|
|
Post by Miss Wings on Jan 28, 2013 12:43:13 GMT -5
I was watching something last night about a woman who had been in a concentration camp during the war and it hit me that Umbridge tried to do something simillar with the Muggleborns. Has anyone else noticed that or is it just me?
|
|
|
|
Post by eskimoRock on Jan 28, 2013 12:59:25 GMT -5
No, I kind of noticed that too. But then I see a lot of similarities in the books between things that have really happened and things that do in the books!  |
|
|
|
Post by Miss Wings on Jan 28, 2013 13:02:46 GMT -5
true. Grindlewald/Hitler, same person?
|
|
|
|
Post by eskimoRock on Jan 28, 2013 13:21:49 GMT -5
Or allies, something of that sort. I read an interesting fic that suggested grindlewald was the one influencing hitler, but I'm not sure whether or not I like that theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayrine on Jan 28, 2013 13:22:43 GMT -5
Well it's what happen usually in wars:
1-isolating the enemy's population in concentration's camps.
2-massive executions to make examples and to terrorize people.
3-propaganda to vilify and demonize the enemy, to excuse the massacres.
4-arbitrary imprisonments of the opponents, tortures and all that.
There is probably more things that I forgot to write.
Nothing new...it's humanity history that repeats itself again and again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jan 28, 2013 13:42:45 GMT -5
I always saw it like concentration camps, for that's what they basically were. Hitler imprisoned the jews, Voldemort/Umbitch the muggleborns, there's not much of a difference. That whole pureblood mania is based on people with 'pure' blood being better than others - what's the difference to the Nazis thinking that Arian blood is better than jewish one?
And I don't think it's a coincidence that Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in 1945 - the end of WWII.
|
|
|
|
Post by teehee100 on Nov 30, 2013 13:33:13 GMT -5
Here's something I've noticed, while we have good voldemort stories, there doesn't seem to be any stories where Umbridge is a good person. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Nov 30, 2013 17:06:15 GMT -5
Oh, there are one or two - look at Insidious Inquisitor. And in Junior Inquisitor she is so far not that bad, though it remains to be seen how that is going to continue. Though it's the exception to the rule. As for the why, I don't know … maybe it's because most writers are female and rather have nice male characters than female ones? But it doesn't really make sense to me. On the other hand, I never got why people are so insistent to apologise everything Snape and Draco did, so that's not saying much  |
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Dec 1, 2013 8:10:15 GMT -5
One thing I always found a little creepy about Snape.
Assuming that the memory shown in Snape's Worst Memory is actually Snape's worst memory that's pretty screwed up. Yes childhood trauma, yes him calling Lily a mudblood. But still, how is that worse than the things he must have seen as a Deatheater? Murder and torture at the very least. Shows where his priorities lay.
But because he had a creepy love for Harry's mother that somehow negates him being a Deatheater and him being an abusive teacher not just to Harry's year but to the ten years of students previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Dec 1, 2013 11:47:58 GMT -5
Good point about his priorities. Sure, he lost the one friend he had that day, but … what about the fact that he ran to Voldemort with the prophecy that set his Master onto the woman he is supposed to love (and in my eyes rather lusted after)? Was that not much worse, if loving Lily was his redeeming quality? You gave me just another plothole Beyond that, never understood why him loving Lily was supposed to make up for torturing her son for six years, either. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Dec 1, 2013 12:38:48 GMT -5
It's evident that he didn't exactly have a healthy upbringing, but he does seem rather fixated on Lily fifteen-odd years after her death.
Then again, he's never exactly comes across as an adult. An eleven year old child resembles the dead man who bullied me, I'm not going to be an adult, deal with it and treat the kid like a kid. I'm going to pick on him mercilessly.
Even if Harry had been the brattiest child ever, Snape is an adult and a teacher which means he's supposed to act like one.
