POSTS TO HPFGU
2002-2003
     
       
       
HPfGU #40843

Hagrid's Bigotry

RE: Hagrid's Bigotry


I wrote:

Yes, well. Hagrid also says that foreigners cannot be trusted, that Harry must be a magically-powerful wizard for the simple reason that his parents were, and that the Malfoys all have "bad blood." (I find that last comment particularly rich, given what we now know about what Hagrid's got running through his own oversized veins.)

Darrin replied:

Wellllllll, the first one is definitely xenophobic.

But as for the second one, he's hardly the only one the believes Harry Potter will be great.

It's not that he believes that Harry Potter will be great that I object to. It's the fact that he chooses to express this belief in terms of genetic inheritance.

And hey, the third one has certainly proven to be true. Lucius is a Death-Eater and Draco is a little punk.

No, it has not been proven to be true. That Lucius and Draco are both rotters does not mean that the Malfoys have "bad blood." "Bad blood" would mean that their nastiness is in some way genetic, heritable. There is absolutely no evidence that this is really the case, and if it were true, it would completely undercut what Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of CoS about the importance of choice.

I find it particularly ironic for Hagrid of all people to suggest such a thing, given that it is precisely people like Hagrid whose victimization the "bad blood" rationale would be used to justify, should DEs like Lucius Malfoy have their way.

Hey, Hagrid has his own prejudices and quirks, but he certainly doesn't adhere to the Malfoys' beliefs. It is Hagrid who directly refutes the whole mudblood garbage.

No, he doesn't adhere to the Malfoy's beliefs. He does, however, slip into precisely the same mode of thinking when he talks about the classes of people that he doesn't like. That he may have perfectly legitimate reasons for not liking certain people is really not the point. That he is prejudiced in his thinking is.

This is a topic very dear to my heart, you know, because it's how I made my very first enemies on this list. ;-)

Back in January, this is what I wrote:

[excerpted from message from HPfGU #33950, January 22]

No, my problem with Hagrid is that his thoughtlessness all too often leads him perilously close to bigotry.

I don't think that he's a bigot in any deep, philosophical sense, no. Far to the contrary, he is one of the most consistent and vocal antagonists to the entire "pure-blood" aesthetic throughout the books.

But.

He's also a bigot himself, and a very particular type of bigot: the thoughtless man whose fondness for sweeping generalizations and snap judgments leads him to make statements that are not only deeply prejudiced, but also frequently Just Plain Not True.

"Not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin," for example. Or that bit about how you can't trust foreigners. Or his comment about the Malfoys having "bad blood" -- which really is rich, you know, given the big-boned skeletons hiding in Hagrid's own family closet. Or, for that matter, his assurance to Harry that he'll surely grow up to be a great wizard, because "with a mum an' dad like yours, what else would yeh be?"

Hagrid is not a believer in the primacy of blood. He really, really isn't. But when he isn't thinking too hard, he just kind of...slips back into that mode of thinking, and starts going on about "bad blood" and Harry's rights of magical inheritance and so forth. Just as he is not a muggle-hater, and yet, and yet, and yet...

"I'd like to see a great Muggle like you stop him."

"...it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on."

"Look at what she had for a sister!"

And so forth.

I like to think that we're supposed to notice this unsavory tendency of Hagrid's, that this is Rowling's way of showing us the power of institutionalized bigotry. Hagrid's a product of his culture, and his culture is not an egalitarian one. He does believe in egalitarianism, very strongly. But when he isn't watching himself, the ugly underside of his own culture slips through the cracks, and he betrays himself.

That's pretty much still my take on Hagrid.

Darrin:

Now, you could argue that Hagrid's xenophobia and skepticism of the Malfoys (thinking Harry will be great is neither bigoted nor unthinking) is on the same level as the vile venom that spews from Draco's mouth about Muggle-born wizards.

No, it's not at all on the same level. I really can't imagine, for example, that Hagrid would ever advocate genocide.

It is the same logic, however, and it's a logic that I consider dangerous. It's a logic that gets used to justify some very nasty things, both in our reality and in the Potterverse.

