Thank you. (Before I address your query, I assure you I shall convey your gratitude to Mrs Malfoy. But let me ask you to please send a note to her yourself as soon as ever you can, thanking her for including you. She has been a bit ... vexed of late, herself. Not your doing, my dear, or anyone's, really - only that, as you know, she looks forward to time with Draco and there we are making it all of a crowd.)
Now, as to your pondering. For one thing, you make a mistake to prescribe blood status to a class of beings who do not come to their magic naturally. Even now, specialists in the Department of Mysteries are working to discover how it is that Muggles are able to steal magic from its rightful heirs and implant it into the capabilities of their issue. It is essential work, to discover the linkage between Mudbloods and Squibs, and to determine how that transfer is accomplished.
So the Mudblood, by definition, cannot be given credit for his own abilities, filched as they are from those who should have had them. It is a grave error to assume that Mudbloods are equal to Wizards simply because they exhibit certain unskilled, unfocused magical capacity.
Grindelwald is one of many who espoused the notion that Muggles had to be controlled for their own good - and for ours. Muggles have always been incapable of avoiding war. They are a violent and territorial race who threaten our existence, when they are allowed their freedom, as surely as they threaten each others' lives. Grindelwald's flaw (apart from idealistically trusting the turncoat, Dumbledore), was to set his store in the willingness of the average Wizard to spontaneously see the rectitude of his manifesto. He believed, as only the very young can, that the moment other wizards heard his plea for change, they would fall into line with no further instruction. Our Lord Protector, on the other hand, knew that to succeed, He needed not only righteous ideas, but a cadre of supporters and disciples who would ensure that His will turned to action.
My apologies: I'm giving a history lesson when you merely wanted an answer.
Blood is certainly not the only measure of a person's worth, Pansy. But it is, most simply, a measure of one's limitations. A Mudblood might become the very best of servants: Loyal, conscientious, attentive to his master's whim, anticipating of his desires, silent, and obedient to a fault. If he understands his place and works diligently to maintain it, then he contributes to society in the best possible way. Should he attempt to vault over the heads of his betters, however, he shall find himself in a world of which he has no proper understanding. He cannot be expected to meet, let alone exceed, the potential of a pureblooded wizard, because he is fundamentally lacking in the other qualities that accompany such a pedigree.
no subject
Now, as to your pondering. For one thing, you make a mistake to prescribe blood status to a class of beings who do not come to their magic naturally. Even now, specialists in the Department of Mysteries are working to discover how it is that Muggles are able to steal magic from its rightful heirs and implant it into the capabilities of their issue. It is essential work, to discover the linkage between Mudbloods and Squibs, and to determine how that transfer is accomplished.
So the Mudblood, by definition, cannot be given credit for his own abilities, filched as they are from those who should have had them. It is a grave error to assume that Mudbloods are equal to Wizards simply because they exhibit certain unskilled, unfocused magical capacity.
Grindelwald is one of many who espoused the notion that Muggles had to be controlled for their own good - and for ours. Muggles have always been incapable of avoiding war. They are a violent and territorial race who threaten our existence, when they are allowed their freedom, as surely as they threaten each others' lives. Grindelwald's flaw (apart from idealistically trusting the turncoat, Dumbledore), was to set his store in the willingness of the average Wizard to spontaneously see the rectitude of his manifesto. He believed, as only the very young can, that the moment other wizards heard his plea for change, they would fall into line with no further instruction. Our Lord Protector, on the other hand, knew that to succeed, He needed not only righteous ideas, but a cadre of supporters and disciples who would ensure that His will turned to action.
My apologies: I'm giving a history lesson when you merely wanted an answer.
Blood is certainly not the only measure of a person's worth, Pansy. But it is, most simply, a measure of one's limitations. A Mudblood might become the very best of servants: Loyal, conscientious, attentive to his master's whim, anticipating of his desires, silent, and obedient to a fault. If he understands his place and works diligently to maintain it, then he contributes to society in the best possible way. Should he attempt to vault over the heads of his betters, however, he shall find himself in a world of which he has no proper understanding. He cannot be expected to meet, let alone exceed, the potential of a pureblooded wizard, because he is fundamentally lacking in the other qualities that accompany such a pedigree.
I trust that helps to explain?