Is being a Pure-blood bad? What Pure-bloods do to protect and save their name and legacy a crime? I don't think why shouldn't be Pure-bloods be proud of themselves. Their blood is pure and they belomg to the old Wizarding families. But they also shouldn't insult others and treat Non Pure-bloods as inferiors.
A time will come when all Pure-blood families will die. Shouldn't they be saved? Their extiction will mean an end of a great Wizarding era. And this responsibility also lies on them? Should a Pure-blood marry who he/she loves or some Pure-blood so that their name doesn't die?

Of course, nothing about being pure-blood is bad - mostly, it isn't their fault anyway. The only thing that is bad - as you said - is treating non-pure bloods (and muggles, at that) like their scum. That's the difference between the Malfoys and the Weasleys.


I personally see no need in protecting the pure-bloods. They, of course, have grown up in all-wizarding families and are very aware of the wizarding ways. But Muggle-borns bring with them the knowledge of and about Muggles, so they contribute to the wizarding society in a very important way. And the children of Muggle-borns are as familiar with wizarding ways as is every pure-blood so why should it matter? I personally don't think that the extinction of the pure-bloods will affect the wizarding community in any way. The society won't change through that. A aociety changes by the choices they make as a whole. Choices - to result in good - whould be made by the heart. Blood Status has nothing to do with it at all.

Well if you keep marrying your cousins (and all the pure blood families are already related) your going to end up like the Gaunts.

This thread is discussing the merits and preservation of pure-blood status and belongs in the Obscurus Books forum. Hold on tight while we apparate there!

*Mobilithreadus*

Happy posting

Lirene
LL Mod

cooncatbob is correct. To expand on that think about the old European Royal families, which all intermarried because they couldn't marry a commoner. When you reduce the gene pool this much you tend to allow non-dominant genes to surface. This produces a high percentage of birth defects and mental illness. Probably, some of the original proscriptions against incest were for biological reasons to avoid this type of contamination.

I agree with the first part of your reply PatFromSwitzerland. But I think if a pure-blood family dies, it will definitly be a loss and would matter.

A Pure-blood family is not only a group of wizards whose blood is pure but they also have certain heirlooms and experiences of their past. The way we save a specie of animals is what we should be done for pure-bloods. If one specie dies, it won't have any effect on the nature but such an extinctin can make a drastic effect in the long term.

I think pure-bloods maintain a certain balance in the wizrading world i.e Purebollds> Half bloods> Muggle borns. And this balance has worked very well so far. Such levels in the society have regulated and controlled it. This shows discipline, whcih is very crucial for a community.

Wizards do not want muggle technology. Though it would be very beneficial but still most of their work gets done. A computer or electricity could make their lives easy but they have been managing without it. Neccesity is the mother of invention. If would have required such technology they could have invented it very easily.

I also don't agree harrydavid. The genetics that he has applied is true but pure bloods are present in a large number(though not such large). And I don't think their gene pool is too restricted. So their offsprings will be healthy and whole.

Pure-bloods do not stir our sympathies but they deserve our help.

I don't believe being a pure-blood is a bad thing at all. It only seems so when pure-bloods such as the Malfoys and Blacks perceive themselves as being above everyone else when that isn't necessarily the case at all. Look at Muggle born Hermione; she is intelligent, book smart, and is a powerful witch in her own right. Being slandered by Draco with the use of the racist term of Mudblood isn't warranted at all and quite frankly he never had the right to do this.

Harrydavid and cooncatbob's sentiments do have merit in the medical world because inbreeding does cause genetic disturbances causing physical and mental illnesses. I am sure this did in fact occur within the strictly pure-blood families and continued inbreeding will cause instability within the community rather than stability.

Having said this, vijender, I do agree that being from a pure-blood family does indeed have its merits; however; in the wizarding world everyone and anyone should be treated with respect no matter the blood line.

A pure-blood doesn't necessarily have to marry another pure-blood to keep the family name going.

Ron is a pure-blood, Hermione is a Muggleborn, but since they are both magical then both their children will be Pure-bloods. Granted, the family tree won't be strictly pure-bloods anymore, since Hermione will be in there, but it's quite unlikely that pure-blooded wizards and witches will become a thing of the past. Any two magical people- no matter their own heritage- will produce pure-blooded children.

