately portrayed as they are for literary effect. For the most part the "good guys" do not dehumanise muggles. In fact, the "good guys" that we know well like the trio, Hagrid, Dumbledore and the Weasley family have a tremendous amount of respect for muggles in general.

[Creelaleps]

And what of the two important things I mentioned earlier - about the evolution and selection of magic in the population, and the caste-like structure of Hogwarts houses?

[ultimda horaf]

Arthur treats Muggles and Muggle technology as you or I would treat a curious toy. For him, it's all a plaything of children, not serious. He would find it difficult to understand how vital all these things are to us. This treatment - of the reduction of greatest achievements of muggles to nothing or to the status of toys - is precisely what you accused me of doing some time back.

That's because of ignorance. These things aren't a toy to him because he's consciously reducing the achievements. They are toys because he has no idea what the actual function of these things is. If you saw some piece of alien technology, not knowing what it is, it'd seem to be merely a curious thing to you, too. It might be an amazing small, portable and powerful energy generator, but you wouldn't know that.

[kvitacencia]

Originally posted by Locutus
I would strongly disagree with that. He views muggle technology the same way we view pre-modern technology. Most of us don't look down at the Great Pyramid and Angkor Wat and the irrigation and infrastructure systems of the ancient Egyptians and Khmer as silly child's play, despite the fact that we can do so much more impressive things today. Rather we are impressed what those ancient people could accomplish without the tools that we have at our disposal today.

That's exactly how Arthur Weasley views the muggle world: there is nothing childish about it for him, he's constantly impressed and amazed at what muggles can accomplish without the tools he has at his disposal: he couldn't figure out how to survive without magic if his life depended on it, just as modern man can't survive without his modern technologies. The difference is that modern man doesn't have the opportunity to view ancient Egyptian or Khmer society at work first-hand, while Arthur Weasley *can* experience muggle society. I think quite a few modern history buffs would be just as giddy at the prospect of traveling back in time and seeing how our ancestors lived as Arthur is at the prospect of traveling the tube. I know I would be... That helps his case. Arthur essentially views muggle technology as the work of primitives, in your analogy.

[Ervins Dervish]

Are the ancient Egyptians inferior beings compared to modern ones just because of their lack of technology? Ancient Egyptians are not less human than modern man and most of us do not consider them inferior.

They may not be inherently inferior, but there is definately an implication of superiority when you think of people as "primitive."

[Vitoethiche]

You're special.

[sueplydup]

Other points have been addressed, but

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let us go one step further back, then. Let us assume that this "magic" gene was once scattered across human populations. If so, why did this concept of pure-blood exist? Because it happened that over time, all the people with the "magic" mutation were picked out by the magical community to become part of their own, and thus was selected out of the general population. Hermione could be a case of really, really long suppression of this gene.

This is the only model that actually makes sense in the given universe, IMO. Feel free to provide an alternate one which can be as consistent as this one if you can - I'd be genuinely interested. The pure blood concept existed because some people believe that folks should stick to their own kind. One of the reasons for magic folk to think this way is because warlock and witches have been persecuted by Muggles for generations. Therefore some wizards may consider them to be untrustworthy. Of course this DOES NOT apply to all wizards, as some are very fond of muggles, as seen by the fact that there has been a Minister of Magic for quite some time.

And if Hermione could be a really, really long suppression of the gene, then ANY muggle may be carrying such genes. So to push them down is silly because the greatest witch or wizard of the age could come from two muggles. If there is a caste-like system in Harry Potter then what happens when in your described 'lowest caste' muggles produce an amazing wizard? Do they jump castes... isn't that not supposed to be allowed?

The fact is that Rowling has been adamant the the book is about the idiocy and silliness of discrimination as seen by the fact that Hermione is the most powerful student in Hogwarts in her class (and perhaps beyond). It's a sign to show how dumb it is that to those like the Malfoys she is considered a "mudblood" and beneath them when she will be far more powerful than Lucious if she lives to his age.

The caste analogy, furthermore, is ludicrious. No house is below any others. The fact that one is for the intelligent folk, one for the brave, one for the hard working and loyal, and one for the ambitious doesn't mean she was going for an Indian caste system. And, as pointed out, you completely stereotype, mistakenly, Slytherin house. It is ambitious, not necessarily evil. Slughorn is NOT evil. The hat wanted to put Harry in that house as well (and recall HARRY chose his house in the end, not the hat).

Recall Dumbledore's constant words that it is our ACTIONS not our ancestry that define who we are.

The "ultimately unjust world" would be the one if Voldemort took over. However, a vast majority of wizards do not agree with Voldemort, who wants to basically create your caste system.

In fact, Rowling makes it clear that the enemy wants a caste system, while the current structure is not one and folks like Dumbledore want to keep the structure as it is and not revert to a caste system.

It seems that you simply want to see India in places where it isn't. You are trying too hard.

[Oriesssedleli419]

Originally posted by LordShiva
How on earth can a non-magic-performing person persecute a magic-performing person? See: Salem witch trials.

One can ask how in the X-Men stories non-mutants can persecute mutants, but it happens. Greater numbers and all that.

[ElenaEvgeevna]

How many mages are there? 1 in ten thousand? Or 1 in a hundred thousand? The overwhelming majority can easily make life a pain for that minority nonetheless.

[tobia]

Well, witch-burning exists in the HP universe. And persecution isn't necessarily physical. Pure speculation - at one time the mages tried to live openly, not hiding their nature from the rest. In the end, they were excommunicated, people wouldn't want to talk to them and give them services and would otherwise avoid and shun the mages. I'd say that even that, without any physical persecution, would be enough to make the mages decide that they should not be open about being magical.