Slytherin’s reputation might have been helped if it didn’t have a colossal asshole with as many chips as his shoulders would support as head of house and if there has been any scenes where it’s Prefects or Head Boy/Girl pulled Draco and his cronies up on their shit. Even once to demonstrate that someone else thought Draco was a little snot. But either due to a lack of foresight or more likely the overall story never called for it, Slytherin house members are either in lock, or indeed goose, step with the Death Eaters or seemingly oblivious to the super obvious clown shoe wearing proto-fascists they share space with for like eight months a year, for up to seven years.
I've already said that Slytherin gets the lion's share of antagonists in the books, that's not in dispute. But as to the points:
-Everyone knows Draco is a shit (I don't recall prefects pulling him up, but McGonagall does), and as time goes on, you see he's a shit that's been thrust into circumstances that are crushing him.
-If Slytherin was meant to be "the evil house," then you'd have to explain why the series keeps adding Slytherin protagonists (Slughorn, Albus, Scorpius), or adding shades of grey to characters like Snape.
There were no Slytherin protagonists
So Albus and Scorpius don't exist then?
and you can be an antagonist without being a nazi, sorted. Like, you get that the founder of the house, who's house is guided by his principles, was a huge eugenics racist who hid a eugenics murder snake on campus with the intent of doing a genocide, right?
Yes, thank you, genius.
Do they bust up Slytherin and try to integrate it's students with normal people to get them to touch grass? Do they bring in therapists or anything to try and deradicalize the students? Or is it business as usual until the dark wizards show up to do a school shooting and the Slytherins either flee or join in?
Wow, we get to add school shooting to your list of buzzwords.
To answer those questions:
1: Almost certainly yes, there's no ambiguity as to who the Inquisitors were, so with Voldemort defeated, they can be dealt with.
2: I hardly doubt the whole house, but almost certainly yes, considering that Slytherin still exists by the epilogue of Deathly Hallows and Cursed Child, the latter of which has Slytherin protagonists whose bullying comes from outside the house.
3: Use of questionable terminology aside, the whole business as usual thing...you do realize that a key plot point is Fudge trying to carry on with business as usual, despite Dumbledore's warnings? You realize that the duration of Book 5 involves Harry being frustrated with the Ministry's "business as usual." That the Ministry's crackdown by book 6 goes so far in the other direction that even Harry is like "hold on a minute."
I'm starting to wonder if you've even read the books. Because not only have you falsely stated that there's no Slytherin protagonists (how you could have read/watched Cursed Child and missed that I've no idea), you've either missed or ignored key plot points.
Physically, and only when it shows up with a gun to kill people. Like, I'm not trying to bag on Chamber of Secrets *too* hard, it's clearly in "this is a children's book for babies" territory, but when the books mature the politics have to mature too and they just...don't. Which is a problem when the Wizarding World is morphing into trying to be a Serious Story for Adults that Says Things.
I'd argue more specifically that HP starts as JF, then transitions to YF. The politics certainly do shift along with the age range.
I watched the Fantastic Beasts movies for a bad movie night because I'm a cinematic masochist and it's Serious Politics as told by somebody who's mainly suited for Children's Books for Babies. At the end of the first one, the best one *by far*, the main female lead was glad she got her magic FBI job back. That job tried to execute her on a moments notice without a trial with no evidence because a boss said so, and she's glad to go back.
You mean Grindlewald? The person who killed and impersonated her boss? The person who's the antagonist, who'd want to eliminate someone who's running an investigation that could uncover him?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Their muggle friend got a batch of silver and got to leave his soul sucking, humanity destroying canning job that he hates to open his bakery! And his coworkers had to stick with their soul sucking, humanity destroying canning jobs that they hate. No systemic change is allowed in the Harry Potter universe, just incremental change off screen maybe.
Yes, and?
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but here it is:
-From a Doylist standpoint, that can't happen, because we know as historical fact that wizards didn't suddenly reveal themselves to the world in the 1920s, this being a series that operates on the principle that this is our world, but with magic in it that's kept hidden.
-From a Watsonian standpoint, wizards have no reason to assist Muggles, considering that they've spent centuries in hiding at this point, have every reason to fear Muggles, and don't have anything to gain. It's one thing for Newt to help one person, it's another thing for him to embark on a quest to end all mechanized labour at the risk of revealing his people's world to a society that's been repeatedly violent to them in the past.
-From a third standpoint, I don't get what your hangup is. So magic people don't use their magic to "change the system." That's true of numerous settings. Artemis Fowl has a similar conceit for instance, yet for whatever reason, HP is held to a different standard.
This isn't even a magic thing, this is like me criticizing Game of Thrones for not having Westeros be a full-fledged democracy at the end. From a birdseye view, yes, of course hereditary monarch isn't a stable system, yes of course the "only a man can rule Westeros" is a silly rule that in part led to civil war (see House of the Dragon), but characters in a story don't operate from a birdseye view. It isn't some great insight to apply 21st century morality to fictional settings. It makes even less sense when that's done for historical settings. If I'm watching a show/reading a book set centuries/millennia before our own time, it's silly to criticize it for its characters not having a 21st century perspective.
A story's under no obligation to solve every societal ill, and if it did, then you're potentially shooting yourself in the foot. If your world doesn't have conflict or hardship in it, your world's become a lot less interesting (unless you're Brave New World or something similar, in which case, the lack of these things is the point, for better or worse).