I don't think that they are bad, but they need to think about conserving the wizarding race instead of how long their name will last. So what if they marry another pureblood, as long as they are in love with that person, and not just trying to keep the family name, if they marry a muggleborn or a half-blood and they love them it's just the same. Love is what matters not blood status.

I agree with you that a pure-blood doesn't necessarily have to marry another pure-blood to keep the name going, after all, Ron and Hermione's children will be Weasely's, but I highly doubt they will be looked at as completely pure-blood by the other pure-blood families because their mother is muggle-born. Of course, the Weasely's are a poor example anyway because they are considered blood-traitors by the worst of the pure-blooded families. Lets take, for example, Malfoy. If the woman he married was a pure-blood I'm sure his parents are perfectly happy with their pure-blooded grandchild, but if he dared to marry a woman that was not pure-blood or even muggle-born, he is more likely to be stricken from the family tree than to have his children qualified as pure blooded.

Of course, as I believe it was Mr. Weasely stated, if wizards do not marry muggles or muggle-borns, they are likely to die out. Will pure blooded families die out? Of course, many families in our world find their family name coming to an end. I don't think this will tip the scales either way in the community.

I completely agree with you lirene that all should be treated with respect. I feel that what Love4Fawkes, Elwood J. Blues andBookworm_Weasley is true in essence but my questions still remain that shouldn't something be done to save Pure-bloods ? I know some may say they do not need saving. But its just like all indians or americans or australians getting vanished. The rest of the world remains as it is but there has been a loss. A very garve one indeed.

I think it is the concept or idealism of being "pureblood" that should be eradicated, and not the people themselves. Whenever there is a hierarchy established based upon "quality" of birth, or where a person "came from", misunderstandings and misconceptions run rampant, closing off the potential of what can be done with certain talents, into becoming isolationist and self-preserving...much like what happened with Tom Riddle Jr. He wanted to feel "special", and by latching onto his ideal of what being a pure-blooded wizard meant (although he wasn't "purely" magical) set the pieces in motion for the strife in the story.

We're all human first, and then the product of whatever circumstance has brought us to the point we are living. When we lose sight of our shared humanity, evil is let loose in the World...opening the door to senseless death, destruction and loss - the great tragedies of all Time.

Well noted.

Purebloods like Malfoy don't seem to understand that they would not be "Wizards" if they were not Human first. Ron understands this. If they weren't human first they would died out, because they could not turn to Muggles for marriage. But magic would not have faded from the world even if the Pureblood wizards died out, because not all magic comes from the wizard community. The accepted education of magical humans exist it seems only in the magical community, but the magical ability would continue to exist as long as humanity exist as Hermione, Colin and Lily Evans are proof. Lily might not have been a pureblood in the way someone like Malfoy would think of it, but she was wholly a witch--therefore as pure a Wizard, that is as purely magical as Narcissa Black Malfoy. Harry Potter is as much a pureblood as Draco Malfoy as both his parents were magical. "Pure" blood when it comes to magical ability is an illusion.

Easier said than done though, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone could wave a magic wand and we forgot centuries of teaching that differfences in ethnicity, culture, religion matter? (Humming John Lennon's Imagine.)

Beliefs like this are difficult to kill, even with logic, science, and compassion. Such idealism has to fade out as mankind learns to look to regard each other beyond the surface of our appearance, words and actions. For example we might get to the thinking that two people are not distinquishable from one another because one prays on his knees facing the altar and another facing in the East, if we first recognize that both persons belong to societies where "Prayer" matters. In that the two people are more alike than diffferent.

As long as magic is thought of as a power rather than a rather wonderful, but very human trait, or as long wizards think of themselvs as favored or entitled because of their magical nature, or somehow exclusive of all humanity because of their gifts, they will continue to think there is some qualitative significance in the differences between Muggles and Wizards, therefore Muggle-born wizards and "pureblood" wizards.

If magic is understood to be what it is in the Harry Potter universe, as a human trait, as opposed to a Wizard trait, therefore not exlusive, any feelings of entitlement due to magic inheritance would fade.