Even if it did, how does that make up for how he acted towards Neville, to Ron, to the rest of the Gryffindor's? To the Ravenclaw's and Hufflepuff's? |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Dec 1, 2013 13:03:56 GMT -5
That's just it - people say 'he was abused/bullied as a kid, so he does have the right to be a bully himself'. By that logic, Harry or Sirius should have the same right, but I've seen so many complaints about how moody Harry was in OotP - obviously, he doesn't have the right to even be angry about how he is treated, never mind behave even a fraction as bad as poor little Snape. And you are absolutely right - Snape never grew up. It's silly how people complain that Sirius never grew up and was oh-so-immature in OotP, but no one of these sees that Snape behaves ten times more immature - and he doesn't have the excuse of his development being hampered by Azkaban. Maybe I am biased because I like Sirius and Harry, but honestly, there's a reason why I like them - and can't stand the dungeon bat.
It doesn't make up for anything, no. The fact that Dumbledore let him get away with it for one and a half decade lowers my opinion of the old man, too. Sacrificing the future of a whole generation, if not more, just to keep his pet Death Eater? And the excuse that Snape needed to behave like that because he was a spy doesn't hold water for me. How can he convince anyone on the light side that he is reformed if he's behaving like that? Shouldn't a spy try to blend in and be inconspicious?? He's the most obvious spy I ever saw anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Dec 1, 2013 13:45:45 GMT -5
Frankly if a fifteen year old manages to survive the things Harry's survived, watch somebody die, spend all summer in an abusive environment immediately after and doesn't come out a gibbering wreck, I'd say they were doing pretty well. No matter how moody they were. Also, he's fifteen - being a teenager can be pretty damn hard at the best of times.
Which is absolute bullshit. Statistics do show that people who were abused as children sometimes do go on to become abusive parents themselves (given that Snape probably sees these children more than their parents see them for seven years I'm OK with that statistic applying) but they're still the minority (most statistics say 1/3rd to 40% of abused children go on to become abusive parents).
The difference between Sirius and Snape is that Snape had the opportunity to grow up. He wasn't imprisoned or under house arrest, as far as I can tell. He had the opportunity to go out, to do whatever he wanted to do, to grow as a person. He could have gone somewhere where nobody knew who he was, nobody had gone to school with him and the tattoo on his arm was just a neat piece of ink.
Sirius was stuck in a cell with his worst memories and the knowledge that he'd failed the three most important people to him (James, Lily and Harry), with the only other person who was important to him (Lupin) hating his guts. There's no way he could grow up at all.
So yeah, when he got out he was a little immature. Bearing in mind that he was only immature when he was stuck in an environment which must have been very triggering for him. GoF he's not that immature.
One sentence.
'I was told that my teaching had to be fair and unbiased otherwise I would be fired from the position I took so I could gain Dumbledore's trust in order to work against him for the Dark Lord'.
It's not exactly beyond the realm of imagination that a school might have standards of behaviour for the teachers. Or that a teacher who wasn't complying with them might be fired. A teacher would undoubtedly be fired if they slept with a student (no matter if the student was an of-age seventh year), so surely one should be fired for threatening to kill a student's pet (he wants to try Neville's potion, which he knows to be wrong, on Neville's toad).
