|
Percival[]
I really don´t think Percival Dumbledore should be considered a Pure-blood supremacist. Yes, he attacked muggles, but for attacling his daughter, not for being non magical. His own wife was a muggle-born.--Rodolphus 14:02, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I had removed him, but he was readded. What do others think? I can only repeat mysllf: He attacked them for attacling his daughter, not for being non magical. We could possibly add a Behind the Scenes section. The Ministry BELIEVED him to be a muggle-hater, but this probably wasn´t the truth.--Rodolphus 18:08, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
Slughorn[]
I´m also not sure if we should list Slughorn. He didn´t hate muggle-borns. (in fact, they were among his favourite students) He didn´t dislike the Weasleys. He wasn´t very ibterested in them only.--Rodolphus 14:08, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Slughorn very likes Hermione and Harry's mother Lily.--Lord 09:58, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Dirk Cresswell was another Muggle-born who Slughorn stated was one of his favourite students. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 12:31, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Snape[]
I don't believe that Snape should be included on the list. Snape never showed any indication of hatred of Muggle-borns or half-bloods. As a child, he told Lily that being Muggle-born "doesn’t make any difference," and he seems to have carried that view into adulthood, as he told Phineas Nigellus "Do not use that word!" when Phineas Nigellus referred to Hermione as a "Mudblood" (DH33). JKR has said that Snape became a Death Eater because "like many insecure, vulnerable people (like Wormtail) he craved membership of something big and powerful, something impressive." Thus, the fact that he became a Death Eater isn't proof that he agreed with Voldemort's ideology, only that he naively thought Voldemort could offer him a road to power and prominence. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 12:54, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Degrees of belief[]
I'm thinking about dividing the article's list into more specific sections:
- Pure-blood bigotry - Such as Lucius and Umbridge, who actively discriminate.
- Pure-blood bias - Such as Slughorn, who believe Pure-bloods are inherently superior, but do not discriminate.
- Wizarding supremacist - Such as young Dumbledore and Grindelwald, who believe or believed in superiority over Muggles, but did not discriminate among wizards.
Any other suggestions? - Nick O'Demus 21:56, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nick, It would be better organized. --Profiteor 22:48, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
Would it also help to indicate that all families save the Weasleys related to the Blacks by marriage must have been to some degree pure-blood supremacists? The only time anyone got disowned for marrying a pure-blood family was when Cedrella married a Weasley. Not even Dorea Black (1920-77) marrying a Potter (who wasn't included in the Sacred Twenty-Eight, written in the 1930s) got her disowned. LupineMoon (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Elves as Half-Breeds? What the heck?[]
"Kreacher used pejorative terminology many a time. However, it is unknown whether he was actually pure-blood supremacist, because he actually is an elf. Elves would have been seen to be Half-breeds, but Kreacher adored pure-bloods and hated Muggles, Muggle-borns and blood traitors."
Um, what? I thought elves were a separate species from humans. There is no evidence that I can find to support this statement anywhere in canon or on the Wiki. Can I get rid of this? TheBeast314 16:35, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Removed. Even ignoring the inaccuracy of the statement, Kreacher would be counted under "members of the House of Black" already listed in the table. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 17:14, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
The history of Pure-blood supremacy?[]
If my memory is correct, then the belief in the value of pure blood was partly a result of an old prejudice that all Muggles were evil and dangerous because of the much dreaded witch hunting? Should this be included in the article? User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
- Thanks for that! TheBeast314 21:37, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
Theory of dominant magical gene and justified pure blood's strong magic[]
Andrea Klenotiz, a University of Delaware biology student, has decoded the genetics of the wizarding gene in the Harry Potter universe. She sent a six-page paper of her work to J.K. Rowling.
She write about the "dominant magical gene" that Rowling said about, she made a scientific theory about that.
Acording to Business Insider site, her theory said the following: "Varying degrees of magicalness, and the inheritance of strong magical powers: The more repeats any given wizard has, the more powerful he will be. The more repeats your parents have, the more you are likely to have. Therefore if you parents have strong magic, you likely will too."
And according her theory purebloods have more repeats of magical gene.
The article is: Harry Potter Fan Explains How Wizard Genes Work (businessinsider.com)
So based on that i think we can suppose that the belief that pure blood make you indeed a more powerful wizard, is based on a somewhat truth. It is genetic, and if you have more repeats of magical gene it indeed is logical that you will be more powerful.
Im not supporting any type of prejudice, im just saying that the genetics may comprove that indeed more repeats of magical gene make a wizard more powerful.
All forms of prejudice should be discouraged and abhorred, it's not because you are a more powerful wizard from birth that you can prejudice others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathanker10 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 February 2022.