This is the danger I think, the existance of Muggle-born wizards posed to pureblood rhetoric. Magic obviously is not exclusive to Wizards, as Muggles possess and can pass the magical gene to their children, even though they don't appear to possess magical abilities themselves. Squibs prove Wizards possessing magic can have non-magical children.

The existance of Muggleborns puts to rest claims to superioty, or negative stereotypes Pureblood wizards have put forth about Muggles.

Regarding my new title : I assure you, that if I were selling illegal items at Borgin and Burkes it would be take care of my family in trying times, not because I'm wicked witch. And read the Novel "Wicked". The Wicked Witch is much misunderstood.

There is a difference between a loss of a culture and loss of a race or ability: heirlooms and custom that exclusive to the magical community are nonetheless manmade as opposed to natural. In the HP magical culture is a blend of the English culture and the difference magical ability allows them.

Would that be a loss? That's a philosophical question. I'm big on history and even losing sight of the negative elements of a culture can prove costly if we make the same mistakes. But a changing culture is not the same as losing what is basically a human trait. If the culture created by that generation of magical beings is forgotten it is just as likely to be replaced with another. All the other Wizards, even in Slytherin's times, possibly had strong ties to non-magical community, and it seems they were apart of the community but seperated as do many minorities because of persecution, not because they were always a seperate society. As a result of the creation of the Magical society, any memory of magical and non-magical people working as won was lost--at least in the HP universe.
Maybe the newer generation of Muggles and Wizards can bring back that harmony, using the lessons of the past.

I agree with you whole-heartedly Maime.



I agree with you here, too, but we have to remember that the History of Magic included persecution of Wizards and other Magicals from Non-Magicals due to fear of magic. It appeared that Magicals isolated themselves because of the danger posed from Non-Magicals in an intolerant and fearful environment. The Magicals were in a Catch 22: if they used magic to defend themselves, they perpetuated the fear of Magic through this threat, and if they didn't use magic to defend themselves, they were on constant vigilance (thanks to Fake Moody for coining that term!) to curb their natural magical talents, lest they be identified as a threat and exterminated by conventional means. It is a hard thing to be on constant alert and deny those things which make up a large part of how a being interacts with the world, and so to preserve their own sanity, as well as live in a society where they would not be perceived as a threat, Wizards removed themselves from the Muggle World and chose to live within a parallel existence that simulated and sustained their human needs, while providing the freedom to be themselves in terms of the talents they possessed. This was so successful, in fact, that the disbelief in real magic was accomplished for the most part in the Muggle World, and created the mindset that the Vernon Durselys were a product of, and perpetuated in their daily living.

Taking this one step further, one can see where the Pureblood mindset took hold in some of the Wizarding Families, especially in those that had a large number of family members, and had seen atrocities committed against them for generations because of their Magical talents. Any family that produced a Squib, or admitted someone from outside their tight knit circle was potentially opening the door to another wave of persecution - because talents are often envied, especially if they are considered rare and valuable...or are required to function adequately in the environment.

"We're all human first, and then the product of whatever circumstance has brought us to the point we are living." - momwitch



Or, as Dumbledore told Fudge in GoF, "You fail to recognize that it matters not what somewhat is born, but what they grow up to be." (Which is also a major theme in the series.)

In other words, there is nothing intrinsically wrong or bad about being a pure-blood. It is just an accident of birth. There are plenty of perfectly decent, good pure-bloods in this series (eg - the Weasleys, Sirius Black, Neville, Ernie, James Potter, James's parents (from what Sirius tells us)). Just as there are plenty of perfectly decent, good half-bloods (eg - Lupin, Dean) and decent, good Muggle-borns (eg - Lily, Hermoine, Ted Tonks), etc. And, although we are not told a lot about them, what we are told (ie - that they had a daughter who was "different" and that they accepted and encouraged her in that "difference"), Hermoine's parents are decent and loving. So, in the adult Grangers, we see positive Muggle characters in HP. And we also see this, from what we do learn about them, with Lily's parents (ie - supportive, open-minded Muggles). There are also brave and very admirable Squibs, as represented by Mrs. Figg: a loyal member of the Order of the Phoenix who watched over the young Harry for years and who testified for him at his trial. It is all about the choices each individual has made, regardless of what they are born.

