Salazar got a raw deal.
Oct. 30th, 2005 12:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
The whole of his house did, really.
I mean, let's look at what we know:
Hogwarts was founded ~1000 years ago, maybe a little more. That's 1000 years prior to Chamber of Secrets (maybe a little more!), so it'd have to have been founded prior to 1000, in the 900s. That's the Dark Ages, lots of fear of things people didn't understand, lots of ignorance. There was apparently no pre-existing school of wizardry in Britain at the time. Speculation? The wizards, too, were going through a "dark ages", with most of their magical knowledge having been lost - understandable, as there wasn't really a separate wizarding world yet.
Ignorance by muggles led them, with some justification, to fear wizards. And ignorance by wizards led them to fear muggles. How justified this fear was remains to be seen - in Harry's history classes, he's taught that witches and wizards were never really harmed by muggles, but how true is this? More importantly, how true was this when Hogwarts was founded? How true has this ever been for untrained wizard children?
So Slytherin, reasonably, decides that it'd be better to limit admission to students who can be trusted. That's fair - why admit children who will be torn between your world and their families, who might well decide to use what you've taught them against you? There's a fight, and he leaves, leaving his pet basilisk behind. We don't know what he really felt about halfbloods or muggleborns - maybe he really was racist. More likely, he was honestly suspicious about their motives. Who wouldn't be? That doesn't mean he himself thought they were all scum, just that he had a healthy caution about them. If he'd really intended to kill off all the muggleborn children, he'd've done so during his lifetime, instead of waiting for his heir to open the chamber a thousand years in the future. Speculation? The basilisk was intended as a fail-safe, in case his worst fears about the loyalty of the non-purebloods came true.
So, he leaves the school, destination unknown, and now there's three houses and his house in the school. By the time Harry gets there, it's clear that there's some real prejudice from the main three houses against Slytherin, a thousand years after the rift. Even accepting that Harry is biased on the subject, we've still got more insults against Slytherin for being Slytherin than against any of the other houses. More dark wizards than any other house? Is that true, or is it what people believe? And if it's true, is it true because that's how they are, or because people think that's how they are?
I can only imagine it must've been worse when the actual fight happened. Loyalty is clearly a big thing in the wizarding world - Slytherin's students might've been justifiably upset that he was driven out of the school by the other founders, and all sides took the cue from their parental substitutes.
And all he wanted was to keep the kids safe.
Or maybe he was a raving loony, I don't know. We know that Ronald Weasley, not-a-historian, thinks so, anyway - must be a popular view amongst most of Wizarding Britain.
I mean, let's look at what we know:
Hogwarts was founded ~1000 years ago, maybe a little more. That's 1000 years prior to Chamber of Secrets (maybe a little more!), so it'd have to have been founded prior to 1000, in the 900s. That's the Dark Ages, lots of fear of things people didn't understand, lots of ignorance. There was apparently no pre-existing school of wizardry in Britain at the time. Speculation? The wizards, too, were going through a "dark ages", with most of their magical knowledge having been lost - understandable, as there wasn't really a separate wizarding world yet.
Ignorance by muggles led them, with some justification, to fear wizards. And ignorance by wizards led them to fear muggles. How justified this fear was remains to be seen - in Harry's history classes, he's taught that witches and wizards were never really harmed by muggles, but how true is this? More importantly, how true was this when Hogwarts was founded? How true has this ever been for untrained wizard children?
So Slytherin, reasonably, decides that it'd be better to limit admission to students who can be trusted. That's fair - why admit children who will be torn between your world and their families, who might well decide to use what you've taught them against you? There's a fight, and he leaves, leaving his pet basilisk behind. We don't know what he really felt about halfbloods or muggleborns - maybe he really was racist. More likely, he was honestly suspicious about their motives. Who wouldn't be? That doesn't mean he himself thought they were all scum, just that he had a healthy caution about them. If he'd really intended to kill off all the muggleborn children, he'd've done so during his lifetime, instead of waiting for his heir to open the chamber a thousand years in the future. Speculation? The basilisk was intended as a fail-safe, in case his worst fears about the loyalty of the non-purebloods came true.
So, he leaves the school, destination unknown, and now there's three houses and his house in the school. By the time Harry gets there, it's clear that there's some real prejudice from the main three houses against Slytherin, a thousand years after the rift. Even accepting that Harry is biased on the subject, we've still got more insults against Slytherin for being Slytherin than against any of the other houses. More dark wizards than any other house? Is that true, or is it what people believe? And if it's true, is it true because that's how they are, or because people think that's how they are?
I can only imagine it must've been worse when the actual fight happened. Loyalty is clearly a big thing in the wizarding world - Slytherin's students might've been justifiably upset that he was driven out of the school by the other founders, and all sides took the cue from their parental substitutes.
And all he wanted was to keep the kids safe.
Or maybe he was a raving loony, I don't know. We know that Ronald Weasley, not-a-historian, thinks so, anyway - must be a popular view amongst most of Wizarding Britain.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-30 07:22 pm (UTC)And it's clear from the very first sorting scene that Slytherins are harassed simply for being Slytherin, and no staff member will step in to intervene. Is it any wonder Snape seems biased toward his house?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:37 am (UTC)Snape is a bit immature. I do hope he's not supposed to be representative of the entire house, now! (But no, it's no wonder. Somebody has to look out for those poor kids!)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:58 am (UTC)Of course, we all know that "Witch Burning in the Middle Ages was Completely Pointless", don't we? *dramatic eyeroll*
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:34 pm (UTC)I think he was a brilliant wizard, I also think he was a completely racist asshole. The two things do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-30 07:22 pm (UTC)And it's clear from the very first sorting scene that Slytherins are harassed simply for being Slytherin, and no staff member will step in to intervene. Is it any wonder Snape seems biased toward his house?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:37 am (UTC)Snape is a bit immature. I do hope he's not supposed to be representative of the entire house, now! (But no, it's no wonder. Somebody has to look out for those poor kids!)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:58 am (UTC)Of course, we all know that "Witch Burning in the Middle Ages was Completely Pointless", don't we? *dramatic eyeroll*
no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-31 02:34 pm (UTC)I think he was a brilliant wizard, I also think he was a completely racist asshole. The two things do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-01 12:54 am (UTC)