I can't imagine Hagrid ever advocating genocide, but advocating some other ugly things? Well, who can say? He does insist that the House Elves enjoy bondage as a matter of racial disposition. Maybe he's right about that, and maybe he's wrong. Only time will tell us whether that statement is actually canonically true. But when you view this belief in light of Hagrid's general tendency to believe that "blood will tell," it does start to look a little bit ugly, don't you think?

It's ugly in precisely the same way that Harry's Aunt Marge nattering on about Harry himself having "bad blood" is ugly. What makes it ugly isn't that Marge happened to be wrong about what the Potters were really like. Even if the Potters really had been criminals and drunkards, the assumption that their son must therefore be intrinsically worthless would still be completely vile.

I wrote:

Nor does Hagrid take any particular care to make certain that his statements are in the least bit accurate. In truth, the fact that Harry's parents were magically powerful is no assurance that Harry himself will be: Squibs exist, and they can come from the very best families, right?

Darrin wrote:

Given that Harry, as a baby, deflected a killing curse from the most powerful evil wizard of modern times would lead MOST of the Wizard community to believe Harry was powerful, no? Dumbledore knows the truth, that Lily's charm did the deflecting, but I don't see this as being common knowledge. So again, Hagrid is HARDLY the only one who thinks Harry is powerful.

Again, I think that you're missing my point here. The point isn't that Hagrid believes Harry to be powerful. Everybody believes that Harry is powerful. That Harry Potter defeated Voldemort at the age of one is common knowledge in the wizarding world. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is Hagrid's tendency to view things in terms of the primacy of blood. "With a mum an' dad like yours, what else would yeh be?"

And within a few minutes of meeting Harry, Hagrid learns that Harry has shown magical ability, in the form of things "Harry couldn't quite explain" which seems to rule out Squib-ness.

So, knowing that Harry ISN'T a Squib, it's hardly the greatest leap to figure that given his parentage, Harry will be pretty good.

Why?

Both Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley are Muggle-born, aren't they? Neither of their parents are magical. Yet I think it clear that Hermione is more magically talented than Justin is.

I don't see why you would assume that the child of two magically-powerful people is likely to be one of two things: either magically strong, or a Squib. Children of Muggles can fall anywhere along the spectrum of magical talent, so why would the children of wizards be any different?

[We agree, at least, that Sirius was in House Gryffindor -- or at least not in House Slytherin]

Agreed. I think what Hagrid said is either a FLINT, an exaggeration, or a desire to shield Harry from the knowledge of his godfather going bad and betraying his folks.

But I disagree that it's based on Hagrid being a bigot.

I think that it's a bit of exaggeration, and a bit of prejudice. Hagrid does, after all, have some very personal reasons to dislike House Slytherin. Even aside from the fact that so many of its members supported Voldemort during the last war, one of them also was the one to get him expelled from Hogwarts.

As for shielding Harry from the knowledge of his godfather, I certainly accept that Hagrid never mentioned Sirius to Harry for just this reason.

But I honestly can't believe that Hagrid is thoughtful enough to have deliberately altered his phrasing from "There's only been one wizard who ever went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" to "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" just to forestall Harry asking who the exception was. That's just not Hagrid. He's not that kind of strategic thinker. He blurts things. Constantly. That's just what he does.

Also, I don't believe for an instant that Sirius (or, rather, Pettigrew) was really the only non-Slytherin ever to go bad. Not only doesn't that seem at all plausible, it also strikes me as completely inconsistent with the descriptions that both Hagrid and Sirius give of what life was like for the wizarding world during the days of Voldemort's first rise. People just didn't know who they could trust, right? Hardly likely, if members of House Slytherin had really comprised Voldemort's only supporters.

—Elkins

Posted July 05, 2002 at 9:38 pm
Topics: ,
Plain text version

Comments and References

Leave a comment

You can sign in with your Livejournal or Vox account, or with any other form of Open ID. (Need Open ID?)

References:

slinkhard: canon morality questionnaire/quiz

I've made this quiz/questionnaire.
Might write an essay on the results.
Please try and answer. I won't post my own unless you ask them, since I don't want to prejudice it.
If you have any comments or suggestions, just let me know.

Rate the faculty members in order of how biased they are?. . . .

biichan: Dude. Give me a big helping of THAT theory

I think I am in love with the kick-ass arguing powers of skelkins. No, I know I am. *grins*

Feast upon the lovely theoretical products of a most deranged mind. . . .