In Real Life there are both good and bad people within each group: within each ethnic group, within each gender group, within each religious group, within each racial group, within each age group, within each socio-economic group, etc. And, I believe, that is what Jo has set out to show - extremely successfully, in my opinion - in the HP books.

It does not automatically make you a bad person to be a pure-blood wizard. Nor, however, does it automatically make you in any way superior (ie - better) than those who are not (contrary to how the Malfoys and most of the Black family see things). It is what you "grow up to be", what life choices you make in terms of your values and your behavior, that count. That, as Dumbledore said in CoS, "show what we truly are".

Difference is not a bad thing. It is, in a strictly biological/ecological frame, a good thing. Variety is the spice of life. I am a great proponent of diversity among peoples. And we see it reflected (as I see so much of the Muggle Real World reflected - allowing for the suspension of disbelief that fiction demands, and the fantasy/legend characters/situations created by JKR - in this series) among the characters in the Harry Potter books.

The problem is not that there are purebloods. Just like there is no problem with some people being half-blood, some being Muggle-born, some being Muggles, some being half-giant, or a wizard-werewolf, etc. All of these - excepting the last - are accidents of birth. Nothing to be ashamed of. BUT ... Also, nothing to be used as thinking one superior to those who did not happen to be born as you were.

I am no more anti-pure-blood than I am anti-any group (except the Death Eaters; I am anti-Death Eater, but that is about choice and not birth). Jo could have had all the pure-blood wizards be self-important twerps, like the Malfoys. To her credit, she didn't. She didn't fall into that sterotyping trap. Instead, she chose to portray the world of human beings as it is. There always have been and always will be those who consider those not born into their particular economic class, skin colour, racial background, ethnicity, intelligence level, sexual orientation, language group, etc. to be somehow less than they are. This mindset is, of course, the starting point of many of the Real World's evils, such as oppression, repression, systemic discrimination and even genocide. And it is thus in the Potterverse as well.

But subscribing to reverse discrimination is also being blind. Just because someone is pure-blood, it does not automatically mean they themselves are racist. Arthur Weasley publicly championed Muggle rights. In CoS, Lucius Malfoy taunted him for that and, in DH, there was a thick file on him in Umbridge's office. So, in answer to the question that is this thread topic ...

No, in my view, being pure-blood is not bad. And it is no more or less good than being born something other than pure-blood. It just is. You are pure-blood. That's just a fact. You are Muggle-born. That's just a fact. You were born an elf, with your own particular non-wizard magical talent. That's just a fact. You were born a Centaur. That, too, just is how things happened.

In addition, if one can use one's pure-blood status to somehow make the world a better place for those not born into such circumstances as you were, for those who are oppressed, repressed or disadvantaged because of their birth status or other reasons, then your pure-blood accident of birth has been a good thing. (I am, of course, talking about actually helping a bad situation to improve; not just about making a show of doing so.) I think here of how Jo has used her famous name and new wealth to draw widespread public attention to - the most important thing, in my opinion (ie - drawing worldwide public attention to an issue or condition of injustice) -, to personally champion, and to financially support in a big way many very worthy causes and charities throughout Britain and the world (eg - the cage bed children in the Czech Republic). Fame and wealth put in service of doing genuine, concrete, quantifiable good on this planet; as opposed to fame and wealth (or pure-blood birth) serving the sole purpose of inflating the ego and self-importance and feeling of superiority over others of the famous and wealthy person (or the pure-blood person).




Laura



"I don't think good books are written to a formula."
- JKR (AOL Live Chat, May 4, 2000)

Very well said, Laura!

I agree with much of what you said, and to basically sum up my answer: it is fear that colors the "goodness" or "badness" that is perceived when one group (or individual) sits in judgement of another group (or individual). The "Pureblood Arrogance" which is exhibited by a small percentage of pureblooded wizards to me is a reaction and means of self-preservation...which went hand in hand in constructing Voldemort's supremacist mindset. The same is true in the Muggle World with people like Vernon and Marge Dursley, whose fear of the untangible and unknown caused them to construct "their" world very narrowly to only accept those that fit their "mold".

Luckily, JKR shows that hope is present even in these most dire circumstances with the actions of Dudley as we see him for the last time in DH, extending his hand to Harry - bridging the gap in that single gesture - for the potential of a more tolerant and understanding co-existance.