Hell, up until the end of Harry's first year Dumbledore couldn't be sure that he was going to come back. Up until Harry's fourth year, Voldemort was nowhere near being able to question Snape as to why he was acting like a decent human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Dec 1, 2013 15:15:37 GMT -5
Frankly if a fifteen year old manages to survive the things Harry's survived, watch somebody die, spend all summer in an abusive environment immediately after and doesn't come out a gibbering wreck, I'd say they were doing pretty well. No matter how moody they were. Also, he's fifteen - being a teenager can be pretty damn hard at the best of times. My thoughts exactly. Harry has much more of a reason to take his issues out on others than Snape ever did, but obviously, many fans see it differently. Never looked up the exact percentage, but that's what I learned, too. Having an abusive childhood *can* lead to being abusive, too, but it doesn't have to. Besides, from what I understand from the books, Snape's father was abusive, but he had a nice mum. Harry, however, had no one. But that would have needed some effort of his own, and it was so much easier to let Dumbles protect him, get this job and take his own issues out on the world at large and punish three quarters of the magical world for the circumstances of his birth. Actually, I'd say by the time he was imprisioned, he had grown up more than Snape ever did. Indeed, there he did his best to keep Harry safe and help him. And you know, even in OotP, he tried - remember when Snape told Harry about the Occlumency lessons? Sirius at least tried to ensure that he behaved with his godson. The rest of the oh-so-responsible adults were completely useless when it came to protecting Harry. It really disgusts me how the Marauders were shown in a bad light during the last three books, all in an attempt to make Snape and the Malfoys look better. Which leaves one once again wondering if the magical world as a whole (and particularly anyone in charge) does have even a smidge of brain and/or common sense. I get why the Slytherins never complained, they profited from his behaviour, after all. But why did no one in the other houses anything? Particularly the purebloods? If they all mobilized their parents, they should have been able to achieve something. And even then, he could always say that he had to behave if he wanted to play the spy any longer and wait in this useful position close to Dumbledore for his Master to return. So, no, that's no excuse whatsoever. And if Dumbledore had had any decency, he'd have pointed that out and put the thumbscrews on Snape. |
|
|
|
Post by melodypottersnape on Dec 3, 2013 8:38:39 GMT -5
I think it is sad that I believe the Ministry should have gotten involved in the education standards at Hogwarts. Heck if they had done less dumbing down and attacking Harry; they really could have done something good that would have taken power from Dumbledore like they wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Dec 3, 2013 9:08:09 GMT -5
I think it is sad that I believe the Ministry should have gotten involved in the education standards at Hogwarts. Heck if they had done less dumbing down and attacking Harry; they really could have done something good that would have taken power from Dumbledore like they wanted. Most governments have control of what is taught in schools, or at least of the curriculum. Otherwise I sat through those goddamn OFSTED inspection days for no reason. On the other hand, most schools did not exist before there was government (seriously Hogwarts has been around for longer than the Ministry. Hogwarts was founded something like 900-1000AD and the magical world didn't separate from the non-magical one for another four hundred odd years). Thinking back on it, I'm surprised that the Ministry had that much control over Hogwarts (as much as I hated them, OFSTED couldn't do what Umbridge does) since Hogwarts was basically an institution unto itself for four hundred and something years and must have clammed up during the witch hunts. Appointing a teacher, raising that teacher to Headmaster-like position where she can introduce edicts which likely have no basis in school rules and bylaws and then making her Headmistress. I mean I'd imagine there was some support for the ministry from the Board of Governors but we don't know who any of them are apart from Lucius Malfoy. |
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Dec 3, 2013 9:47:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if the students in the other houses, complained to their parents, who then complained to the board, but the complaints were then ignored, because Lucius and his friends on the board wanted to protect Snape. They all hated Dumbledore and the Light side, so wouldn't they want to do everything they could to make his life difficult, and if the non-pureblood, Light-sided students suffered, then who cares? Or at least, that's what I think the opinion of Lucius and his friends would be.
That's partly why I believe that Lucius and the other Death Eater parents, both on the board, and in the Ministry, convinced Fudge that Umbridge would be good for the school. It's just one more way to hurt the Light-sided parents, the non-pureblood students, Dumbledore, and Harry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Dec 3, 2013 11:51:24 GMT -5
What you both forget is that Lucius was kicked out of the board of governors after second year, for blackmailing and threateing the other members into suspending Dunbledore. So that influence was removed by about June 1993.
That said, I find it still strange how the Ministry could foist Umbitch on the school. When you go by the earlier books, they didn't have any say in the school, Dumbledore did whatever he pleased. So, how could they suddenly not only send a teacher, but one that issued such an amount of ridiculous edicts, to not only ''teach', but to control the other teachers, who had decades of experience on her? And everyone just took it in stride? Neither of the students told their parents that Umbitch *refused* to allow them to do magic, making sure they would fail their exams? Sure, the dark side supporters were behind that, but they were in the minority, I believe, so I still wonder why no one acted. And after Lucy was kicked out, I'd like to know who was left on the board. The end of CoS sounded like they were more light-sided, so how did they nothing to curtail the Ministry and Umbitch in OotP?
|
|
