(This should start a series of Harry Potter themed blog posts. Enjoy, and beware of potential story spoilers!)
In what would have been Harry Potter's seventh year at Hogwarts, a number of the student population was denied readmission to the school. Among these students were Colin Creevey, Justin Finch-Fletchley, and Hermione Granger: muggleborns, denied solely on the basis of their "dirty" blood. With Voldemort effectively in charge of Hogwarts and working his way to complete control of the Ministry in months, there was nobody powerful or daring enough to challenge the decision to ban "mudbloods."
As a result of the direct support from the staff at Hogwarts, the pureblood students quickly rose to the top of the chain of command in school. Which makes me wonder: whatever happened to the half-bloods?
We get glimpses from Ginny, Neville, and Luna. But even Harry knows there's more to the story. What really went on at Hogwarts that year, and what happened to the half-bloods, the blood-traitors, and the almost-squibs of the school?
To answer that, I think we can make parallels to American History. The Little Rock Nine were the brave group of nine black students who were daring enough to try attending a "white" school after the famous Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court case was settled in their favor. In the end it was necessary to give them an armed guard to prevent a lynching. Hostilities were simply that common at the time.
Could feelings at Hogwarts towards the "inferior" students been the same? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, by the end of the year, more than one student had been reported dead of supposedly unknown causes. A hate crime, as one might call it. What would have happened if Harry Potter had not succeeded; what would have happened if Voldemort's reign had continued for years? Would the teachers overlook outright murder?
Unfortunately, it seems that would be the case. It seems like, unfortunately, pureblood superiority is simply another form of the prejudice in America's own past. So, which is worse? Judging by color and race, or judging by blood and family? If the end result when the situation goes unchecked would be the same, then is there even a difference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not much of a Harry Potter reader but your blog was very interesting for me since im what you call a 'mudblood'or multiracial in other words and the argument over what is worse is a close one. I think judging someone based on color and race is basically the same this as judging based on family and blood since your family and blood determines your race and the color of your skin. Either way they are both silly things to judge a person by.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie, judging people by either race/family seems kind of interdependent on one another.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, now I'm wondering if Rowling used Malfoy to make fun of Hermionie to insert her disdain onto racism. The reader of the book obviously recognizes Malfoy as the antagonist, so one might say that Rowling sets up the reader to be accepting of all races.