The question is, is there any truth to Slughorns assertion that purebloods are better at enacting magic (overall) than Muggleborns or even halfbloods? He seemed genuinely surprised when Lily and later Hermione proved to be excellent wizards. He'd been teaching a long while, so was it that the purebloods overall were more effective at magic or did he allow prejudice to rule his thoughts? We know some of the greatest wizards of all time were halfblood: Harry, Voldemort for example. And the Muggleborns I named were equally awesome. However, as far as we know, Dumbledore was a pureblood, correct? James and Sirius (1st and 2nd in their year) were purebloods; Headmaster P. Black was a pureblood. So is it possible that the Muggleborns and Halfbloods that are great wizards come along with less frequency? Note Harry's Direct legacy on his father's side and Voldemort's on his mother's side; both were direct descendants of those extraordinary Wizards the Perevell brothers who discovered and perfected incredible magics (the Hallows).

We don't really have enough examples for statistics, however I do wonder if there was any merit to what Slughorn was saying. It makes sense in terms of inherent magical power being passed down to children from both the mother and the father - but perhaps it does not work that way? (It works that way with the Force in Star Wars, lol).

Still that is no reason for prejudice; but it may have been the start of it.

I think what is important to remember is that terms like purebloods are illusions when it comes to magical ability as Jo attempted to point out.
Pureblood in this case only refers to something cultural, rather than someone being an Pureblood, halfblood, witch. Again, which half of someone like Snape is not a wizard. The term is absurd. It is absurd in real life. Which half of a person with a blended heritage is Black or white, brown or red? You simply cannot divide a whole human beings in those terms and have it mean anything that is real.

It is culture as opposed to race, although physcial charateristics of the different "families" of the race of man make it difficult for some of us to think outside old catories.

In the Wizards case, magical ability makes it difficult for them to see themselves as the same as Muggles and vice versa--but again the very fact that Wizards like Hermione, and Colin, and Lily exist would suggest something else.

True, but any persecution was due to cultural misunderstandings rather than something in the blood, so to speak. They were as, human beings, the same family of people, possibly sharing language and customs, and even relatives as there were Muggle born witches at that time Slytherin wished to bar from Hogwarts. The change in the treatment of magical people by non-magical people possibly sprang out of philosophy or religion, or even a war or change of government. This would have been around the time of Norman Conquest.

But at this late point, is it possible for non-magical people and Magical ones to get the point of co-existance that must possibly existed before the change. And we have to consider that the persecution of magical people might not have been "world wide". There may have been other cultures that freely intergrated magic into their socieites--well if Jo's universe recognizes the differences in cultures and attitudes towards certain things like magic.

Kindra was Muggle-born, so Albus would be a half-blood also. Just like Harry.

On her site, Jo has a blurb about Purebloods...




So, they're not really Pureblood. Also, Harry+Ginny, George+Angela, Ron+Hermoine, end the Weasley line...

Harry+Ginny=Halfblood+Pureblood=Halfblood
George+Angela=Pureblood+Halfblood=Halfblood
Ron+Hermoine=Pureblood+Muggleborn=Halfblood

Therefore, the Weasley line has ended.

Well, no. The Weasleys have lost their pureblood status. The line will continue as long as there are Weasley males to pass on the family name.

I disagree with you here, vijender. I think that the "balance" that you have illustrated is actually more of a societal hierarchy, a way of "putting people into their place". In such a society, it is often frowned upon for people to intermingle with others and therefore is the very thing that JKR was showing to be bad.

To illustrate, Albus Dumbledore says "It is our choices...that show who we truly are, far more than out abilities." (CoS, p. 333) I think the same could be said here for the circumstances of our birth. Being born into a certain family or with certain abilities doesn't mean anything compared to what a person chooses to do with their abilities.

In response to the "discipline" that has been required to "regulate and control" the society...well, to me, that just shows how wrong it is. It sounds like a revolution waiting to happen.





Wickedboy, I think that Slughorn was just espousing what many in the world believe to be true in regards to education: that those in the "upper class" are more intelligent and more able than those of "lower classes".

In reality, it's simply a matter of having better resources. When both parents are magical, you have spent your entire childhood being immersed in how to move your wand, how to say the spells and incantations, how to measure ingredients for potions, etc. Over the school holidays, you can ask questions of your parents. If you have magical siblings, you can ask questions at any time. When you don't find out "what's wrong with you" until you're 11, you have a steep learning curve. You have to rely on friends helping you, and trying to explain something that comes naturally (-ish, depending on the witch or wizard) to them.

In our world, it is a matter of what is important. Where I grew up, in most families of my circumstance, education was not highly valued and therefore not encouraged except as something that has to be done until a certain age. In my family, however, it was expected that I do well, that I go to college, obtain a degree and then do better than my parents. Most teachers knew my "socio-economic" situation. As a result, I frequently encountered those (teachers and students) who were surprised at my good grades, the fact that I did my homework (mostly), etc. There were, of course, people who weren't surprised, but all the same...

Just my thoughts...

It's not that Purebloods are bad, it's just that most of them have snobby and unnecessary attitudes to people whom they feel are below them, not all purebloods are this way, it just so happens that most of them are. As to if we can save them, that remains a mystery to me, you're talking about saving, hundreds or maybe even thousands of people.

They are still purebloods, aren't they?
.-.-

I don't think beeing pure-blood is any worse than other blood statuses, the problem lies with the slytherin way of thinking of the blood status, its people like the Gaunts, L.V and the Malfoys that think they're better than others because of their blood status that gives pure-bloods a bad reputation for beeing snobby and obsessed with blood status...

I agree with what's been said by many others. There's nothing wrong with being a pureblood. Look at Neville Longbottom. He's a pureblood, he's brave, he's loyal, and he's compassionate. He possesses the best qualities humanity has to offer, and the fact that he's a pureblood is just that, a fact.


I don't think a family's heritage is going to disappear just because one member of that family marries someone from a different group. Take the Weasleys. They're an old pureblood family with heirlooms and family history. Bill has pureblood children and Ron has halfblood children. Will Molly and Arthur then pass on less of their heritage to Ron's children? Of course not. They'll inherit similar heirlooms and hear the same family stories as their pureblood cousins, which allows the culture of the magical world to be passed on from generation to generation. All of the children are magical, and all recieve the same access to their culture. Nothing has been lost.


I think it's important to remember that "blood status" in the Potter books was set up as a direct comparison to racism in the real world. Death Eaters are basically the Wizarding KKK. The assumption that purebloods are more important than other wizards is problematic. Yes, purebloods are important. But so are other wizards.


Do we know Angelina was a half-blood? Is that stated anywhere? (genuinely confused )

Lastly, I have what may be seen as a weird question. When does the line switch from "half-blood" to "pureblood"? James was a pureblood who married a muggleborn, which made Harry a half-blood. Harry then married a pureblood, so are his children called half-bloods, or purebloods? And if Albus Potter were to marry a pureblood, what would his children be considered? How much "pure blood" is required to gain the status? Is it like the Jim Crowe laws in the American South, where one drop of "tainted blood" gets you labeled as an outsider? That may be off topic, but it's something I've always wondered about...

Yes this part is a bit confusing, but as Hagrid said "There isn't a wizard that's not a halfblood or less" (quote from memory) so I don't think there really are any who are really a pure blood...

I would think Albus would be considered a pure blood.

another interesting side to this is that it's enough to be a half-blood to be pure enough to end up in slytherin...

Good point. Snape and Voldemort were both placed in Slytherin though they were not pureblood, because they believed that being pureblood was important. Again it goes back to individual choice rather than blood status.

I don't think that was the reason they were placed there.
From a biological standpoint, inbreeding brings recessive genetic traits into dominance. That can be very bad (the European monarchy's tendency toward hemophilia, for example), but it does not have to be. Inbreeding in and of itself does not result in lowered intelligence or mental problems, unless those are inherent in the individuals who are inbred.
To say that being pure-blood is bad is, in my opinion, no different from saying that being pure-blood is best. In the end, all lives are individual lives.


(Edited to correct typos.)

I don't think it's the entire reason, but it was likely a contributing factor.

I agree...perhaps they were purely motivated by ambition, making their essences single minded and in tune with the Slytherin qualities? Both Snape and Voldemort were ambitious in their efforts, though their reasons might have been tainted. The Hat would read the dominant trait and try to place the student in that house which best matched the mindset.